New Kid On The NDE Block
(If Ms Martial sees this picture, I hope she takes it in the spirit of fun it is intended…maybe she was a fan of these blokes if she is old enough to remember them…I was not).
I started this blog primarily to discuss clinical research into NDEs. Sam Parnia’s AWARE studies have formed the backbone of such research over the past 2 decades, but there is a new kid on the block and her name is Charlotte Martial (thanks Z for the heads-up). Below is a link the latest interview with her:
https://nautil.us/the-new-science-of-the-near-death-experience-1279957
Martial approaches the subject from a different angle to Parnia, specifically she is clearly a physicalist and unfortunately, I believe this prejudices her work. Parnia, while apparently a dualist, at least attempted to maintain some impartiality and retain an open mind as to what was causing NDEs…he allows for a physiological explanation while stating that the evidence defies this. Martial does not allow for non-physiological causes at all. This necessarily means that all of her discussions and conclusions will be framed by this thinking, forcing her to interpret the data in one way only, even if logic dictates otherwise. It is also possible that it may also influence her presentation of the actual data too. This is something that we observed in extremis with Jimo Borjigin who went beyond just allowing bias to enter discussion, to the point where she completely “misrepresented” her data to create an entirely false conclusion (which was lapped up by the media)…specifically she claimed that there was an increase in brain activity DURING cardiac arrest in coma patients when her own raw data clearly showed that it happened PRIOR to Cardiac arrest, and that by the time the heart had stopped beating all notable EEG activity had ceased. On this point, Martial sets out her stand on more solid ground from the start.
Moreover, unlike Borjigin who never actually researched NDEs, but rather looked at neurological output around the time of death in rats and coma patients, Martial has been running a study similar to the AWARE studies, interviewing patients after resuscitation and it seems that she has now garnered enough data to publish.
From the interview this is a summary of the data she has:
We tracked 180 patients, and of those, 12 had near-death experiences. Our preliminary results suggest that the brains of patients who had near-death experiences showed greater complexity than those who did not.
and
what we observed is that as soon as several days after the acute severe crisis, we can see memory change in terms of content of the experience, which challenged what was found in the retrospective literature.
Some features appeared, and some others disappeared in their memories. For instance, you can have someone who doesn’t report an out-of-body experience upon awakening, however, two months later, the person does report it.
By now readers of this blog will be familiar with the idea of headline hype. What I mean by that is that the headlines about a study, even sometimes the title, over-egg the actual findings that can be drawn from the data. Sometimes there is [innocent] conflation of data, such as in Parnia’s recent AWARE study in which he seemed to merge data from his prospective observational clinical study with retrospective reports from his database, and from this you get headlines that are spuriously related to the data. In the case of Borjigin, it goes way beyond that. Headlines and statements in the press are designed to draw attention, and in this case in the first paragraph we are obviously drawn to the words:
Our preliminary results suggest that the brains of patients who had near-death experiences showed greater complexity than those who did not.
Given the fact that she says this is the first time that EEG data has been collected in patients who have had NDEs, the implication is that she has managed to link EEG output associated with high level brain activity with actual NDE reports. If this is true, then this is definitely a step beyond what was achieved in AWARE II which also collected EEG data in patients undergoing CPR. In that study there was high level brain activity in some patients, but none who later reported an NDE. BUT while the wording of her statement seems to imply that Martial has this kind of data, will the reality survive rigorous scrutiny? Key questions to consider when she publishes her data:
- Was this EEG activity before, during CA, or after resuscitation? She says patients were unresponsive, does that mean that they had no vitals (no heartbeat), or were they just unconscious but with a heartbeat.
- If the EEG activity was during CA…i.e. they had no heartbeat, were they undergoing CPR at the time? This is what was observed in AWARE II.
- Have they been able to “timestamp” the NDE. This requires an OBE which contains an observation that can be linked to a specific timepoint, and if so, what were the physiological parameters of the patient. Were they still in CA? Were they undergoing CPR?
With regard to the report of at least one OBE, she states that the patient did not recall the OBE until an interview 2 months later. It is great that there was an OBE (if it is a proper OBE), but depending on the content, it is definitely open to accusations of corruption – not deliberate necessarily, but of the notion of false memory creation. This piece of data will be of greatest interest of all to me.
How long will we have to wait?
As is the case in research, I would expect that a publication would be preceded by an abstract at a conference, and that given her increased press activity, that is likely to be in the near future. The spring conference season runs till early July, then things tend to die over the Northern Hemisphere summer, before resuming in the Fall. Given the data she is already talking about, I suspect that she will have submitted her abstract to at least one or two conferences, and deadlines for submission are usually about 3 months prior, so we may get something as early as June, but may have to wait till the backend of the year. I put money Z will spotting it first! I will set up a PubMed and other alerts though as this certainly has the potential to be the most important study in this field since AWARE II.
