A good NDE is a self-reported NDE

In a recent presentation on NDEs by prominent NDE researcher Sam Parnia, all conclusions were drawn from an NDERF dataset of self-reported NDEs.

The NDEs from NDERF are all NDEs that have been uploaded by people self reporting their NDEs.
Presumably the 100 exceptional NDEs were selected on the basis of their outstanding content. However, these criteria seem subjective at first glance.
After all this time, why have only 43 been looked at? Parnia said that there would be an acceleration now?

Source:
https://awareofaware.co/2024/12/07/see-n...r-no-evil/

So, after 25 years of searching high and low, he still doesn’t have his own dataset of sufficiently 'spectacular' NDEs to draw conclusions from.

In a recent presentation on NDEs by prominent NDE researcher Sam Parnia, all conclusions were drawn from an NDERF dataset of self-reported NDEs.

Source:
https://awareofaware.co/2024/12/07/see-n...r-no-evil/

So, after 25 years of searching high and low, he still doesn’t have his own dataset of sufficiently 'spectacular' NDEs to draw conclusions from.

The NDE's they used were experiences that Jeff Long personally selected as exceptional.

I've lost my taste for NDERF... due to too much bias from Jeff Long about what is published... more recently an experience that I found really important... Larry P... had been removed, and replaced with a severely edited version...

Original NDERF experience on waybackmachine:

http://web.archive.org/web/2012042823320..._p_nde.htm


Current NDERF experience:

https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1larry_p_nde.html

In a recent presentation on NDEs by prominent NDE researcher Sam Parnia, all conclusions were drawn from an NDERF dataset of self-reported NDEs.

Source:
https://awareofaware.co/2024/12/07/see-n...r-no-evil/

So, after 25 years of searching high and low, he still doesn’t have his own dataset of sufficiently 'spectacular' NDEs to draw conclusions from.

If it is true as the linked to blogger claims, that Parnia's latest YouTube video presentation of the state of NDE research uses and presents a selected subset of Jeff Long's compilation from his NDRF website (which are apparently entirely self-reported cases sent in to the website with no independent detailed investigation revealing veridical details), then this looks like a serious mistake if Parnia really wants to advance his case. Using only self-reported cases plays right into the hands of the materialist neuroscience skeptics. He would have been far better off to have used some of the best cases from The Self Does Not Die, whose cases are far from being merely self-reported, but instead have all been independently investigated and found to reveal important veridical evidence. 

I think that the Self Does Not Die compilation for the most part doesn't meet Parnia's strict scientific standards (which are almost unacheivable for various reasons having to do with the basic nature of the phenomenon), but it still is far more credible than a compilation of uninvestigated cases sometimes anonymously sent in to a website. 

Why did he do this? It's beyond me. Of course, he may for his own reasons have high confidence in the validity and truth of the Jeff Long-selected NDERF data subset, but still, it looks like a bad move.

I am not seeing the issue with Parnia noting the qualitative collection of NDEs from NDERF. Seems to me that's just taking reports seriously enough to merit further investigation, rather than being outright proof that NDEs are real b/c someone on the internet said so.

Far more interesting a charge is that he is dismissing Hellish NDEs as IMO not enough focus has been on those, or on weirder NDEs.

Sushan has looked through NDEs across history, and notes there are worthy commonalities. He's also noted times when an NDE can actually change religious practices rather than being aligned with what came before in that community. That to me is a stronger data point that drawing from NDERF.

For myself I think NDEs suggest Survival, but I don't think they can tell us what Survival is definitively like. I also don't know if we go - or come from - the same pre/after-life spaces. That is where I would say Parnia errs in trying to give a conclusive account, though this is a problem that a lot of people in Survival research seem unwilling to accept...possibly because it feels like something out of Dungeons and Dragons to posit different planes of existence for different souls....

Why did he do this? It's beyond me. Of course, he may for his own reasons have high confidence in the validity and truth of the Jeff Long-selected NDERF data subset, but still, it looks like a bad move.

Seems like he is using them as a way to talk about the nature of NDEs.

That's different to me than saying NDEs are proof of Survival based on self-reported submissions to a website.

To be honest I feel like the complaint [about using NDERF at all] isn't a big deal if we're [not using it for] hard proof. Parnia has his own report about a patient's NDE after all...but a bigger issue is the ignoring of weird and Hellish NDEs.

Parnia isn't alone in that when it comes to Survival, a lot of people seem to think there has to be a singular afterlife destination and the data has to ultimately show that. Yet to me it is important to divide confidence in Survival and confidence in where one ends up in an afterlife.

OTOH I get that if you want to get research funding you don't want to sound like you're suggesting something from comic books and role playing games, especially if it means some rich people end up in a boring or awful afterlife. And saying there are varied planes of existence whose natures are quite varied is probably more troubling than the idea Earth is a learning experience or whatever.

In a recent presentation on NDEs by prominent NDE researcher Sam Parnia, all conclusions were drawn from an NDERF dataset of self-reported NDEs.

Source:
https://awareofaware.co/2024/12/07/see-n...r-no-evil/

So, after 25 years of searching high and low, he still doesn’t have his own dataset of sufficiently 'spectacular' NDEs to draw conclusions from.

Did you watch the presentation? I just went through it, and he's looking for themes and commonalities.

He even noted he had his own research but in the search for potential insights he looked at the NDERF database.

It's also emphasized these are self-reports.

The only concern I can see as being serious is if Parnia excludes Weird or Hellish NDEs, though even so I do think there is something to his argument that Hellish aspects may be born from hospital delusion or frightful partial memories of hospital staff using invasive procedures to save someone's life.

Unconvinced there are no Hells, but it is an interesting hypothesis.

Did you watch the presentation? I just went through it, and he's looking for themes and commonalities.

He even noted he had his own research but in the search for potential insights he looked at the NDERF database.

It's also emphasized these are self-reports.

The only concern I can see as being serious is if Parnia excludes Weird or Hellish NDEs, though even so I do think there is something to his argument that Hellish aspects may be born from hospital delusion or frightful partial memories of hospital staff using invasive procedures to save someone's life.

Unconvinced there are no Hells, but it is an interesting hypothesis.

The only conclusion I’m drawing is that a resuscitation specialist—someone who resuscitates people in hospitals daily and has spent their entire career searching for NDEs—has not been able to compile his own database of 43 “spectacular” accounts to extract themes and commonalities. This suggests that such spectacular NDEs in cardiac arrest settings are exceedingly rare, likely occurring with decades between them.

While NDERF has some merits as a hypothesis-generating tool, it should not be used as a basis for firm conclusions. I was in contact with Jeffrey Long’s wife over 20 years ago when they were looking for someone to translate a Danish NDE account into English. If they allowed random internet contributors like me to add to their database, it’s inevitable that it would contain numerous errors, exaggerations, and other inaccuracies.

The only conclusion I’m drawing is that a resuscitation specialist—someone who resuscitates people in hospitals daily and has spent their entire career searching for NDEs—has not been able to compile his own database of 43 “spectacular” accounts to extract themes and commonalities. This suggests that such spectacular NDEs in cardiac arrest settings are exceedingly rare, likely occurring with decades between them.

While NDERF has some merits as a hypothesis-generating tool, it should not be used as a basis for firm conclusions. I was in contact with Jeffrey Long’s wife over 20 years ago when they were looking for someone to translate a Danish NDE account into English. If they allowed random internet contributors like me to add to their database, it’s inevitable that it would contain numerous errors, exaggerations, and other inaccuracies.

So you didn’t watch the presentation?

So, after 25 years of searching high and low, he still doesn’t have his own dataset of sufficiently 'spectacular' NDEs to draw conclusions from.

You seem not to realise that the criteria to accept NDE evidence has become ever more strict over the years. This means that people like Sam Parnia are forever chasing their tails.

Since in many situations, patients have their eyes taped shut while being resuscitated, it is simply crazy to ignore the fact that many of those patients report what was going on around them from the vantage point of the ceiling!

The requirement that people should notice and report on images on top of shelves in the places where patients are resuscitated, is just too extreme. I mean, as he points out, many cardiac arrests happen on the wards.

When you collect data from living beings, you have to make compromises. For example, creatures that are ringed or fitted with tracking collars can't be EXACTLY like wild creatures both because of the weight of the equipment and the physical shock of being caught and tampered with.

David

You seem not to realise that the criteria to accept NDE evidence has become ever more strict over the years. This means that people like Sam Parnia are forever chasing their tails.

Since in many situations, patients have their eyes taped shut while being resuscitated, it is simply crazy to ignore the fact that many of those patients report what was going on around them from the vantage point of the ceiling!

The requirement that people should notice and report on images on top of shelves in the places where patients are resuscitated, is just too extreme. I mean, as he points out, many cardiac arrests happen on the wards.

When you collect data from living beings, you have to make compromises. For example, creatures that are ringed or fitted with tracking collars can't be EXACTLY like wild creatures both because of the weight of the equipment and the physical shock of being caught and tampered with.

David

Did you watch the presentation Parnia - along with his assistant/student[?] - gave?

I feel like he makes it pretty clear he has his own research, and plans to investigate the phenomena further in the patient-hospital setting.

AFAICTell he isn't looking to NDERF for proof of NDEs or taking any web-submitted stories of veridical accounts as established fact.

Note this is hardly the only research that has utilized internet reports, IIRC certain policies related to teenage/adolescent mental health have been partly based on internet submissions.