Are NDEs merely hallucinations?

It's not that the case is so good only pseudoskeptics would deny it, my issue is with the idea that we should only focus on cases that would convince a group that is full in for the materialist faith.
My point is that fanatics totally against anything "supernatural" aren't going to be convinced by even the best cases. Everyone in Aware could see the stickers and people will find some way to excuse it. They'll run their own studies and show they got minimal results.
As I've said a few times before, this case or even the collective of cases is not the same as scientific replication. Why I distinguish between a legal vs scientific standard.
Nevertheless, recording these events retrospectively still has merit for the sake of public awareness + keeping the very conversation that pseudoskeptics want to kill off alive.
Should more be done to try and get good results in studies? Definitely, there has to be work done to move the needle beyond the usual conversations. But that, IMO, is going to take years of work in multiple fields to shift things and as such there's still a place for retrospective case studies.
As for the confabulation of memories...we have to believe that upon seeing the video all the HCP had their memories altered to such a significant degree their own feelings of surprise are part of that alteration. That's a very large assumption IMO. I could better understand the claim Arnold is lying or embellishing what they saw.
Regarding the nurse. I'm a bit unclear here on what the complaint is. Arnold notes that there was a nurse who was a brunette, and this is  confirmed later. Is there some issue with that?

>My point is that fanatics totally against anything "supernatural" aren't going to be convinced by even the best cases. Everyone in Aware could see the stickers and people will find some way to excuse it. They'll run their own studies and show they got minimal results.

I'm not sure this is true. Some debunker psychos would continue to deny, yes. But consider what happened when USG officials suggested there's a real possibility that UFOs aren't mundane. Even certain adherents of the denier faith issued "mea culpas" &c. I believe there's a large share of unpersuaded people who aren't just rigid ideologues--they simply need better evidence.

>I could better understand the claim Arnold is lying or embellishing what they saw.

Embellishment by Arnold and memory contamination from her approach to investigation aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. My point is not to say, "CLEARLY there WAS memory contamination," or "CLEARLY there WAS embellishment." My point is to say that GOOD investigations are done in such a way as to AVOID making such things possible problems. It's by avoiding these possible problems that we get out of the repetitive back-and-forth with debunkers and skeptics. As long as these possibilities are IN PLAY, researchers are screwing up, and they're being ridiculous in holding up cases with these vulnerabilities as GREAT EVIDENCE.

>Arnold notes that there was a nurse who was a brunette, and this is  confirmed later

We have her claim it was confirmed, which is very hazy on details, and doesn't include the nurse's name. Her failure to record the nurse's name belies Rivas et al.'s approval of her record keeping as "meticulous." And again, the section in Rivas et al.'s book where that appears is supposed to be giving us "corroborations." In this instance, Arnold is "corroborating" herself. True corroboration would involve a statement taken directly from someone OTHER THAN Arnold by an independent investigator, supporting Arnold's claim.

>My point is that fanatics totally against anything "supernatural" aren't going to be convinced by even the best cases. Everyone in Aware could see the stickers and people will find some way to excuse it. They'll run their own studies and show they got minimal results.

I'm not sure this is true. Some debunker psychos would continue to deny, yes. But consider what happened when USG officials suggested there's a real possibility that UFOs aren't mundane. Even certain adherents of the denier faith issued "mea culpas" &c. I believe there's a large share of unpersuaded people who aren't just rigid ideologues--they simply need better evidence.

>I could better understand the claim Arnold is lying or embellishing what they saw.

Embellishment by Arnold and memory contamination from her approach to investigation aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. My point is not to say, "CLEARLY there WAS memory contamination," or "CLEARLY there WAS embellishment." My point is to say that GOOD investigations are done in such a way as to AVOID making such things possible problems. It's by avoiding these possible problems that we get out of the repetitive back-and-forth with debunkers and skeptics. As long as these possibilities are IN PLAY, researchers are screwing up, and they're being ridiculous in holding up cases with these vulnerabilities as GREAT EVIDENCE.