I just wish she would adopt a more open-minded approach though. It would actually be in her interests if she wanted to sell books or gain publicity one day, although that is not a good reason to bias research of course. The fact is there is a massive interest in the area of spirituality among younger people today, and unless her data absolutely rules out the possibility of NDEs being the result of non-physiological origins, she should avoid presenting it in that light, as she does in this interview. She completely shuts down the possibility of non-natural causes, and I seriously doubt that the data proves this to be the case as it is extremely hard to prove a negative. It would better that she adopted the nuanced position that Parnia does…namely she could say that while this data supports the NEPTUNE model for explaining NDEs, it is still possible there are other causes, and there remain many accounts of NDEs that defy natural explanation.
Frankly no one is going to give a monkey’s about her NEPTUNE model except a few Guardian-reading cranks, since it is not really that different from previous attempts to explain NDEs as being the result of neurotransmitters. These attempts have been thoroughly debunked by the likes of Greyson, and even Parnia. The NEPTUNE model has the added weakness of being linked to the theory that NDEs are a form of Thanotosis:
“Basically, we suggest the NDE is a defense mechanism for coping with a life-threatening situation. It permits the person to disconnect from the environment, from the surroundings, to be absorbed into a more peaceful mental experience.”
The interviewer does a pretty decent job of highlighting the obvious flaws in that approach. The last thing you want is to be peaceful in a life-threatening situation…normally it is fight or flight, and while playing dead (Thanatosis) may suit some creatures in certain situations, they are not actually going through physiological death, they are just “scared to death”. The way she answers that is to claim that the psychological outcomes of NDEs are usually positive and that this may have evolutionary benefit:
for some at least, have psychological benefits. A lot of people who experience NDEs say it’s life transforming. It allows them to evolve and change their own behavior or beliefs. We suggest that the NDE arises when you don’t have any other kind of escape. So there is this fight-or-flight mechanism, but when neither fight nor flight is possible, this alternative would arise
I hope that was her just making it up on the spot as it not a very robust theory.
Ultimately her whole NEPTUNE model and accompanying theory suffers from a whopping great big flaw. Prior to the 1950s the overwhelming majority of people who had CAs stayed dead. It was only through the invention of CPR that people were able to come back (this coincided with the massive uptick in reports of NDEs). If the proximity of physiological death triggers an NDE, and prior to the 1950s physiological death meant permanent death, then whatever processes occurred immediately before CA would have no evolutionary benefit because they wouldn’t have survived. Given that her theory specifically relates to people who had CA (she states this explicitly), and given our collective knowledge of how these experiences are generally associated with CA, the whole evolutionary benefit theory collapses. Without this her NEPTUNE model is just previous [debunked] arguments about neurotransmitters.
No, it would be better for her if the data allowed for a non-natural explanation as well. The world is shifting – we are entering a post-materialistic age. I know so many scientists who accept that there is more to what we observe than just the natural explanations that science has thus provided and either believe in a “spiritual” explanation or that we are living in a simulation.
Given her answer to the final question about NDEs being real, I hold zero hope for such a Damascus moment:
When you meet entities or when you feel as though you’re out of your body, those are non-ordinary states of consciousness caused by disturbed perception. So you don’t actually meet your father in a tunnel of light, for example. But near-death experiences are real in the sense that the person who reported it did have this vivid and intense subjective experience
She is stating as fact they are physiological. She had better make sure that her data absolutely supports that position, or I suspect she may end up with egg on her face like Borjigin.
As always, if you haven’t already visit my book website (click on image below) and buy one from Amazon (or other e-retailers)
Read Sam Parnia new book Lucid Dying. Its very informative
Yep, it has a lot of info for NDE nerds…but a few stinkers, especially his position on negative NDEs.
Parnia Team posted something new on Instagram
Hi! I don’t see any new posts on his Instagram page. Is the account called nyugsom_ccrs?
Yes.
Here is a link thoughtfully provided by Z:
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(26)00077-8/abstract
Honestly, the fact she says she found greater brain complexity in patients who reported NDEs than those who did not really worries me. This really sounds like she was able to coordinate one or more NDEs to a specific type of brain activity. Using the same cardiac arrest EEG technique as Parnia no less. Doesn’t this potentially end the debate? Wouldn’t this be the brain activity stamp that would kind of prove the NDE is generated by the brain and thus materialistic?
Firstly, let’s wait until we actually see what the data says. She is most likely hyping up the results to create an impression of something that may not be born out in reality.
