AwareofAware

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

1% recruited so far for the AWARE II study

Peter sent me an email, which I confess seemed a little gloomy and frustrated since he had looked at the latest status of the AWARE II study and learned that they had only recruited 1% of the patients that they intended to. He then asked me for my predictions for the outcome of this second version of the study.

Firstly, I have two reasons to not be quite so gloomy as Peter.

  1. From my own experience with clinicaltrials.gov, which is the US equivalent of the website that the AWARE study has its details, updates are usually very out of date. For instance studies will often be closed and collecting results before the website reflects that status. So it is entirely possible that more than 1% (which would be about 15 patients) have so far been recruited into the study.
  2. Even if it has taken 3 months to recruit 15 patients, I see that as a positive sign as it may mean that the investigators are being very narrow in their interpretation of the inclusion criteria. In my view they should only include patients who could possibly have had an NDE and who were in a room with the portable LCD monitor displaying random images.

As I have said before, in the first AWARE study, patients were included who were not even in rooms with the cards facing the ceiling. This defeats the purpose of the study in my view, so hopefully the reason that we are seeing them struggle with recruitment is that they are selecting patients in a more rational way.

My predictions for the outcome of this study are outlined in my book AWARE of AWARE, in which I discuss the original study, and predict only a couple of confirmed OBEs. I based this assumption (incorrectly), that only patients who survived a cardiac arrest, and were interviewed, and were in rooms with the cards, would be included in the analysis. If the AWARE II study follows this approach, and they recruit 1500 patients, all of whom had CAs and were resuscitated with the screen present AND were able to give an interview afterwards, then I would predict that only a couple would confirm their NDE by stating what was on the screen, this is based on the fact that only 10% of people who die and are resuscitated recall an NDE, of those maybe 25% have an OBE. Of those I would expect maybe 10% to notice the screen…that makes 3-4 patients. I must stress though, that this is only if the inclusion criteria are as strict as I outline and if they stick to this criteria.

Update on status of AWARE II

Just a quick update on the AWARE study. I recently contacted the study team, and they informed me that the study opened and began recruiting on May 1st 2015. I asked for an updated protocol, but they are being a bit cagey about specifics at the moment, which is pretty understandable (if the exact details were known to outsiders it would be easier to discredit any positive results). What info we do have is available on the UK research website link below. The study is anticipated to run for 2 years. As I have stated before, I have concerns about the exclusion criteria not being broad enough, and that potentially we could see a repeat of AWARE I in which they recruited over 2000 Cardiac Arrests, but only a small minority of these were relevant in terms of providing data. In my view, unless they only include all CA survivors who had the crash cart plus LCD monitors in attendance and were able to complete a post event interview, then they should not be included.

Hopefully they have considered this and are proceeding in a more focused way with their new protocol.

AWARE II study

Finally, I know people come here from to time, and are disappointed that new posts are few and far between. As I have explained before, I have a very busy job in research, in addition I write novels in my spare time and this has been the primary focus of my energy of late. I will however attempt to post more thoughts and comments on NDE research as time goes by so sign up for updates so you will be notified when these appear.

Being or not Being, that is the question.

Is the Being Of Light consistent across cultures?

This is my second post in a series that is focusing on the Being Of Light that is frequently described in NDEs.

Most NDE research has taken place in the West, and in particular in the US. This has resulted in many of the NDE accounts coming from people who grew up in a society that was predominantly Judaeo-Christian. While these beliefs seem to be waning in recent years as the media and academic institutions becomes increasingly dominated by an atheistic “progressive” liberal mindset, this has not yet appeared to have had an impact on NDE accounts. Whether this is due to a “lag” caused by the majority of data originating from previous decades, or some other reason will only become apparent as time passes.

