AwareofAware

EVA in RED

Although we may hopefully be talking about an EVA in RED, it won’t be about this one:

It will be about something far more exciting than the fashion choices of glamorous women!

So I have paid $15 for 72 hours access to this article. That is a bit galling, but probably worth it…and I don’t like pinching other writers material, no matter how much of a rip off it is (click on pic for link):

The article is very important as it lays a baseline for our understanding of the subject of REDs (authentic NDEs), creates key definitions for the subject and criteria that meet those definitions, and finally sets out the direction for future research. It is a consensus statement that is authored by some of the top names in the field with Sam Parnia being the first author. It is needed to avoid the kind of nonsense we have experienced over the past few days in which a publication called something an NDE which was in fact only a period of EEG readings from a dying person who never reported an experience.

My first comments are on the two new acronyms that have been created to more precisely define the different reported experiences:

RED – recalled experience of death

EVA – external visual awareness (formally OBE)

I get the need to move away from NDE, but RED? I occasionally work with marketeers to transform medical data into user friendly visuals, and red is a color that is always associated with negativity. For example, when creating a graph, we are never allowed to put a competitor’s data in red as this could be seen as biasing perception. I understand that the words forming the acronym are precise, it is just unfortunate that the acronym itself spells something that is associated with “stop” or “danger”. I know they have been struggling with this for a while, with ADE, TED etc and now RED, but just for aesthetic reasons, it may have been worth persevering a bit longer. I guess we haven’t helped. Either way, we are now stuck with this since it is part of this consensus. So from now it will be RED.

The paper is very long and contains some great material, but the key thing is the tight criteria for an experience to be defined as a RED:

1. A relation to death.

2. A sense of transcendence.

3. Ineffability.

4. Positive transformative effects (relating to meaning and purpose of life).

5. Severity of illness that leads to loss of consciousness (LOC), together with:

6. The absence of features related to other coma related experiences.

More succinctly, a RED “is defined as a specific cognitive and emotional experience that occurs during a period of LOC in relation to a life-threatening event, including Cardiac Arrest”. They go on to state that LOC “relates to assessments from the perspective of a clinician or other external observer, even though from the perspective of the person experiencing a RED, often there was no perception of any LOC”.

They also outline a fundamental narrative for REDs. This was actually something I mentioned yesterday in the comments on the Straw Man…the life review is often at the end of the sequence of events before the sense of returning. The narrative arc is basically:

1. Perceived Death and Separation from the Body.

2. Heading to a “Destination”

3. Reliving the recording of life that is educational

4. Being “Home” again

5. Returning back to life

6. Reported effects after the experience.

This is the basic narrative, but they list a whole range of other facets of REDs that are reported such as meeting a creative source and whatnot.

They then lay out why REDs are distinguishable from other experiences such as ICU delirium, drug induced hallucinations etc and the central theme of this differentiation is in fact the clear narrative that is reported in REDs. I have concerns with that because people could easily “fake a RED” if they know this narrative and happened to have a CA and recover. That comes from my skeptical and untrusting nature!

After laying out the definitions and different facets of REDs and EVAs, they propose future directions in research on subjects such as terminal paradoxical lucidity, and trying to shed light on the underlying neurological mechanisms (if neurology alone can account for these events). They also suggest taking the positive elements of REDs, the transformative aspects and finding a way of generalizing this to helping terminally ill patients cope with end of life.

They end with this neutral statement followed by a summary and key recommendations. While neutral, it most definitely points to the possibility of “other dimensions” that were mentioned on the Instagram post yesterday:

“Finally, we suggest that although systematic studies have not been able to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness in relation to death, it has been impossible to disclaim them either. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”

Overall this is a very useful paper, and will help us in terms of understanding and interpreting future research work published in this field. It is interesting that the “Straw man” paper came out almost exactly the same day…coincidence? The swivel-eyed in me is tempted to think not!