Secondly, we have already discussed at length the implications of these kinds of findings – namely even if a patient who had an NDE also had EEG data consistent with conscious activity during their CPR, then that is not PROOF that brain activity was causing the NDE. Association is not causation. It could be coincidental…there were a number of instances in Parnia’s study with EEG levels associated with consciousness, I think 2 of those were interviewed, but they were in the group that had no recollections…those that had recollections had no EEG data. In that study there was no association of EEG activity with NDEs, if anything the reverse. If this study has a patient or two who have genuine NDE/REDs (again this important since we know Martial extends the boundaries of what we would classify as an NDE), and they also have EEG data, there would be an association, but given that the EEG data could also be other things, such as the brain trying to reboot (my [referred explanation), it does not definitively prove it caused the NDE. It could equally be evidence of Parnia’s explanation namely that the consciousness is dissociating itself from the brain. The EEG data could actually be evidence that a genuine NDE is occurring if Parnia’s theory is correct. Of course Martial, an avowed physicalist will not interpret it that way.
Thirdly verified OBEs defy any natural explanation. No brain activity can cause this. We have hundreds, if not thousands of HCP verified OBEs.
Mike, Human Experience – of a type that is like the everyday world – is always going to involve the brain (brain structures). I’m specifically pointing at veridical NDE OBE’s here – where experients typically recall seeing medical staff resuscitating their body.
You’re going to be disappointed, if you expect to scientists to observe (measure) evidence that the brain is not involved in everyday Experience. That is not possible, even in principle.
The issue which veridical NDE OBE’s expose, is whether the stories we’ve made up – to understand how brains are involved in creating Experience – are accurate/complete?
For example, are brain structures within spacetime-separated organisms, completely isolated from one another?
And are organisms like humans, separate and isolated from the everyday world of our Experience?
The answers to these questions is likely ‘No’.
I wish more people came to appreciate these issues. Because universe we describe, is inseparable from the organism which describes it.
Hey Max_B!
I am curious if you have read “Living in a Mindful Universe” by Eben Alexander? I know he is controversial, but I truly believe that especially Chapter 5 could be of great interest to you!
This honestly really worries me. Her stating what she did about brain activity and NDEs strongly suggests she has found correlations between the NDE and brain patterns during cardiac arrest. Is this the finding that proves materialism? I’m honestly worried about this one.
Read my previous reply…the first time someone comments I need to moderate, and I am not always able to do that instantly because I live in NZ now and also am very busy with my job,
Why are you worried ? From what i have read it seems as if the patients were being resuscitated in the room when they hooked up the EEG which I think was kind of the same with Parnia . So nothing new despite the coincidence that the 12 had NDES . She also states its not clear when the NDE occurs so its not like they timestamped the nde and associated it with the EEG. I think its an interesting experiment that will help future research but I dont think the results will be swinging to any side of the debate .
I agree. However she will make much of it.
Can you repost it here. I don’t have instagram. Thanks
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(26)00077-8/abstract
Check out the near death experence of Vinny Todd Tollman
Dead for 90 Minutes! A Miracle Brought Him Back With 10 Messages to Help Humanity | Vincent Tolman / Dr. Mayim Bialik
Have you seen the presentation Dr. Martial recently gave? Is this the “higher complexity” EEG data she is alluding to in this post?
https://assets.ctfassets.net/osaht2ckekgb/3smxwD7dbiWmBJsvFyfb98/f5b7c4ed64d7ba2f84e7c6e85b8d57d7/Charlotte_Martial.pdf
Hi Mak and welcome.
Well done, where did you find this? It seems to be a presentation of some of the data that will appear in the forthcoming paper on their NDE study along with a detailed exposition of their hypothesis and how their data “supports” it.
I will create a full post on this, probably today, since it is worth going through in detail. Spoiler alert though…the hypothesis has been around a while now, and adding diagrams with neurotransmitters does not change its underlying flaws which I will elaborate on in my post. Also, once again we have the old association is not causation chestnut that they have failed to dispel, and finally the numbers are too small to have any statistical meaning, so their claims of association are very thin.
Having said all that, underlying flaws aside, it is a well constructed and well argued hypothesis that falls apart of contact with verified OBEs.
It was available on the 15th Behind and Beyond the Braun Research Symposium’s page (link here: https://www.fundacaobial.com/en-GB/symposia/15-symposia) Dr. Martial’s abstract and PDF presentation are under the Friday section.
I also saw in her Instagram story the bottom portion of the box-and-whisker plot she includes on brain complexity. I presume the light blue plot is the non-NDEs and the dark blue is the NDEs. Both have a minimum data point of around .37.
So I guess, since box and whisker plots show 25% of the data in each section, and there’s only 4 patients with NDEs in this data set, we could garner that only 1 patient had a complexity rating of .7-ish.