>Arnold notes that there was a nurse who was a brunette, and this is  confirmed later

We have her claim it was confirmed, which is very hazy on details, and doesn't include the nurse's name. Her failure to record the nurse's name belies Rivas et al.'s approval of her record keeping as "meticulous." And again, the section in Rivas et al.'s book where that appears is supposed to be giving us "corroborations." In this instance, Arnold is "corroborating" herself. True corroboration would involve a statement taken directly from someone OTHER THAN Arnold by an independent investigator, supporting Arnold's claim.

Oh there are definitely people who want more conclusive evidence but maintain an open mind. But these people, if they are genuinely seeking the truth of Survival, should recognize the[re] are enough retrospective cases that we need deeper study.

Pseudoskeptics instead give us excuses on why what is obviously, at this point, a credible phenomenon of interest can be dismissed as we just wait faithfully for Materialist/Physicalism to [be] confirm[ed].

It's not 100% clear to me how different the investigation would be if done to eliminate doubt. Do we just maintain that if the health care personnel (HCP) don't mention the things Arnold mentions the case is debunked? Because there are details like Arnold recalling two crash carts which one HCP doubts until another checks up and does confirm this happened.

Also this conversation with Grace Lim:

In the last five minutes of the call, she explained to me that what happened to me was not what she would describe as a seizure, but more of a gagging, like dry heaving. I decided to show her the tape of the moment I “seized.” When she saw it, this straight-faced doctor’s look changed. Her lips started to purse, tears welled up in her eyes, and she began to look a little uncomfortable. When the code moment had passed, I turned off the video and asked, “Did it look like that?” She answered, “It looked exactly like that.”

Arnold, Stephanie; Padorr, Sari. 37 Seconds: Dying Revealed Heaven's Help (p. 154). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

How does this get corroborated without the video?

As for the brunette nurse, in the Mays & Mays report she's mentioned as someone who pushes the code button. This is then confirmed by Anesthesiologist Nicole Higgins. It just isn't that clear to me why the nurse's name matters. I guess we could get another witness to the case in the follow up but there are already multiple HCP confirmations?

There seems to be plenty of time and opportunity for the staff to speak up on whether Arnold is being deceptive (intentionally or unintentionally).

Now I do think Mays & Mays should release their unpublished video recordings and get these confirmations on video as well. So I agree this part is lax.

The other issue is the HCP testimonies seem to come partially from Arnold's book and partially from her Bigelow Essay. But it's not even clear she submitted the essay as I am having trouble finding it. This should be corrected, if @Titus Rivas sees this.

What helps with the essay is it was written years after the incident, so if the medical staff were re-contacted and re-confirmed things that is incredibly useful to know. Especially if it was submitted with the knowledge someone could easily double check the claims by contacting the listed staff.

All to say I don't [believe] the case is irrefutable evidence, but neither do I see it as a case of terrible investigation.

edit: Ah looks like the case came up in Netflix's Surviving Death, will watch and post about it. @RViewer88 @nbtruthman

edit: Ah looks like the case came up in Netflix's Surviving Death, will watch and post about it. @RViewer88 @nbtruthman

Very short, with only Dr. Attending OB-GYN Julie Levitt interviewed.

Unfortunately nothing new.

Oh there are definitely people who want more conclusive evidence but maintain an open mind. But these people, if they are genuinely seeking the truth of Survival, should recognize the are enough retrospective cases that we need deeper study.

Pseudoskeptics instead give us excuses on why what is obviously, at this point, a credible phenomenon of interest can be dismissed as we just wait faithfully for Materialist/Physicalism to [be] confirm[ed].

It's not 100% clear to me how different the investigation would be if done to eliminate doubt. Do we just maintain that if the health care personnel (HCP) don't mention the things Arnold mentions the case is debunked? Because there are details like Arnold recalling two crash carts which one HCP doubts until another checks up and does confirm this happened.

Also this conversation with Grace Lim:


How does this get corroborated without the video?

As for the brunette nurse, in the Mays & Mays report she's mentioned as someone who pushes the code button. This is then confirmed by Anesthesiologist Nicole Higgins. It just isn't that clear to me why the nurse's name matters. I guess we could get another witness to the case in the follow up but there are already multiple HCP confirmations?

There seems to be plenty of time and opportunity for the staff to speak up on whether Arnold is being deceptive (intentionally or unintentionally).

Now I do think Mays & Mays should release their unpublished video recordings and get these confirmations on video as well. So I agree this part is lax.

The other issue is the HCP testimonies seem to come partially from Arnold's book and partially from her Bigelow Essay. But it's not even clear she submitted the essay as I am having trouble finding it. This should be corrected, if @Titus Rivas sees this.

What helps with the essay is it was written years after the incident, so if the medical staff were re-contacted and re-confirmed things that is incredibly useful to know. Especially if it was submitted with the knowledge someone could easily double check the claims by contacting the listed staff.

All to say I don't [believe] the case is irrefutable evidence, but neither do I see it as a case of terrible investigation.

>It's not 100% clear to me how different the investigation would be if done to eliminate doubt.

Limiting reasonable doubt as much as possible requires a prospective design. This is one of the reasons retrospective data shouldn't be oversold. And I think that if the key investigator of a case is a non-neutral party through whom most of the important claims are filtered, it makes little sense to treat that case as evidentially strong in a scientific context, even among retrospective cases.

>Pseudoskeptics instead give us excuses on why what is obviously, at this point, a credible phenomenon of interest can be dismissed as we just wait faithfully for Materialist/Physicalism to [be] confirm[ed].

I agree on this completely, and I find the true believers in "What Mainstream Science Says Right Now Is The Definitive Truth About Reality" to be maddening and insufferable.

I will stress that nothing I've said amounts to a "debunking" of the Arnold case. Anyone who thinks the vulnerabilities I've pointed to "debunk" a case, all by themselves, is a fool. The point is that they render the case ambiguous, and this late in the day, so to speak, NDE researchers should be aware of those problems and avoid them. If in a given case such problems are unavoidable--which is true here because Arnold had done her own investigation before any independent researchers knew about it, as far as I can tell--it shouldn't be held up as offering great evidence.

>It's not 100% clear to me how different the investigation would be if done to eliminate doubt. Do we just maintain that if the health care personnel (HCP) don't mention the things Arnold mentions the case is debunked? Because there are details like Arnold recalling two crash carts which one HCP doubts until another checks up and does confirm this happened.

In the cases I take the most seriously, the NDEr's testimony is corroborated by the report of the surgery or whatever other medical procedure(s) was done. It's best when there is some hard documentation that's independent of any statements that were solicited because an NDE occurred, but instead was produced as part of the medical work itself. IIRC, and I might not because I think it's been 10+ years since I really went through the case, Michael Sabom was able to corroborate many of Pam Reynolds' claimed NDE perceptions by checking her surgical report himself after he recorded her testimony.

>This is then confirmed by Anesthesiologist Nicole Higgins.

It seems we just don't agree on this. Having Arnold say what Higgins told her is not confirmation from Higgins. It's a second-hand report alleging Higgins' confirmation. Confirmation from Higgins would require a statement from her to investigators, or on camera, or in writing, &c.

>It just isn't that clear to me why the nurse's name matters.

It matters because (1) a good investigation would have tracked her down and interviewed her, or at least made a serious effort to do so--it wouldn't have been content with second and third-hand reports about what she did; (2) it calls into question Rivas et al.'s judgment--how can they say Arnold's study of her own case was "meticulous" when she was too careless to record this detail after it was told to her, allegedly, on two separate occasions?

>There seems to be plenty of time and opportunity for the staff to speak up on whether Arnold is being deceptive (intentionally or unintentionally).

I don't think these kinds of arguments from silence are compelling. They assume too much about people's interests, motivations, &c.

>It's not 100% clear to me how different the investigation would be if done to eliminate doubt.

Limiting reasonable doubt as much as possible requires a prospective design. This is one of the reasons retrospective data shouldn't be oversold. And I think that if the key investigator of a case is a non-neutral party through whom most of the important claims are filtered, it makes little sense to treat that case as evidentially strong in a scientific context, even among retrospective cases.

>Pseudoskeptics instead give us excuses on why what is obviously, at this point, a credible phenomenon of interest can be dismissed as we just wait faithfully for Materialist/Physicalism to [be] confirm[ed].

I agree on this completely, and I find the true believers in "What Mainstream Science Says Right Now Is The Definitive Truth About Reality" to be maddening and insufferable.

I will stress that nothing I've said amounts to a "debunking" of the Arnold case. Anyone who thinks the vulnerabilities I've pointed to "debunk" a case, all by themselves, is a fool. The point is that they render the case ambiguous, and this late in the day, so to speak, NDE researchers should be aware of those problems and avoid them. If in a given case such problems are unavoidable--which is true here because Arnold had done her own investigation before any independent researchers knew about it, as far as I can tell--it shouldn't be held up as offering great evidence.

>It's not 100% clear to me how different the investigation would be if done to eliminate doubt. Do we just maintain that if the health care personnel (HCP) don't mention the things Arnold mentions the case is debunked? Because there are details like Arnold recalling two crash carts which one HCP doubts until another checks up and does confirm this happened.

In the cases I take the most seriously, the NDEr's testimony is corroborated by the report of the surgery or whatever other medical procedure(s) was done. It's best when there is some hard documentation that's independent of any statements that were solicited because an NDE occurred, but instead was produced as part of the medical work itself. IIRC, and I might not because I think it's been 10+ years since I really went through the case, Michael Sabom was able to corroborate many of Pam Reynolds' claimed NDE perceptions by checking her surgical report himself after he recorded her testimony.

>This is then confirmed by Anesthesiologist Nicole Higgins.

It seems we just don't agree on this. Having Arnold say what Higgins told her is not confirmation from Higgins. It's a second-hand report alleging Higgins' confirmation. Confirmation from Higgins would require a statement from her to investigators, or on camera, or in writing, &c.

>It just isn't that clear to me why the nurse's name matters.

It matters because (1) a good investigation would have tracked her down and interviewed her, or at least made a serious effort to do so--it wouldn't have been content with second and third-hand reports about what she did; (2) it calls into question Rivas et al.'s judgment--how can they say Arnold's study of her own case was "meticulous" when she was too careless to record this detail after it was told to her, allegedly, on two separate occasions?

>There seems to be plenty of time and opportunity for the staff to speak up on whether Arnold is being deceptive (intentionally or unintentionally).

I don't think these kinds of arguments from silence are compelling. They assume too much about people's interests, motivations, &c.

I agree there's too much ambiguity to the case, and at the very least Mays & Mays could have tried harder to get confirmations.

I just think this is a complicated case, because we have a hypnotic regression that is then the source of information that has to be corroborated. And this regression wouldn't have happened if the patient hadn't taken it upon herself to try and deal with post-partum trauma.

Regarding the nurse, among other details, I agree having confirmations from a medical report would be better than simply having testimony relayed to Arnold. For me the nurse pushing the code button seems like a relatively minor detail either way, so it doesn't really bother me Arnold didn't recall her name for the Mays & Mays interview.

And yeah, the silence of the HCPs testifying can be read in different ways [though I have trouble believing they all just let Arnold misrepresent them]. Perhaps there's something we're not seeing but I agree the Self Does Not Die authors should have tried to corroborate the testimony directly. Of course if these same HCP did provide testimonies that - as written in Self Does Not Die - are not in Arnold's 2015 book but in the 2021 Bigelow essay it would help the case.

Now if the 2021 Bigelow essay's testimonies from HCPs are mere summaries then it makes the case a lot weaker than if they are newly produced quotes. [Actually I think we could justifiably accuse Arnold of lying at that point.]

I don't think our opinions are *that* different, I'm just a bit more tolerant for the strange way this case played out I suppose?

edit: I should note this particular testimonial is partly in the Netflix doc ->

Attending OB-GYN Julie Levitt: When I saw her regression therapy I was really blown away because there was no way that she would’ve been able to know what we were doing and see what we were doing in her condition. (Arnold, 2021, p. 32). Stephanie and I met to talk about what had happened that day. I almost couldn’t breathe. There was absolutely no way that she was aware of who was standing to her left, who was standing to her right, what I said, what other people said in the operating room. It makes me believe in more than just what we know as art and science. My medical mind turns more to a spiritual place which I don’t think I was ever really aware of in the past. It was a very real lesson that day. (Stern & Sweet, 2021, starting at 34:54).

I agree there's too much ambiguity to the case, and at the very least Mays & Mays could have tried harder to get confirmations.

I just think this is a complicated case, because we have a hypnotic regression that is then the source of information that has to be corroborated. And this regression wouldn't have happened if the patient hadn't taken it upon herself to try and deal with post-partum trauma.

Regarding the nurse, among other details, I agree having confirmations from a medical report would be better than simply having testimony relayed to Arnold. For me the nurse pushing the code button seems like a relatively minor detail either way, so it doesn't really bother me Arnold didn't recall her name for the Mays & Mays interview.

And yeah, the silence of the HCPs testifying can be read in different ways [though I have trouble believing they all just let Arnold misrepresent them]. Perhaps there's something we're not seeing but I agree the Self Does Not Die authors should have tried to corroborate the testimony directly. Of course if these same HCP did provide testimonies that - as written in Self Does Not Die - are not in Arnold's 2015 book but in the 2021 Bigelow essay it would help the case.

Now if the 2021 Bigelow essay's testimonies from HCPs are mere summaries then it makes the case a lot weaker than if they are newly produced quotes. [Actually I think we could justifiably accuse Arnold of lying at that point.]

I don't think our opinions are *that* different, I'm just a bit more tolerant for the strange way this case played out I suppose?

edit: I should note this particular testimonial is partly in the Netflix doc ->

I agree that our views on this don't seem that dissimilar.

>For me the nurse pushing the code button seems like a relatively minor detail either way

I've harped on it because it's highlighted as a notable veridical detail by Rivas et al. in a "meticulously" documented case.

I agree that our views on this don't seem that dissimilar.

>For me the nurse pushing the code button seems like a relatively minor detail either way

I've harped on it because it's highlighted as a notable veridical detail by Rivas et al. in a "meticulously" documented case.

I emailed Arnold asking for a copy of her Bigelow submission.

We'll see what comes of it.

I actually do think the case was, overall, well recorded. There do need to be some additional materials to strengthen it, like the unpublished documents and ideally some overview of medical records.

It is good that that Dr. Levitt reaffirms the claims that something paranormal happened in the Netlfix series as it shows her support that the NDE with OOBE occurred hasn't faltered in the intervening years. 

It's a bit weird to me the series didn't take the time to dig deeper into NDEs and buttress the cases they covered. How great would it have been to show us at least the testimonies of the staff referenced in the Bigelow essay submission along with some corroborations from medical reports.

On the whole though I do like the continued, growing acceptance toward sharing paranormal experiences. Just as left-handed persons and homosexuals are more willing to come forward as prejudice against them decreases, I believe these cases can lead to more people revealing their paranormal experiences.

Only when the stigma is gone can we hope to grasp whatever the Truth is....

@Sciborg_S_Patel Good idea. It would be a welcome development if it turned out that the documentation for this case is better than it looks from what's currently available.

I emailed Arnold asking for a copy of her Bigelow submission.

We'll see what comes of it.

So what came of it?

So what came of it?

No reply. Here's her contact page though, maybe others will have better luck?

OTOH it might seem suspicious if everyone starts asking for it all at once, given it's only been a week?