This potential cultural bias may well affect the interpretation of the core elements that NDErs encounter, and none more so than the Being of Light. More often than not, this being is referred to as God or Jesus, but is it really, or are the experiencers just superimposing this cultural bias on the experience? There have been a number of accounts, and the odd study, that has shown that experiencers from other faiths will see the being of light as a figure from that faith. Yet another study, and perhaps the most intriguing as it has a completely different outcome, was published in the Journal Of Near Death Studies last June – A Comparative Analysis of Japanese and western NDEs by Masayuki Ohkado and Bruce Greyson.

In this particular analysis the authors were looking to identify whether any differences in accounts of NDE were due to cultural, physiological or biological factors. They analyzed a set of 22 NDE accounts from Japanese citizens that they deemed sufficiently robust to be able to measure against the 19 core NDE elements identified by Moody and assess differences and similarities between accounts from Japan and the West.

Reassuringly many of the Japanese accounts reported similarities with Western NDEs, with reports of meeting other spiritual beings, feelings of peace and quiet, experiencing a heavenly place and sensing a border or limit occurring in more than half of the Japanese NDEs. 4 had out of body experiences which is consistent with rates observed in Western NDEs, and which highlight the ongoing challenges facing the AWARE study.

In terms of key differences, none of the Japanese experienced a life review, only 1 experienced a place of all knowledge and only 3 experienced a bright light, but importantly none of the latter 3 reported a specific Being of Light. They did describe the physical qualities of the light in terms that are similar to those used by Western experiencers however. The light was brighter than any they had ever experienced and yet it did not hurt their eyes. Furthermore, while they do not describe a person or being, or use the word love, they describe a feeling of unparalleled euphoria.

Firstly, it is important to note that the group being analyzed was very small. Moody’s first cohort of experiencers was 150 strong, and there have been many many cases added since. It is therefore possible that this group does not properly represent the full range of Japanese NDEs. Indeed, I have read Western NDEs in which some of these key elements are missing, and in which there is only a light, and no specific Being Of Light. The authors however point out that in Moody’s first reports this bright light was a specific being and universally interpreted by the experiencer as being God or Jesus. Moreover this being emanated pure love, and that it sometimes communicated telepathically, passing on instructions etc. The experiencers seemed in no doubt as to the fact it was a being rather than just a light. This is therefore noted as a fundamental difference between the Japanese NDE and the Western NDE (as well as the general lack of a life review which I will discuss in another post).

So what should we make of this difference with regard to the Light? There are a number of conclusions that it is possible to draw depending on your viewpoint on NDEs:

The reductionist conclusion:

If the bright light is not consistent across cultures, then it is not an “external” event, but rather an internally generated experience. In other words the bright light is the result of a physiological process that occurs as the brain shuts down producing the sensation of a bright light, peace etc. For Westerners this experience becomes intwined with their own cultural beliefs creating a sense of this light being God; for the Japanese culture, which is largely atheist, Shinto or based on some off shoot of Buddhism which generally doesn’t believe in a specific God figure, there is no preformed belief in God, therefore the light is just a light, albeit one that makes them feel better than they have ever felt before (feelings that could be associated with the release of various chemicals in the brain near death).

Personally I think it is hard to argue against this interpretation of the data. This argument, or explanation for the observations, is consistent with the facts from this particular analysis. However it is only one of a number of plausible explanations, and whether you believe this explanation will be determined by which camp you approach this from. If you were a reductionist atheist before reading this, you will still be one, and this data will only confirm your preformed belief about NDEs and the spiritual dimension. However, if you come from the camp that you believe NDEs are the actual process of the spirit or conscious leaving the body and entering another realm, you too can find an explanation which is consistent with the observations from this analysis.

The objective NDE-believer conclusion:

The original article discusses this in length and concludes, much as the atheist would above, that the differences in description of the Light (specific being vs generic light) are also due to cultural reasons arising from the prevalence of various kinds of religious belief in the societies of the experiencers. So how can an NDE believer, when given the same facts, arrive at the opposite conclusion from the atheist and is one more right than the other?

