I am in good company!
It appears that I am not the only one who finds Parnia’s disinhibition assertions disconcerting (try saying that fast after a couple of glasses of wine!).
It is fine theorising that this may be what is going on, but the fact is some of his comments regarding the factuality of his hypothesis to the media (the Guardian and BBC in particular) seem to move beyond the word “may” to “is”. I have provided examples of this in previous posts, and it seems that two of the most respected researchers in this field have made some comments, to which Parnia has decided to reply in the journal (click on the pic for full article):
Now I can’t find the original comments, but it seems they stated that the subjects were not conscious. The fact is we do not know what was going on, so it is wrong to assert that there is or is not activity of any kind that is truly conscious. Since the vast majority of examples of EEG activity were in patients who sadly died, we do not know whether they had conscious experiences. Personally I believe the patients with EEG activity may have had some sort of CPRIC episode if anything, but I do not know that, no more than Parnia knows whether they had a disinhibition episode.
The fact is that only 2 of the 28 patients who were interviewed had interpretable EEG data. It is not mentioned whether there was activity or not, but either way these patients were not in the 11 who had recollections from their time during CA. If anything this would provide evidence against Parnia’s hypothesis.
I think that it is OK hypothesising as he does in the paper, but some of his recent media noise has gone beyond this, and I suspect that is why these two great men have given their esteemed colleague an academic poke. A part of me wonders if he is playing a much deeper game here, but I will keep my thoughts on that to myself.
AwareofAware 