Finally, I do have one big concern with this consensus statement, and I will seek clarification on this. In the 6 criteria that they lay down that must be met to be defined as a RED, they only seem to allow for positive experiences. We know that about 25% of experiences are negative…are they discounting them despite them occurring under similar conditions and including other core elements? If this is the case, I would be very concerned, since it is precisely this kind of “only see the good” thinking that has got us into such a pickle with Putin and Xi. There are monsters. Not everyone is good. There is a heaven, but according to a significant number of RED reports, there may also be a hell, or destruction. Just a thought. Maybe given this emphasis, and their potential exclusion of negative experiences, they should call them PREDs…Positive Recalled Experiences of Death, and how about using BREDs for the others…bad recalled experiences of death. Of course I am being facetious, but the subject is very serious in reality and should be covered fully and without a preference for only the nice stuff.

Anyway, that is my first reaction. I will be reading it again over the weekend, and look forward to your comments on this “line in the sand” that these thought leaders on the subject of NDEs REDs have drawn.

Hopefully it won’t be too long before we do see EVA in RED, and in the AWARE II study.

Burning a Straw Man

I have been hearing a lot of noise about a paper which appeared this week:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2022.813531/full

Let’s not waste too much time on discussing the argument it sets up, since we would be “attacking a straw man”. My intent in this post is to show why it precisely fits the definition of a straw man:

A straw man is a form of  argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.^[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”. (wikepedia)

Firstly, is this paper trying to refute the argument that NDEs are evidence that the consciousness is able to persist beyond brain death – i.e. independent of brain activity? Yes, absolutely, the fact they are talking about NDEs is obvious in the opening sentence:

“The neurophysiological footprint of brain activity after cardiac arrest and during near-death experience (NDE) is not well understood.”

Here we have a clue as to the straw man nature of this research. They are blurring the definition of NDE to suit their desired attempt to refute what NDEs represent. This is where Parnia may be on to something by moving away from the term NDE and creating a number of different terms to describe the different and unique types of experience that are associated with having a CA and being revived after CPR (or spontaneously).  I will create a separate post on that this weekend. I was a bit skeptical of why he was doing this, but having seen this paper under discussion here, I now “get it”. This straw man research has crystallized the need for clarity in distinguishing what we understand NDEs are from what sceptics would try to define NDEs as. By defining what we understand NDEs to be- remembered experiences that happened while a patient was clinically dead as defined by no ECG or EEG signal, as REDs – or recalled experiences of death, it is moving them away from this potential grey zone. More on that in my next post, and other implications from the joint statement paper.

Back to the paper at hand. The authors are playing a sleight of hand here by using the term NDE. They are basically inferring that any conscious activity, indeed, any measurable brain activity close to the time of death is now an NDE. These are the legs of the straw man against which we may be tempted to argue, and get caught up in discussions on alpha gamma and theta waves etc. That is the goal of a straw man…to get us distracted in detail that is irrelevant.

The body of the straw man is that the brain activity described in enormous detail in this paper only occurred for 30 seconds after the heart stopped. However, as we know from our years of discussing various NDEs, and from the AWARE I NDE, these experiences occur for periods of time long after the 30s. Yes, while it is theoretically possible to believe that the life review and tunnel are a result of these final firings of the brain, the verified recollections reported from thousands, if not tens of thousands of documented experiences where patients witnessed observable events that occurred many minutes after their heart had stopped, cannot be accounted for by this research. This is the heart of the straw man…it does not address the NDEs that we talk about…which Parnia now refers to as REDs.

The head of the straw man is that the patient under discussion never recovered to describe any experience. There was no reported NDE RED with which the EEG data could be correlated, so the whole paper is really just a moot point and most definitely does not address the central argument that “believers” make – NDEs – REDs are a result of the consciousness persisting after the brain has become inactive/dead and incapable of physically “producing” consciousness which provides strong evidence for the philosophy of metaphysical dualism, out of which most religious/spiritual belief systems come.

It is a Straw Man…burn baby, burn!

Publication alert!

