Aware II results

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...n_sectitle
This paper seems recent. Any thoughts on it?
Edit: Lol it sounds rather disappointing. A recycling of hipoxia and DMT explanations.
But the interesting part is the G-LOC tests. Is there any info on them?

Are you Gunther P? I left you an answer at AwareOfAware.

Are you Gunther P? I left you an answer at AwareOfAware.

No I'm not sorry. But I do read the blog.

Was there any comment by NDE researchers on the temporal lobe studies and their claims?

Was there any comment by NDE researchers on the temporal lobe studies and their claims?

The only researchers who can move the debate on, are (currently) Parnia and his team, unless some other group is performing
the same experiment. Stephen Laureys' group are not doing that experiment, as far as I know.

I gather 'some' seem to think that Aware 2 has failed because it didn't produce a hit on the laptop. It's just not so. They only had
one "watching" out of body experience and he wasn't in a position to see the lap top, so it simply hasn't been tested, in the same way that someone hasn't tested the safety of a rubber ring by jumping into an empty swimming pool.

Aware 2 stopped in 2020. Parnia was right in the thick of it, completely overwhelmed with 10 times the normal amount of patients, as were all his colleagues of which many died. He couldn't see his family and had to live in a hotel, things were that bad so I'm only  thankful he wasn't one of the unlucky ones, as that might have (?) put an end to the Aware series? 

I don't know if it would or it wouldn't, maybe it will carry on under someone else's stewardship. The data he did manage to collect is very significant but not in the way that sceptics seem to think.

The only researchers who can move the debate on, are (currently) Parnia and his team, unless some other group is performing
the same experiment. Stephen Laureys' group are not doing that experiment, as far as I know.

I gather 'some' seem to think that Aware 2 has failed because it didn't produce a hit on the laptop. It's just not so. They only had
one "watching" out of body experience and he wasn't in a position to see the lap top, so it simply hasn't been tested, in the same way that someone hasn't tested the safety of a rubber ring by jumping into an empty swimming pool.

Aware 2 stopped in 2020. Parnia was right in the thick of it, completely overwhelmed with 10 times the normal amount of patients, as were all his colleagues of which many died. He couldn't see his family and had to live in a hotel, things were that bad so I'm only  thankful he wasn't one of the unlucky ones, as that might have (?) put an end to the Aware series? 

I don't know if it would or it wouldn't, maybe it will carry on under someone else's stewardship. The data he did manage to collect is very significant but not in the way that sceptics seem to think.

Did you read this recently posted paper? Do you have any thoughts about it? I did it more than once. It sounds like fusing different theories as one giant explanation for NDE's, then saying the debate is close to ending.
It exagerates the results of several studies and, as expected, never shows objections (Like the responses to Woerlee's anesthesia theory.) some commentary on the paper would be nice, but it's unlikely.

Did you read this recently posted paper?

Yes, briefly that is because I've seen and heard it all before.

Do you have any thoughts about it?

Yes. It contains inaccurate statements such as this  

"Therefore, one has to understand that clinical death is not death, but brain death implies the termination of a human’s life" 

and this..

 "With normal body temperature and without medical intervention, brain death occurs 4 to six 6 min after clinical death"

The first statement is wrong. Clinical death is death because if you don't do anything to alter the situation (such as defibrillation etc) they will stay dead. If they are not dead then why do they bother intervening at all? 

Just leave the patient if he/she is not dead and when the consultant comes in to ask you why you aren't resuscitating them, just say, there's no need to, the patient is not dead. He's only clinically dead.

(Consultant) Of course he's dead, you idiot, get the paddles now and some files of adreneline, for god's sake! (sorry, being flippant) 

And brain death does not occur after 4 - 6 minutes, even I know that ( as an ignorant lay person). I actually can't be bothered, brain meat, to go through it all pointing out the mistakes, it bores me to tears. They wouldn't pay any attention to what I have to say anyway. It's a game for them, all dressed up very professionally with the requisite citations, but there's nothing new at all.

The real crux of the matter is and always has been and will continue to be, (is) how can people have lucid, well structured thought processes, with reasoning and memory formation, including the correct observation of their own body and what occurred around it, from a position out and away from it, when their brains were not functioning ?(cardiac arrest)   

They shouldn't be able to, but somehow they can.  We have enough well documented and verified cases to be quite sure that this is occurring, but members of academia ignore them because they know very well what the implications are and they don't like it. It's as simple as that.  

[Ninshub]

I actually can't be bothered, brain meat, to go through it all pointing out the mistakes, it bores me to tears.

But thank you for all those years of service, tim, where you've bothered enough to tell us here (and past forums) those mistakes and why it's boring! That does not go unnoticed.

...can't be bothered, brain meat, to go through it all pointing out the mistakes, it bores me to tears. They wouldn't pay any attention to what I have to say anyway. It's a game for them, all dressed up very professionally with the requisite citations, but there's nothing new at all.

I suspect this is something people are not used to when coming here. We've done the dance, bought the t-shirt, etc etc in the "war" with the skeptics. My guess is a lot of old timers still checking this site out have largely moved on from debating every skeptical talking point...I don't doubt it will come up here & there, but I know it isn't a big interest of mine anymore. As far as I'm concerned proponents have won the public debate, and are making gradual but positive moves in academia.

Not to speak for everyone else, but seems like our curiosity and interest is more on the side of trying to put the pieces together, or maybe hash out the implications of what the evidence could mean for metaphysics, society, and so on.

But thank you for all those years of service, tim, where you've bothered enough to tell us here (and past forums) those mistakes and why it's boring! That does not go unnoticed.

You're very kind, Ian but others could have done just the same. Facts (honest reliable data) and the correct/reasonable interpretation of it is surely what everyone should be about, sceptics included.

Sadly, their "explanations" are so lacking in cohesion and plausibility they would be by comparison as different as a garden shed (made out of old scraps of assorted wood and bits of polythene with holes in it) compared to the Taj Mahal.

https://med.nyu.edu/research/parnia-lab/...ory-arrest
Some details about the COOL study...