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

Archive for the tag “parnia”

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:


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.

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: