Consciousness during CPR

Where are you guys getting 4,500 events from? I'm seeing 465 in the abstract. Am I missing something?

Merry Christmas to you too, sbu!

I did the error of picking the number from Tim’s post without fact-checking myself. In the Aware 1 study Parnia reports 9 NDEs from 2060 events. Only 2 NDEs are described as deep.

Anyway I think it’s positive they are resurrecting the COOL study as research into NDEs is progressing quite (too) slow. I think the Aware studies are unlikely to produce any new results due to the difficult circumstances of the patients involved.

[Laird]

Anyway I think it’s positive they are resurrecting the COOL study as research into NDEs is progressing quite (too) slow.

This one?

http://www.horizonresearch.org/research-...ool-study/

I can't remember it having been discussed on this forum already but that might just be a failure of memory.

Looks promising.

Yes 4 NDEs from 4500 events. It clearly indicates a disconnect from self-reported NDEs. Especially because the survival rate in the out-of-hospital setting in significantly below the in-hospital. I’m afraid it implies that e.g most of Jeffrey Long’s reports are simply garbage.

Merry christmas to everyone and thank you for taking your time to debate. It’s very much appreciated.

Sbu said > "It clearly indicates a disconnect from self-reported NDEs."

It doesn't though, with respect SBU. Certainly not (self reported veridical) OBE/NDE's that have been independently verified. All it actually shows is that Parnia hasn't got the resources (certainly not the staff anyway) to get to the arrests in hospital.

And even when he's had the personnel to attend the arrests (attended 465=recruited) only 36% (168) of those made it to discharge so that they could be potentially interviewed (they can't be forced to, of course). And of those 70% died anyway, leaving just 44 to be potentially interviewed.

Less than half of those were interviewed (21). That is the amount (so far) of 'sample' from which he could derive potential NDE data out of 4500 initially which is ridiculous. But it is what it is, it's no ones fault.

Of those that were interviewed, 4 had NDE's. That's just less than 20% which is about the figure Pim Van Lommel found (his amount was 18%) 

The reason why studies such as Michael Sabom's produced many more OBE/NDE's (I think he found 40%) is not because they made them up, it was because Sabom had access to all the patients that had already survived clinical death and lived to tell the tale.

Personally, as I've said (sorry to labour the point) but I think it's quite remarkable that those that had NDE's were transformed (according to Parnia's poster). Why would only  the patients that had NDE's be transformed by almost being annihilated ? It doesn't make sense. They must have seen things that deeply affected their understanding of what death actually is...a transformation rather than an ending.

Happy Christmas, Sbu !

This one?

http://www.horizonresearch.org/research-...ool-study/

I can't remember it having been discussed on this forum already but that might just be a failure of memory.

Looks promising.

It does indeed look promising, Laird. And he's also doing other studies on children who survive close encounters with death in the paediatric wards of his and other hospitals (or associated hospitals).

Could this explain near desth experiences?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6042660/

The old myth about zero bloodflow in the brain and flat eeg is effectively debunked now.

I just wanted to comment that it’s kinda freaky to witness this first hand.

Linda

The problem is that this phenomena is yet to be reported in the best quality of evidence studies. Parnia recently submitted this abstract: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/...uppl_2.387

Zero veridical perception. The phenomena must be extremely rare. I think this implies a risk that those few quality accounts that exists could be down to confirmation biases and false memories.

I like that they are finally attending to the difference between implicit and explicit memories. The prospectively studied experiences which are documented under at least somewhat blind conditions show that the pool of experiences from which “NDEs” are drawn seem to be largely implicit. 

Linda

I like that they are finally attending to the difference between implicit and explicit memories. The prospectively studied experiences which are documented under at least somewhat blind conditions show that the pool of experiences from which “NDEs” are drawn seem to be largely implicit. 

Linda

Just to clarify Linda's incorrect statement :  

Results: Among 465 in-hospital CA lasting >5 min, 44 (9%) survived and 21 were interviewed. Of these, 4 (19%) reported explicit memories, including (internal) cognitive processes such as feeling peace, joy, and a perception of seeing relatives, while other memories were suggestive of (external) awareness e.g. hearing people talking, drugs given. One of 19 correctly recalled the audio stimuli given during CPR, but none identified the visual test. In this limited sample, there were no signs of implicit learning. (what Linda used to  try to attribute the Pam Reynolds case to)

Explicit learning from Wiki :

Explicit memory involves conscious recollection, compared with implicit memory which is an unconscious, unintentional form of memory. Remembering a specific driving lesson is an example of explicit memory, while improved driving skill as a result of the lesson is an example of implicit memory.

Only one of those 19 patients can have been (arguably) physiologically conscious because only one heard the stimuli fed directly into their ears, which would have begun at the beginning of the test ? (in each case). In the rest, the brain stem must have been down (essential for hearing according to the experts).

More than one person heard and remembered external sounds while not hearing the sound that was being fed directly into their ears. That means that they "heard" with something other than their ears, or is my reasoning wrong ?

One other point of note worth mentioning is how carefully Parnia has to tread in order to keep the study aligned with mainstream science. He mentions patients seeing "relatives" but not dead relatives (that appear to be alive which is a more likely description of what they may have seen based on past studies) because that's impossible, of course.

By removing the "dead" word, the study is still scientific, in other words his mentors don't think he's looking for pink unicorns. And that's how it has to be.

From van Lommel’s study abstract:

“...Significantly more patients who had an NDE, especially a deep experience, died within 30 days of CPR (p<0·0001)...”

I'm sure you're well aware, Max why that is likely to be, just as well as any of us, notwithstanding your theory.  

They more than likely wanted to go back where they'd been, which doesn't actually accommodate your ideas does it.