The NDE believer would say that the Bright Light exists identically for both sets of experiencers, just as the atheist would, however, for the believer, the Bright Light is an external element of the NDE rather than an internally produced phenomenon and that just like a sunset is one consistent external phenomenon , it can look and feel completely different depending on who is experiencing it and where they are sitting to view it, and would be described differently by these people.

The objective NDE believer approach would take the baseline from the two different viewpoints and conclude that there is bright light that at the very least emanates intense wonderful feelings; those from a Christian heritage would say it was God because the experience they have when in the light is akin to what they have come to understand about God, and those who have no understanding of God, would just say it was a bright light that made them feel good. The objective believer would say that the experience is external; the light is external, but that it is not possible to conclude with absolute certainty that the light is a personal being like God, or something else. There is a discussion about the lack of the use of the word “love” in the text from the study which focuses on the fact that the word is rarely used in the Japanese language, and this could explain why. From the other point of view, is love just a feeling of euphoria and conceptually we Westerners are placing an additional layer of subjective understanding on this state?

In conclusion, the objective believer would have to say that the Western interpretation of this experience is likely to be the most subjective due to the preformed beliefs we have, therefore the most we can say with certainty about the light is what is common to all experiences – bright light that doesn’t hurt, which makes the experiencer feel better than they have ever felt before.

A subjective Judaeo-Christian conclusion:

The Bright Light is a being, and that being is God/Jesus but that there are a number of possible reasons why the Japanese, who were non-believers, did not experience the light as God.

1. Not knowing there is a God, they have never tried to communicate with God, or experienced his presence before, so when they encounter Him for the first time they don’t recognize him for who he is and don’t know they can communicate with him or how to, and therefore do not have a full experience with the light – this is the “incomplete experience due to ignorance” explanation.
2. They don’t see the light as God because God does not reveal his full identity to them at that time for various possible reasons – this is the “incomplete experience due to an external “heavenly” decision” explanation.
3. They do experience a Being but just don’t realize it or know to describe it as such because the connection is not there in their minds due to their cultural upbringing (very similar to the explanation given in the paper). This is somewhat supported by the fact that other Japanese accounts do refer to hearing instructions on how to live etc. if it was just a generic light then it would not communicate. Communication is the result of a specific consciousness, therefore they experience God but just don’t know it – this is the “complete experience but inability to process resulting in a incomplete understanding” explanation.

I am a Christian, so I have a subjective view on this. I believe that NDEs are the experience of the soul leaving the body and entering another realm. I believe that when they enter that realm, among other elements, the soul does encounter God who is this Being Of Light. Therefore I feel that the explanation why the Japanese do not report their experiences in the same way as Westerners is due most likely to a combination of 1 and 3 above. However, I recognize that my opinion is formed from an entirely subjective view of existence and that all three explanations of the differences (reductionist atheist; objective NDE believer and subjective Christian NDE believer and possibly many others, such as a subjective New-Age NDE believer explanation) are all consistent with the observations made from this analysis.

In other words the analysis presented by Ohkado and Greyson will probably not (and need not) change your preformed understanding of what constitutes an NDE and the nature of the bright light!

The Being Of Light: Account 1

So I made a promise in my last post that I will be doing a project over the coming months while the AWARE study is ongoing and in the absence of any new data on research into NDEs. That project is to analyze accounts from NDEs about the Being Of Light, and try to understand better the nature of this being who is often described as the most significant experience of the core NDE experiences.

Many have referred to this being as God/Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha etc, as he seems to represent all they believe to be true about that figure. However, for the sake of these posts, and since we do not know for sure who or what this being is, I am going to refer to it (for we do not know whether it is a she or a he, or something altogether beyond our understanding with regard to sex), as BOL. I will use the pronoun IT to describe BOL because although this depersonalizes the being, I do not want to infer my own sex bias upon this being.

