AwareofAware

Evolving news on the science, writing and thinking about Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

Archive for the tag “Aware study”

Two steps forward, one back

Samwise, once again, was first to spot this video. Initially there was some confusion as to whether it was recent or from last fall (2018), but Lucas, who watched the whole thing through, observed that he cited the pig study which was published two months ago. This presentation, made at Grand Rounds at NYU, was given in May this year, likely May 8th:

Link to Sam Parnia Grand Rounds May 2019

Now that I have had a chance to watch the entire video there are some very noteworthy points to make, in particular regarding the current status of the AWARE II study and a complete bombshell of a revelation which I will get to a bit later.

Firstly his presentation is a great review of the history and current state of resuscitation medicine, the area of expertise that Dr Parnia focuses most of his research work on. In particularly he spends time discussing the definition of death. Historically it was when the heart had stopped, there was no breathing and the pupils were fixed and dilated. With the advent of CPR in the 1950s this changed to about 5-10 minutes after the heart had stopped and CPR administered without the heart restarting. However, now it is clear that brain cells, the ones that will have the most significant impact on quality of life after resuscitation, could remain viable for many hours after “death” depending on the type of interventions administered from lowering body temperature to injecting magnesium. This is the area of medical research that Dr Parnia is devoting his greatest energy, and is already producing information that will help extend the period which a body remains viable after cardiac arrest. Bravo Dr Parnia, and we condone you for this great work. However, that is not the thing that gets us most excited on this blog/forum. So if you don’t want to learn all about that, fast forward to about 45 mins in when he starts talking about consciousness and death.

In this section he summarizes the findings of the AWARE I study, detailing the case of the man who had consciousness for 5 minutes and whose account was validated by attending Health Care Professionals (but not by the all important cards). That’s old news for us. He then mentions some of the materialist explanations of consciousness in general without getting into the details, and then the money slide:

half Money slide

This, according to Dr Parnia, is the enrollment status of AWARE II from April 2019. My first reaction was surprise that there had been so few new cases of patients surviving to discharge. In the presentation last year in which he showed data from March 2018, 38 patients had survived to discharge, this meant only 6 new cases. Then I started to look at the numbers more closely. Firstly the math is wrong. If you subtract the number who did not have return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) from the total number recruited, you get 171 not 168. Big deal you say, well 171 happens to be the same number that had achieved ROSC on his slide from March 2018. Something fishy is going on. Either a lot more (all) patients are dying before discharge since March 2018, or they need to get a new statistician, or something else. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Then he threw this bombshell in:

whole Money slide

He casually stated that 10% of the patients who had a CA experienced seizure or seizure like EEG activity before ROSC. This is of course a potentially massive finding and contradicts much of what has been said before about NDEs. However, there is one key omission. There is no data on this slide showing numbers of patients who have an NDE, and even more importantly, there is no mention of correlation between reports of NDEs and this EEG activity. It is possibly the biggest teaser he has ever lobbed out to the NDE community.

Finally, Dr Parnia was scheduled to give another Grand rounds presentation focusing solely on consciousness during CA later in May. Maybe he shed more light on this discovery and managed to get the correct numbers on his slide…we won’t know until it is posted on the NYU site…Samwise will no doubt be the first to spot it.

Of course the skeptics will leap on the EEG activity, but until it is matched with reports of NDEs it is meaningless, and even then may be open to subjective interpretation. It is certainly hugely thought provoking, and at the same time frustrating until we learn more.

Time of death…

Partly due to the fact that the last post has nearly 300 comments and so it is good to start a fresh post, and partly because this really disturbing case study raises a question that is very relevant to the whole subject of NDEs, and therefore worth a discussion all of its own, I am posting this and asking the usual contributors and any new ones, to answer the question…”when are you actually dead?” And also what does this highly unusual case say about the relationship between consciousness and physical death, and NDEs in general:

Patient who remained conscious after heart stopped

“The authors conclude that the high level of patient awareness plus oxygen saturation and arterial gas being almost within the normal range throughout the 90 minutes of treatment indicate that peripheral and cerebral blood flow was good and the chest compressions were highly effective. They note that that even though the patient had a poor prognosis, the termination of CPR after 90 minutes raised ethical questions in the team as the individual was still conscious at the time.”

My thoughts, (the horror of the situation aside):

1. In the overwhelming majority of cases when the heart stops, normal “waking” consciousness is immediately lost. This is proven by the immediate and almost total loss of brain activity as measured by EEG. Prior to modern CPR this was historically defined as the point of death. This is why Dr Parnia refers to NDEs as ADEs…actual death experiences. In other words the patient is technically dead. In this case, the EEG probably showed activity associated with normal levels, although this is not mentioned. The patient experienced heart death but not brain death.

2. Death is a process, and as has been mentioned before, none more so than by Parnia himself, it is reversible, and using various methods, the point at which it can be fully reversed without any long term damage can be stretched beyond the several minutes mark. To me true physical death is the point past this. It is the point at which the cells have endured so much damage that the body, and especially the brain, is no longer able to function properly.

3. This case contradicts something that I had always thought was absolutely true…when the heart stops the conscious either shuts down completely, or starts to “detach itself” from the host as we believe is the case with NDEs. However, it appears that if CPR is immediate, and continuous blood flow is kept going, the conscious can somehow “be fooled” into believing that “its host” hasn’t died. What do these cases say about the nature of the connection between body and conscious? And for the skeptic do cases like this provide evidence against NDEs?

Update on AWARE II study:

Thanks to Samwise for this find. The event took place back in September, but the video has only just surfaced. Fast forward to 35 mins in to see Dr Parnia’s talk.

 

Firstly, while there are lots of interesting tidbits, particularly his discussion on the fact that NDEs occur during the period when the brain is least active, there is no “news” regarding evidence of the nature of NDEs. Much of the talk is a summary of the progress so far that has been discussed on this site, and others in great detail. The setting is much improved over the TV studio though, as this is an academic conference.

Dr Parnia does however give the most detailed update yet of the design of the AWARE II study, the number of sites involved, the anticipated timelines and current numbers recruited.

So here we have a picture of the equipment setup:

 

In addition to the cerebral oximetry equipment that will be used to measure flow of oxygen to the brain, we have audio stimulation, which includes putting headphones on the patient (need to watch again to confirm that one) AND the all important iPad. This is the potential game changer.

This is the recruitment status as of March this year before they ramped up the number of sites. This is real news:

4FB85277-2172-4ED7-BFF5-51926A89BB01

At that stage they had 38 patients make it to the end zone. Of those, past research would predict that 3-4 were able to recall NDEs, and if OBEs are real I would estimate 1-2 may have seen an image.

The study is expected to end in 2020, and maybe it will be at this conference that he will present initial results with a more complete dataset published in a serious journal later.

There is quite a bit more in the video worthy of further discussion, but I am on a weekend break, and not able to expand on this just at the moment, but I am sure it will be picked up by the regulars on here who make such valuable contributions…none more so than Samwise!

Brainless materialism

Apologies for the long gap between posts, but I am still working on a new book that I will be publishing later this year. Anyway, this article really caught my attention:

Science and the Soul

“But I was wrong. Katie made me face my misunderstanding. She was a whole person. The child in my office was not mapped in any meaningful way to the scan of her brain or the diagram in my neuroanatomy textbook. The roadmap got it wrong.”

This a quote in which the neuroscientist discusses the relationship between the brain and the soul, or self. He claims that the brain is not the source of the mind or the soul, and cites findings from interesting experiments performed over the years that support this thesis. He concludes the following:

“There is a part of Katie’s mind that is not her brain. She is more than that. She can reason and she can choose. There is a part of her that is immaterial – the part that Sperry couldn’t split, that Penfield couldn’t reach, and that Libet couldn’t find with his electrodes. There is a part of Katie that didn’t show up on those CAT scans when she was born.

Katie, like you and me, has a soul.”

This is of course central to the whole understanding of what is going on with an NDE. Just as it should not be possible for a child to have a full range of mental skills when she has been born with a fraction of a functioning brain, so too should it not be possible to experience consciousness when the brain is technically dead, or at the very least “unalive”. Both of these phenomenon are incompatible with a materialistic understanding of human consciousness, and point to the soul being a separate entity, entirely independent of the brain for its existence.

The issue in this type of case where a significant part of the brain is missing or not working properly, is that if the mind is entirely a product of the physical functioning of the brain, then any significant reduction in brain capacity should correspondingly reduce the mind’s capacity. Classically speaking, various parts of the brain have been shown to be responsible for various cognitive functions through brain imaging experiments, and yet when those parts are damaged or destroyed, or not present in the first place, then it seems that other parts sometimes pick up the slack. This completely negates the idea that the mind is a mechanical product of the brain since the relationship between the brain and the mind must therefore be somewhat abstract. This points to the metaphysical nature of the soul/mind/conscious.

When you look at the brain as just being a host organ for the mind, then the observations from the ER and the neurology journals start to make sense. If the mind, or soul, is a whole independent entity, it would be able to occupy and communicate with the brain, even if the brain is reduced in its capacity. The soul is not reliant on the brain for its existence. This is of course the conclusion from NDEs, where the brain is “unalive”, to be technically correct, and yet the soul/mind/conscious persists. These two findings which have been replicated numerous times are mutually supportive of the understanding that the soul is not a product of brain activity.

 

Brand New Findings Revealed?

Thanks to Eduardo for picking this one up. I am extremely busy at the moment so don’t always have the time to trawl the networks for anything Parnia or NDE related, so appreciate when others email me links or post them in discussions. I felt this was worth pulling out. It was aired earlier this week on Dr Oz on January 22nd 2018. Dr Oz opens the segment with the announcement that brand new findings are going to be revealed (in the show). He then introduces Dr Parnia…well have a look yourself, click on the picture of our favorite intensive care doctor to access the video:

Parnia

Is this a sleight of hand or is there actually new data, or “brand new findings”?

Dr Parnia on one hand seems to describe the design of the most recent iteration of AWARE, AWARE II, then slips in “we did a study…” talking about the results from AWARE I. Given that he categorically stated in emails and on his Twitter feed that the results from AWARE II won’t be made public until after the study is finished in 2020, and that at this stage they have only recruited 350 or so, one can only assume that he is referring to AWARE I. However, the confidence he has in the assertions he makes seem to be growing stronger, which makes me believe that AWARE II has got some verified hits. AWARE I did not have any properly confirmed OBEs (i.e. validated sightings of pictures). There were some interesting accounts, and without doubt some real NDEs, and OBEs, but without the visual confirmation, they are nothing more than has been reported from countless other studies or independent accounts.

I do wonder why he is doing this. Is it to plug his book (Dr Oz does that at the end of the segment)? On some days he seems keen to protect the integrity of the study by not disclosing any preliminary results, but on others he does this kind of stuff. I guess there’s nothing specifically wrong with it, but from my perspective as a scientist, I do find the hyperbole attached to this format of show to be distracting and potentially tainting the credibility of the research, especially when the headlines do not match the reality. From what I can see there are no new major findings presented in this show.

As I say above, I can only assume that he is so confident now in producing paradigm shifting results, that he knows that in the long term, this will not cause any damage.

Early results from AWARE II?

Thanks Eduardo for sending the link to this article last night.

The article starts out moderately interesting, discussing the case of one woman’s NDE thirty years ago, then mentioning Jeffrey Long’s database, and Eben Alexander. Then it moves to our favourite NDE researcher, Dr Sam Parnia. Of course our interests are piqued, then our eyes pop out at this bombshell:

“Parnia is in the midst of working on a follow-up study, called AWARE II, with a public announcement likely in the next six months.”

So I have mentioned in past posts that the study is planned to finish recruitment in 2020. However, those who are close followers of this blog, and the comments sections (which are often more interesting than the posts as they contain some excellent observations etc from fellow NDE “nerds”), will have noted that I have often said if there were two or more verifiable hits (i.e. fully documented NDEs with confirmed OBEs – namely the subject seeing the image on the LCD screen), prior to complete recruitment, then I suspect Dr. Parnia would go public.