My turn to tease! Unfortunately it seems that the publication of AWARE II is not as imminent as hoped. From todays Instagram feed (btw I am Orson if you didn’t already know):

However, if they keep adding interesting stuff to their Instagram account, then maybe we won’t need to wait that long till we get something really meaty. There is obviously more than a hint in this reply that they may not have the answers we are hoping for yet though.

They’re teasing us

Given the Parnia lab seems to be trailing tidbits of its forthcoming publication of the AWARE II study on Instagram, I think it’s probably worth having a post for each teaser that contains particularly interesting content…and yesterday’s was a doozy (click pic for link).

Key quote:

We found that while the majority of the time,  the EEG data was “flatlined”, incredibly, normal or near-normal waves emerged even after 40-60 minutes of CPR. Notably, the incidence of “normal” EEG rhythms was correlated with greater probability of successfully re-starting the heart.

In summary, this expands on the findings of the AHA poster from 2019:

In particular it provides grist for the materialist mill in providing the best evidence yet that the brain is capable of conscious activity during CPR. We have discussed this many times here and while it does give ammo to the materialists, there are two things to consider that give me hope subsequent announcements will be more favourable to the cause of “believers”:

1. Previous reports of CPRIC (CPR induced consciousness) suggest that the recollections of the patients are very different in character from NDE reports. They are often traumatic and confused in nature. Parnia himself points this out in his Bigelow runner’s up prize winning essay. He also makes his position on this subject very clear…brain activity resulting from CPR does not account for NDEs. Why would he say this without concrete evidence? This brings me to my second point.

2. Two years ago I pestered the lab for clarification on this issue. I specifically asked them if they were able to correlate the NDE reports from the first AHA poster with the data from EEG and oximetry readings to determine whether these NDE reports were associated with levels capable of producing consciousness. 2 years of deafening silence. I hope very much we will get our answer to this question in the paper…it would seem to me that Parnia knows the answer or he would be less assertive in his position.

Keep coming back here for key updates and discussion. Looks like the next few weeks are going to be busy…let’s hope it doesn’t end in an anti-climax and the paper is a complete nothing-burger.

Third Phase of AWARE II

It looks like the post docs and other next generation of researchers in Sam Parnia’s lab have finally taken control of our favourite ER doctor’s social media accounts. Let’s face it, it needed to happen…he was averaging about 1 Tweet every 6 months…or maybe he has been abducted by TPTB for threatening to undermine their materialist domination of modern culture and society and his juniors have filled the void. Either way, maybe now we will have something to talk about more often. (thanks Snezna for the tip off).

So from the latest post, an Instagram video by Tori Williams, one of his researchers, we can see in the side bar that it is mentioned the AWARE studies are entering ”phase III”. It seems they are expanding the remit of the study into understanding the effects of CPR on consciousness. One wonders what this subtle change in emphasis in the study is due to, and what it means. It definitely feels like a slight shift in the materialist direction. Rather than seeking to understand what is happening to the conscious while the heart stops (and CPR was coincident to that) they are now looking at the physiological effect of CPR, and how that effects consciousness. Previously, the assumption, indeed assertion, was that it didn’t. Is this because they haven’t had anything to give them reason to continue pursuing the non-materialist explanation, or are they under pressure to anchor their research in territory that is more acceptable to the academic establishment in which they reside?

Tweets by nyugsom_ccrs

New Research From The Parnia Lab

Thanks to SeanD for spotting this. Despite googling for Parnia every day, I still find I miss things! Also, apologies for the long time between posts but we recently bought a new home and it has needed a complete renovation which has sucked up all my time. What a waste of life choosing shower suites, flooring and kitchens is when there are much deeper things to be contemplating! Anyway, below is a link to a radio discussion that occurred in the past week or so in Australia which featured a couple of experiencers and Dr Sam Parnia.

Link to radio discussion on NDEs

Dr Parnia discusses two studies. Firstly he mentions AWARE I which, he once again asserts, validates NDEs. The second study he mentions is one that he has been undertaking the past couple of years as part of his “Survivorship & Psychological Wellbeing After Cardiac Arrest” research program (link to description of program). From the interview this appears to be a descriptive study that assesses various aspects of post CA experience, with NDEs being just one factor. Importantly, it is has been conducted across a number of different countries which include different cultural and religious influences. Information about the number and type of NDEs reported from non-Western countries has been poor in the past, and it looks like Dr Parnia is doing his best to address this gap in the data.

The two pieces of information that he shares with us are as follows:

1. 11% of people who survive CA have an NDE. This is almost identical to reports from previous studies, however, as I point out in my book this most likely reflects the age group of the majority of people who have experienced CAs, which tends to be people who are much older. It is very likely that Sam will get enough data to create a statistical analysis of changes in rate of NDE reports with age. As I point out in my book (link to book), data to date suggests that the younger the age of the experiencer, the higher the chance of recalling an NDE, and changes in memory function alone would not account for the large differences observed. Anyway…think I’ve banged that drum enough! I will rewrite that section of my book including other suggestions for causes from contributors to this blog. He makes a bit of a blooper when he says the fact that 11% of people have NDEs means that 850 million people have had NDEs. That might be true if the entire population of planet earth had experienced a CA, but that is not the case.
2. He differentiates NDEs from semi conscious recollections. He describes in particular how some patients who wake up and try to pull ventilators out are forcibly restrained by doctors. They then recount these experiences as being attacked by demons. He makes the suggestion that this may account for the hellish NDEs that are sometimes reported. I think Howard Storm might have something to say about that!

It is very important that Dr Parnia is doing this kind of qualitative research alongside the AWARE II and hypothermic studies since it really closes the loop on our understanding. When (not if) he produces the validated OBE hits that prove NDEs are real, he will be able to also provide better information about the nature of those experiences than may have been produced before. He has a scientific approach to this that will hopefully create a more consistent understanding of what is reported in NDEs.

It has to be said, he really is the world leader in this field now, and may one day be regarded in the same light as past heroes of science and medicine who made discoveries that forever changed our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. That of course will rely on him producing the vital smoking gun evidence of scientifically validated OBEs.

My NDE Book Published (Again)

After I received really positive feedback from the few that had the chance to read my book when it was briefly available in January, and on thinking harder on the reasons I am publishing this book, I decided that I want it out there now. There have been some revisions, particularly around the evidence supporting the veracity of OBEs part, and my thoughts on AWARE II. So why have I wobbled back on the side of publishing?

Firstly – on balance I believe we have enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that OBEs are actually the conscious leaving the body, and that they prove other aspects of NDEs. I explain why in the book.

Secondly, it could be a very long period of time before Dr Parnia publishes the data from AWARE II that he presented at AHA, or publishes anything else on this subject. This leads into the main reason.

Thirdly, and in my mind of most importance, I present evidence to support the possibility that the eternal aspect of the consciousness may die in some people during this life. This is not click bait. I currently work in Alzheimer’s research, and I have studied the evidence on changes in memory over time and they do not account for the huge drop off in NDEs from children to elderly adults. I find the prospect that some, maybe the majority, may lose their eternal future, deeply concerning, and something that should be discussed much more widely.

That is why I am publishing now. I feel I have a responsibility to share this last observation because if it is true, there is nothing more important to learn about, and try to avoid. I won’t debate this here now, I would rather people bought the book, internalized what I write, consider the evidence objectively, then come back here. I will create a separate blog post in the future to get into this in more detail.

For forum regulars, I have included the top 10 contributors over the years in the acknowledgements. Also, if you do buy it, and like, please give a really positive review (just to mention, anything less than 4 stars is regarded as negative by potential readers). Please also write something on your local Amazon store.

Lastly, I have obviously read this many times, and while I would obviously be biased, I find it very strange that each time I read, I actually find myself being impacted by what I have written, despite the fact I wrote it in the first place! It has shaken me up to come to an understanding that is of such vital consequence to the whole of humanity. I really cannot think of anything more important.