The first series of posts on this subject will refer to specific accounts, or sums of accounts. I will attempt to uncover common themes about the nature of this being, to try to understand it better and also to identify any outlying descriptions that might point to inconsistencies and therefore call into question the validity of these accounts.

The first account from my favourite NDE, is the one recounted by Howard Storm (http://www.near-death.com/storm.html#a02):
“I don’t know how to explain to you that I knew it knew me, I just did. As a matter of fact, I understood that it knew me better than my mother or father did. The luminous entity that embraced me knew me intimately and began to communicate a tremendous sense of knowledge. I knew that he knew everything about me and I was being unconditionally loved and accepted.

The light conveyed to me that it loved me in a way that I can’t begin to express. It loved me in a way that I had never known that love could possibly be. He was a concentrated field of energy, radiant in splendor indescribable, except to say goodness and love. This was more loving than one can imagine. I knew that this radiant being was powerful. It was making me feel so good all over. I could feel its light on me – like very gentle hands around me. And I could feel it holding me. But it was loving me with overwhelming power. After what I had been through, to be completely known, accepted, and intensely loved by this Being of Light surpassed anything I had known or could have imagined.”

Amazing! Just incredible that there might just be this being that we meet after we die that fits this description. I almost can’t wait! At this stage I am going to pull out the key words or phrases that he uses to describe the BOL, and as I report on and present more accounts, I will do the same for each account and separately compile a spreadsheet to methodically examine consistencies or contradictions.

Key words and phrases:

Light/luminosity

Radiant

Knowledge

Unconditional love

Acceptance

Indescribable

Goodness and love

Overwhelming power

Gentle
I’m going to leave it there for now. Maybe you might want to contemplate this account for a few moments. Imagine if this being is real. How does that make you feel?

New Project

I have received a few comments and messages recently that I haven’t posted anything on this blog. Guilty as charged. There are two reasons.

The first is that there has been no major news in this field of research over the past month or so. The next phase of the AWARE study has been announced, and the design of the study made available to view. Now we must be patient. If they are only going to include Cardiac Arrests who survive AND who had the opportunity to see the screen with the image, then I do believe their target date of May 2016 is ambitious given the stats from the first study. I also have concerns that the current methods may still miss possible OBEs given that the AWARE teams will be arriving at some point after the CA, and therefore the OBE part of the NDE may have been and gone. However, short of installing screens in every room of the hospital, this is a reasonable, cost effective fix to the problems outlined in my previous posts. Also, being completely unscientific, I have faith that if it is important [meant] for the NDE to be validated, then it will happen. From a design perspective, I do think it is important that the recorder/programmer(s) involved with generating the images and/or holding the tablet above the patient are not involved with the interviews or collection of data from interviews, and that those who do the interviews and record information on observations are “blinded” to any possible content produced by the tablets. This will help enhance the credibility of any validated OBEs.

The second reason is that I have begun a new project which will produce posts on here from time to time (aiming for monthly). This project is specifically looking at accounts of the Being of Light from recorded NDEs. I do believe this is the most important aspect of the experience, and will be discussing this more in future posts.

So, going forward, I will be producing my first post from my project by the end of February. In addition, I will continue to follow scientific literature for any new data emerging from NDE research and posting my thoughts on it here.

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?

Breaking News: The AWARE study is finally published

At last, the results of the AWARE study have been published in a peer reviewed journal (resuscitation). I am still trying to get hold of the full paper, but from first reading of the results, there was one verified OBE. However, this verification was not by sighting of one of the objects that had been set up to provide just such a verification, but rather through the reports of a man who was able to see a number of events during his resuscitation, and hear the regular beeping of a machine.

While I, like many people, would love to say at last we have the vital smoking gun needed to prove the NDE is real, I am not convinced that this report provides us with that. However, I will reserve final judgment until I have read the entire article, and provide an in depth analysis in the next day or two.

Post Navigation