Could this be what that announcement will be about? Of course, we will not know until it is actually announced, but if it is, then this will be the event we have all been waiting for ever since AWARE I was first mentioned way back in the mid noughties. This will be the moment we see a permanent paradigm shift in scientific thinking, and methodological materialism will be dead.

I am very hopeful. I noted last year that there was suddenly a big upsurge in activity from the AWARE study team. At the same time, they stopped communicating with external sources like myself. At the time I speculated that they had one hit, and they were ramping up activity to get another, whilst insuring the integrity of the study by keeping any new data strictly under wraps.

Also, of interest in the article are the comments made about the whole 10 percent issue. Dr Parnia appears to have created a part of the questionnaire that picks up subconscious recollections from the resuscitation:

“For instance, in some cases people who appear unconscious are given names of cities and objects,” he says. “When they have recovered they have been asked to recall any memories. Even though they have no recall, when asked to ‘randomly’ think of cities, those who had been exposed to the stimuli are statistically more likely to choose the same cities compared to control subjects. Thus indicating they had heard it.” 

Aside from the rather bizarre thought of nurses and doctors randomly shouting “Mogadishu” between “charge the paddles” and “clear”, this could provide some very interesting insights into whether the fact only 10 percent recall an NDE is memory related or otherwise, the topic of the previous post(s).

While this is very important, I am hoping that the announcement will relate to verified OBEs.

Dr Parnia, you have us all on tenterhooks!

Link to article: AOL article on NDEs

AWARE Study II methodology: If the mountain won’t come to Mohammed…

Firstly I would like to thank Peter for contacting me and alerting me to the fact that the design of the second phase of the AWARE study is now available on the UK clinical Research Network website.

This is obviously great news, and shows that this important research is going forward and that at some point in the future more data will emerge on attempts to capture an NDE using robust methods. This last point is certainly something that seems to have been addressed in the new design of the study. If you have read my previous posts, you will have noted that I pointed out the statistical problems facing the investigators, namely that due to the fact that only a small proportion of people survive a Cardiac Arrest (CA), and of those only 10% claim to have had any type of NDE, and of those only about 25% report an Out Of Body Experience, the numbers you would need to enroll into a study to validate an OBE would be huge. This problem is amplified by the fact that in the original AWARE study less than half the subjects actually had CAs in areas with validating images, so even if someone reported an NDE with an OBE, their chances of seeing the image were extremely low. I suggested that they either set up a huge study to insure enrolling enough patients to sufficiently power the research, or they increase the number of cards with images on, and choose areas where CAs are most likely.

The solution that has been arrived at is outlined in the design of AWARE II:

Emergency Department or Research staff will be alerted to cardiac arrest and will attend with portable brain oxygen monitoring devices and a tablet which will display visual images upwards above the patient as resuscitation is taking place. Measurements obtained during cardiac arrest will be used to compare data from all cardiac arrest patients independent of outcome [whether they live or die]. Survivors will then be followed up and with their consent will have in-depth, audio recorded interviews.

This is the Mohammed going to the mountain solution, and has real potential to overcome many of the problems encountered in the first study. This way, and I am making an assumption here, only CAs where this research team actually arrive and are able to get the tablet in place will be included in the study. This instantly erases the problem of having sufficient rooms with images to insure capturing an OBE. It does not however overcome the problem of whether or not the person experiences their OBE from the perspective of being directly above themselves. While this is common, it is not the universal “pop out position” that subjects report, therefore we may get a frustrating account of someone having an OBE standing in the corner and reporting someone holding a tablet above them. Also, I can imagine there will have to be a considerable amount of training involved for the researchers and also a great deal of co-operation from resuscitation teams whose immediate priority is reviving the patient. However, this new method does have significant advantages over those used in the first study, and therefore should have a higher chance of validating an OBE without recruiting tens of thousands of patients..

The study is aiming to enroll 900-1500 subjects by the end of MAY 2016 at the latest, and will be a multi-center international study like AWARE. I wish the investigators the best of luck in their endeavor to validate NDEs and OBEs, and I would like to commend Dr. Parnia and his co-investigators for their ingenuity and tenacity.

Finally, with regard to this blog, I will be starting a new project on these pages related to this subject area in the New Year, and will of course continue to add any emerging data or news on research in this field.

Phase II of the AWARE study announced

There was me thinking I’d wasted an awful lot of time writing a book and creating a website that had its focus of interest on the AWARE study, which appeared to be completed following the recent publication of results, when in fact the fun has only just begun. Today I received an email from the Horizon Research Foundation, one of the organizations that provided funding for the original study (link to site at bottom of post), stating that phase II had begun in the UK. This is obviously very exciting news, not least because this website now has a reason to continue to exist! In all seriousness, Dr. Parnia had told me in our recent exchange that they were looking at various options. It will be interesting to see if he is still the lead investigator given that he is now based on Long Island, NY…I will endeavor to find out.

As I mentioned in my previous post, which describes the kind of barriers I suspect that they are up against, they will need to aim to include at least 10,000 Cardiac Arrests to have any chance of a scientifically validated OBE. This is due to the fact that not many survive, and of those that do, a significant proportion would be excluded from further analysis. To boost their chances of success they should focus on areas of the hospital which had the highest incidence of CA in the first AWARE study, and increase the number of targets in these areas.

Another consideration, if they didn’t do this in the original study, would be to introduce an element of “blinding” (a term used to describe techniques of research that insure that investigators and subjects are unaware of whether an active intervention is being administered or not). This could be achieved  by insuring that the post CA interviewers were unaware of the content of the pictures in the target areas.

Finally I would like to wish the AWARE study team good luck in their noble quest to continue researching this most important of areas. The results from AWARE phase I, as well as shedding light on the difficulties of performing high quality scientific research on NDEs, have also validated the incidence of NDE (~10% of survivors) and OBE (~25% of NDEs) from earlier studies. This, along with the semi-validated OBE from AWARE I, provides further circumstantial evidence of the validity of these phenomena…my hope is that it will not to be long before this group, or others, provide incontrovertible evidence. If they do, you can be sure you will hear about it here. In the mean time I will continue to examine the implications of other emerging research on NDEs, and post any relevant insights from time to time on this blog.

 

aware logo

The Fat Lady Sings…or not.

I contacted Dr. Parnia this week to find out the fate of the AWARE study, not least because I wanted to know if there was still a possibility of proving my hypothesis or not, and this was part of his response:

“The plan is to use different resources to continue research into the areas explored during the AWARE study. As with any research endeavor one study raises questions and [opens] new avenues for further research, and AWARE is no different. The details will need to be worked out. However, I think the AWARE results have opened new areas for exploration for ourselves and others in the field. I am sorry that we cannot discuss this in more detail however we hope there will be new studies generated in the coming years.”

My understanding of this is that the AWARE study is complete, and the results published last week in Resuscitation are the final results from this study. However, this does not appear to be the end of the story, and it seems that new studies may be undertaken, using the experience the investigators gained from AWARE, to gain further insight into NDEs and hopefully one day validate OBEs.

So where does this leave my hypothesis. Just to remind you:

“Even if the AWARE study only has one or two verified OBEs, then this will prove the existence of the soul.”

Given that the AWARE study produced no scientifically validated OBEs (a subject seeing a card), you might be inclined to think that my hypothesis had been disproven, however, that would be wrong. Having now fully digested the results from the study, I have come to realize that my hypothesis was based on some very important false assumptions about the powering of AWARE.

When I originally made the hypothesis, it was based on my understanding of the study design as initially presented back in 2008. The specifics of the design were quite vague, but the wording was something along the lines of “data from about 1000 or more Cardiac Arrests (CA) would be used”. I took this to mean that there would be a 1000 or more surviving cases eligible for inclusion; that all these survivors were interviewed; and that all had the potential to see the pictures on the shelves. Using this base number of a thousand, and the fact that only 10% of survivors have an NDE, and only about 25% of those have an OBE (2.5% overall rate of OBEs), and that although the shelves might be in the room, they might not be in the right place, or the patient might not notice, or they might not remember (I reckoned about 10% of OBEs would recall seeing it), I predicted that a very small number, maybe even only a couple of those original 1000 would see the card. In other words, my hypothesis might have been more accurate if I had stated it thus:

“Given the rareness (~2.5%) of reported OBEs in subjects surviving CA, and the study’s limitations with regard to ability to insure that validation cards are reported by these subjects, the AWARE study would only need to produce an incidence of validated OBEs of 0.25% to prove the existence of NDEs.” (the 0.25% comes from my estimation that only a couple of survivors out of about 1000 would validate).