The other three fell between .37-.55, which is roughly the data the non-NDE patients have…
Am I reading that correctly? I guess we wouldn’t really know until the study is officially published. It’s also odd that she mentions “7 patients without NDE, 4 with NDE, and 10 awake patients” but in her article she said she had 12 confirmed NDEs…all very confusing. I’m just trying to not let this get me down. It is compelling to see the conclusion that NDEs are linked with higher complexity EEGs…I’m not sure what to think anymore.
Mmm…”it is compelling to see the conclusion that NDEs are linked with higher complexity EEGs…I’m not sure what to think anymore.” Don’t get me wrong, but I have a very strong suspicion of what you already think. Anyway, please explain what is compelling about the conclusion and why?
You know what…disregard the speculation in my previous comment. That box and whisker plot very well could be showing the variance in someone’s EEG at any given moment with non-NDE vs. NDE. It’s impossible to tell what it’s measuring without seeing the text labeling the x-axis. I wish my screenshot was detailed enough to read the text.
Until the paper is published, I suppose this is all just speculation. Again, I’m just trying to make sense how this data doesn’t hand the “win” over to physicalism.
Also, in reference to my previous post: Beyond and Behind the BRAIN. That typo will not stop bothering me. I’m sure I’ve made more!
Oh wow. I really feel anxious about this. I can’t wait to read your post. I hope it can give some clarity. I’m also worried this hands the win to physicalism.
It doesn’t
Hi again,
I’m using my phone, and it won’t let me reply to your latest comment. I’m not sure what I think…I *believe* NDEs are very real, but I struggle with doubt about a lot of things in general. I tend to go through periods of spiraling anxiety, and I started following your blog ages ago because the way you analyze the data (on both sides of the “argument”) is not only thorough and informative, but comforting. My background is in philosophy, so I appreciate the analytical nature you take on when examining the data. Today, my anxiety was spiraling again, and I saw Dr. Martial’s recent data and, well, my brain ran with it as “see, this is a compelling reason to think NDEs are NOT glimpses into the afterlife, just brain events.”
I worked up the courage to leave a comment, and I still can’t believe you replied. God bless you for the academic endeavors you undertake to share neutral information about these occurrences, and how there is copious amounts of data that support their legitimacy. I’m very much so a “layperson”, so I’m eager to hear your interpretation of Dr. Martial’s data (both now and when the paper is published). Your initial comment has already eased the spiraling of my mind.
Since I’m commenting, here are a few more sources from that symposium I’ve found (since my anxiety very much so is still running wild):
https://orbi.uliege.be/handle/2268/342645
https://assets.ctfassets.net/osaht2ckekgb/6fhmYBnGS69g7fBUKQuhYh/b947122694d492aabf9a7c8522273247/Grant_65-22_Pauline_Fritz.pdf
Very briefly…you have no more reason to feel anxiety now than you did before. Martial and Fritz have nothing new to add that hasn’t been said before. Yes, they have EEG activity associated with NDEs, but I always predicted this would happen, but it means nothing as I wwill explain..probably Monday NZtime now.
Honestly lol, I have to check myself sometimes. I’m not stupid but I’m also not highly educated. I’m a military guy. So when I see anything from a scientist I immediately throw my own critical thinking skills out and say “welp, this smart person said this so it’s true.” That’s what I just did with martial. But then I slowly remember that in addition to those who had NDEs during a period of cardiac arrest there are also those who didn’t. And their NDEs are equal to those during cardiac arrest where we all get spun up of eeg activity. My father for one. He had his NDE but his heart never stopped so he OBVIOUSLY had EEG activity. Which means we’ve already known this.
Michael,
I agree! I consider myself a fairly rational person (again, philosophy background) but this had my head spinning. It felt like spiritual whiplash. In one of my previous comments, I speculated a bit on what that higher complexity EEG activity might look like (looks to me like there’s a potential just one of the patients scored a .7 on the scale for high complexity, and the rest might match the non-NDErs…can’t really tell though, as I mentioned, due to the hard to read x-axis).
Honestly, we’ve already seen with Parnia EEG activity during CPR that did NOT correlate to an NDE. So, this data they’ve collected just goes head-to-head with those findings. Also, physicalist-leaning research has long speculated that NDEs were the results of heightened EEGs during Cardiac Arrest…this data might finally provide some form of physical evidence for that hypothesis, but it doesn’t save it from the issues that hypothesis had in the first place. I’m also curious Dr. Martial’s definition of an NDE…seems she accepts a wider definition than most.
Let’s both rest assured that if this doesn’t signal major flags to Dr. Wedgwood, then we can remain calm and await his interpretations! I know he’d give us the grit of the data, no sugar-coating! God bless.