Does NDE research fulfil the quality criteria of medical studies?

Jeez, Max, I do believe Linda would be proud of that.  I've read through what you've said there..and you're basically saying nothing. It's like stating that a glass could be described as empty if it didn't have something in it. It's meaningless.  

People see relatives that they didn't know had died. That's a fact. How they came by the information is (arguably at least) something else. You're usually on the ball but not with that.

I don't know why your protesting... it's a perfectly reasonable point that I made.

I don't know why your protesting... it's a perfectly reasonable point that I made.

It's not reasonable at all. What you've written is mischievous gobbledegook !

Max said >"It’s possible to argue that some of these instances of seeing people not known to have died, would have been counted as seeing people who were alive, but that because they have subsequently died without the experients knowledge, this has given these persons presence in the experience, an elevated significance, which they may not deserve."

Basically what your intimating, is that there's nothing special at all about experiencers seeing somebody in the afterlife/other dimension who they didn't know was dead, therefore equating it with the same level of (no) importance as seeing someone (in the other dimension) who is still alive.

The data is pretty clear on this. When experiencers enter that other dimension (whatever it is, or isn't) they see people they know are dead, long since dead in many cases. When they also see someone who may just have died there is often great surprise to see them amongst the people they knew were dead.

There's no confusion here. Why are you trying to muddy the water ?

It's not reasonable at all. What you've written is mischievous gobbledegook !

Max said >"It’s possible to argue that some of these instances of seeing people not known to have died, would have been counted as seeing people who were alive, but that because they have subsequently died without the experients knowledge, this has given these persons presence in the experience, an elevated significance, which they may not deserve."

Basically what your intimating, is that there's nothing special at all about experiencers seeing somebody in the afterlife/other dimension who they didn't know was dead, therefore equating it with the same level of (no) importance as seeing someone (in the other dimension) who is still alive.

The data is pretty clear on this. When experiencers enter that other dimension (whatever it is, or isn't) they see people they know are dead, long since dead in many cases. When they also see someone who may just have died there is often great surprise to see them amongst the people they knew were dead.

There's no confusion here. Why are you trying to muddy the water ?

During NDE's, experients also see persons who are still alive... so I have absolutely no clue why you are protesting... we don't know why experients see persons who are dead, or alive, or indeed strangers, who they can't identify at all.

My best guess at present is they are experiences generated from information which is mixed up with third parties... as I wrote in 2014 on SF...

-------------------quote----------------------
One of my speculations is perhaps the later parts of the NDE (as well as the OBE) might sometimes be partially a result of local external fields (electro/magnetic etc.) affecting some as yet undiscovered low-energy field-based reading mechanism in the brain (a candidate might be a microtubule structure, like a cell centriole). This could potentially offer a small window of opportunity, between the failure of high energy consuming neuronal firing, and the failure of this other undiscovered mechanism.

As an example, I've always been interested in the last 10 lines of Larry_P’s experience on NDERF, where Larry bumps into his surgeon Dr. X again at a wine and cheese event.

“…I found myself chatting with the physician, Dr. X, the brilliant surgeon who performed the operation on my leg. It was only a short time before that operation that equipment and techniques were available to successfully save the leg and he was one of the few who could do it. As we picked our way amongst the cheeses, crackers, and pickles, he took me aback by saying:
“By the way, did you experience a near death experience during the operation?” Startled, I replied,
“Yes, as a matter of fact, I did.”
“And did you feel you were in control?” he inquired.
“Yes” I said, and briefly explained my white light experience and my choice to return.
“Interesting” he explained, “Because I believed I was in control and I wasn’t going to let you go!”…”

My interest in Larry's comment was in what is going through the mind of staff who are resuscitating patients?

Penny Sartori mentioned to me that earlier in her career…

“…whenever I participated in a resuscitation, especially when doing CPR, I used to say out loud and in my mind things like ‘Come on, come back to us’…”

I found that an interesting comment, considering how we sometimes hear something similar from Near Death Experients.

So one idea I've had on the back-burner for some time is that the conscious fields of those third parties who might be fighting for the patients life (medical staff or, perhaps loved ones) who don’t want to lose the patient, might include field patterns that incorporate concepts of ‘loss’. They might spontaneously think of similar situations, and think about the ‘deceased’ whom they have lost in the past, or those that they love, and fear to lose. Whilst at the same time, they might also incorporate thoughts which are willing the patient to ‘..come back to us..’.

I've speculated that these field patterns might interact with the patients dysfunctional brain, creating imagery which attempts to interpret these same concepts contained within the field patterns. These patterns might be those of ‘loss’, of the ‘deceased’, combined with messages of ‘wanting you to come back to them’. Which might mean the experient sees imagery which is more relevant to them (people who the experient has lost), and which might evoke similar feelings to those which are in the minds of the attending medical staff.

At other times, perhaps some medical staff’s thoughts are along the lines of… “...we’ve done everything we can, its up to the patient now, if they want to come back, they are going to have to fight...”. Perhaps these thoughts are interpreted within the patients brain as them being given a ‘choice to return, or not’

It's also worthwhile considering what might go through the minds of medical staff (or perhaps loved ones), when monitoring equipment begins to show that the patient is beginning to respond to treatment. Or, perhaps the thoughts of loved ones, when they see the experient responding? To me it is plausible to suggest those wanting to save the patient might breath a sigh of relief. Perhaps thinking thoughts like '...phew we've got them back...’, and/or thoughts of ‘...ah he/she’s not going anywhere, they are not leaving us yet...’ perhaps interpreted by the patient as ‘...it’s not your time...’ and ‘...you have to go back...’ etc.

Obviously I can't answer your original question, I can only speculate, but Penny's comment above might be relevant, and I've also considered that compatibility of Cortical Minicolumn Spacing (from Manual Casanova's studies), between external third party field patterns, and the patients own neural micro-structures might also play a role in why only some people recall an NDE.

Anyway, I find it interesting to put yourself in the mind of the attending third parties (or loved ones), when considering the later parts of the NDE, although I realise these ideas might not be welcomed by many people.

-------------------endquote----------------------

Max said >"During NDE's, experients also see persons who are still alive... so I have absolutely no clue why you are protesting... we don't know why experients see persons who are dead, or alive, or indeed strangers, who they can't identify at all."

The vast majority of the people seen during NDE's are dead. Fact. Are you referring to NDE's like the one in Peter Fenwick's book, Fabio, the boyfriend seen at the earthly end of the tunnel ? Give me an example from a reliable case that's been properly investigated.   

In my opinion, you're simply cherry picking anomalous cases to support your theory. People report NDE's using their memory. There are always going to be slight anomalies but we don't make a judgement of the validity of something based on those; we look at the data as a whole which is pretty clear.

Max said >"During NDE's, experients also see persons who are still alive... so I have absolutely no clue why you are protesting... we don't know why experients see persons who are dead, or alive, or indeed strangers, who they can't identify at all."

The vast majority of the people seen during NDE's are dead. Fact. Are you referring to NDE's like the one in Peter Fenwick's book, Fabio, the boyfriend seen at the earthly end of the tunnel ? Give me an example from a reliable case that's been properly investigated.   

In my opinion, you're simply cherry picking anomalous cases to support your theory. People report NDE's using their memory. There are always going to be slight anomalies but we don't make a judgement of the validity of something based on those; we look at the data as a whole which is pretty clear.

Best recounted by the person themselves...

Part 1 of Ben Breedlove's video



Part 2 of Ben Breedlove's video



Ben died 6 days later on the evening of Christmas day... RIP Ben

Yes I remember that well, Max. Very moving. I think I remember discussing it on Penny's blog with you, years ago.
Ben see's his favourite (alive) rapper during his experience.

This (admittedly) does seem to occur with some youngsters and more so with children who sometimes report pets that are still alive etc. For me it's still an anomaly. You can't simply ignore that the vast majority do not see people that are alive. I think we could also bring Elvis in here and UFO's too.

I get why you would use this NDE to support your case but you'd still only be (partially) cherry picking because Ben said he believed in angels and God (you don't).  And if "god" was involved, then my guess would be that "god" put the rapper (King Cudi) there so that Ben would be comforted. But we're never going to know.

Another point to bear in mind is, that one of the commonest messages/instructions (maybe the commonest) reported by NDEr's is.. go back, it's not your time ! I don't think there can be any doubt that. 

Implicit in that, is that everyone has a time to die. And that in itself validates the overwhelming majority consensus of the data.

Yes I remember that well, Max. Very moving. I think I remember discussing it on Penny's blog with you, years ago.
Ben see's his favourite (alive) rapper during his experience.

This (admittedly) does seem to occur with some youngsters and more so with children who sometimes report pets that are still alive etc. For me it's still an anomaly. You can't simply ignore that the vast majority do not see people that are alive. I think we could also bring Elvis in here and UFO's too.

I get why you would use this NDE to support your case but you'd still only be (partially) cherry picking because Ben said he believed in angels and God (you don't).  And if "god" was involved, then my guess would be that "god" put the rapper (King Cudi) there so that Ben would be comforted. But we're never going to know.

Another point to bear in mind is, that one of the commonest messages/instructions (maybe the commonest) reported by NDEr's is.. go back, it's not your time ! I don't think there can be any doubt that. 

Implicit in that, is that everyone has a time to die. And that in itself validates the overwhelming majority consensus of the data.

I don't agree with much of that, and certainly not the last part...

I don't agree with much of that, and certainly not the last part...

Okay but it's not really about agreement either by you or me. It's about the data/facts, Max.