There were two assumptions that I made that were false:

  1. There would be 1000 CA survivors who were eligible for inclusion and were interviewed.
  2. All of these would be in rooms or areas with validation cards.

The reality:

  1. In spite of there being 2060 CAs, there were only 330 survivors, and of these only 101 were included in the final analysis who were both eligible and who completed the requisite interviews.
  2. Only 22% of all CAs took place in areas with validation cards…this point is exemplified by the fact that neither of the 2 subjects who reported OBEs were in one of these areas.

Two of the other assumptions I made were correct:

  1. About 10% of CA survivors report an NDE (9)
  2. 25% of people reporting an NDE report an OBE (2)

The “other” assumptions were conjecture (these basically reduce the chances of seeing and recalling a card by about 90%). However, if I had used the more accurately stated version of my hypothesis that I quote above, namely that only 0.25% of subjects who survive a CA, who were: eligible for inclusion; had been interviewed; AND who were in areas with a validation card, then this study would only produce 0.055 (0.0025 X 22) validated OBEs.

In other words, given the results as presented in the paper, and my additional assumptions about the ability of patients to see or recall validation cards if they were in the right areas, then this study only had a 1 in 18 chance of producing 1 solitary validated OBE (1/0.055). That translates to a 6% chance of this study producing a positive result.

Let’s be very generous and just drop my “other” assumptions for a moment, and instead assume that all patients who survived a CA, completed an interview and were in areas with a validation card (this would be about 22 patients – 101 X 22%) were able to see and recall that card if they had an OBE (which is about 2.5% of CA survivors according to previous studies, and indeed this study). That would mean that this study would produce 0.55 (22 X .025) subjects with a scientifically validated OBE.

To summarize the math, given the number of eligible subjects who were in areas with validation cards, and being incredibly generous with regard to the ability of these subjects to see and recall these cards if they had an OBE, at the start of this study, there was a 1 in 2 chance of producing only 1 validated OBE. Given the fact that we now know that the 2 OBEs occurred in areas without cards, the study in fact had no chance at all of producing a positive result. Ultimately this study was hopelessly underpowered (I explain powering in a previous post and in my book).

It would be easy to blame the investigators for not designing the study better, and in the first version of my book I was indeed a little harsh in this respect. However, this was the first large study of this kind, so they are allowed to be less than perfect, but more importantly, it’s hard to see, even with hindsight, how you could significantly improve the odds of insuring that all NDEs occurred in areas with the cards, and having a sufficient number of subjects who were eligible.

Going forward, if Dr. Parnia and/or other investigators are proceeding with this research, then they might want to consider the following suggestions:

  • Go over all the data from the AWARE study and identify the areas, across different hospitals, with the highest incidence of CAs
  • Recruit more centers (or run the study for longer, with the goal of recruiting sufficient eligible survivors), and place the validation cards, or some improved validation method, in these high incidence areas only
  • Maybe have more than just one validation card in each of these areas to overcome the problems I included in my other assumptions

If a study was undertaken that placed cards in areas in such a manner that 50% of all CAs took place in a validation zone (instead of just 22%), and there were sufficient cards to insure that the chances of a patient not seeing the cards were much reduced, perhaps increasing the odds of someone who has an OBE seeing and recalling the cards from about 10% (my original assumption), to a figure close to 33%, then the chances of success would be much higher, but don’t hold your breath, this ain’t gonna happen tomorrow.

In the instance that a study was designed in just such a way as to meet these criteria, then using the numbers of patients from this study who had a CA and who were eligible and interviewed 101/2060 (5%), you would need to aim to run the study for long enough to include 10,000 CAs to have a chance of capturing just 2 scientifically validated OBEs (10,000 X 50% (% CAs in validation area) X 5% (% who survived + eligible + interviewed) X 10% (% subjects who had NDE) X 25% (% of NDEs with OBE) X 33% (% who saw and remembered the card)).

10,000 Dr. Parnia! I hope you are more patient than me, either that or you are able to motivate a small army of researchers willing to take part.

Finally, I just want to restate that my hypothesis has not been disproven, and I would like to refine the wording, using the same underlying principles, in the following manner using correct assumptions:

“In the instance that a sufficiently well powered and designed study records post CA interviews with eligible CA survivors in areas equipped to validate OBEs, then an incidence rate of validated OBE of ~1% among these survivors would prove that NDEs are real. In other words, in a study that aimed to recruit 10,000 CAs, which produced 250 eligible survivors, only 2-3 would be needed to prove NDEs are real, and by inference, that the soul exists.”

Given that we are obviously only at the beginning of this journey, and relying on a renewed surge of energy from the admirable Dr. Parnia and his colleagues for this journey to even continue, I will keep posting on this blog, because even though the AWARE study might be over, this area of research and the subject of NDEs is far from dead.

As I said before…

So, I have now had a chance to review the entire paper that has been published in Resuscitation, and I hate to say it, but I told you so.

In a previous post I pointed out that it is common practice for key results to be released at conferences, and subsequent publications in journals to be a rehash of these results but with far more detail, and discussion, and that is precisely what has happened with this first full publication from the AWARE study (I say first, as I suspect that there will be more in years to come, especially given the recent sizeable grant given to the team by the Templeton foundation). This data has been presented in summary form in Dr Parnia’s book and at the American Heart Association last year.

Basically there were two NDEs which had visual or auditory recall…in other words, they saw or heard stuff. Only one of these was verifiable and involved a 57 year old man who was able to describe accurately what occurred while the resuscitation team got to work on him, and while he was fully unconscious according to the attending Health Care Professionals (HCPs) and the equipment to which he was connected. This account is as plausible as any from the hundreds, if not thousands of similar accounts that have been published in various books and scholarly journals on this subject over the past few decades.

Importantly, there were no instances where patients were able to confirm their NDE by seeing one of the objects inserted on a shelf specifically for the purpose of verifying an out of body experience (OBE). This is disappointing, but when one reads the full details from the paper, it is hardly surprising. As I discuss in my book, Aware of Aware*, the chances of anyone actually seeing one of these objects and recalling seeing it are extremely small, and now that we are able to see the full results from the study, I have come to realise they are even smaller than I originally suggested. (*available in multiple markets as a paperback or ebook at Amazon).

The numbers:

  • There were 2060 cardiac arrests that could potentially have been included in this study
  • Only 330 of these subjects survived
  • Of these 330, only 140 were eligible for further analysis
  • Of the 140, only 101 completed interviews allowing for determination of the incidence of an NDE type experience
  • Of these only 9 (9%- sound familiar?) reported sufficient core elements of the NDE scale to qualify as an NDE
  • As mentioned before, only 2 reported OBEs, one was unable to follow up due to poor health

Other noteworthy facts from the study:

  • Only 22% of the Cardiac Arrests occurred in areas that had shelves with objects installed
  • Neither of the reported OBEs occurred in these areas

The fact these numbers are very much in line with what has been stated before in other studies is reassuring as it does help to underscore the reproducability of results from NDE studies, and consistency across such measures as incidence of NDE and incidence of OBE. However, does the AWARE study say anything new of significance…answer…No. Does it prove NDEs…as much as I would like to say it does, no, it doesn’t. Does that mean that it never will…time will tell, and I suspect that eventually, due to more cases, and better techniques it will, until then we are left exactly where we were yesterday.

Finally, once again we see the figure of 10% come up. As I have mentioned and discussed in numerous posts prior to this, and I discuss in my book, this number is important and we need to ask the question, why do children experience much higher rates of NDE than adults. For reasons I have mentioned previously, it cannot just be a function of memory

While we are still waiting for hard evidence for the existence of the soul through a verified OBE/NDE, I believe those of us who already believe it, should be more concerned about the possibility that this soul we are born with can actually die, and if so, how do we avoid this outcome?

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: