Does NDE research fulfil the quality criteria of medical studies?

The following is a paper published in May from Birk Engmann (PDF): https://t.co/1gvApetxc9?amp=1

Ultimately, I have very mixed thoughts on this. 

NDEs are much more frequent in ketamine abuse or ether anaesthesia 2; [p.53] than in cardiac arrest.This suggests that most NDEs occur in circumstances 
which are far removed from "near death", or indeed clinical death! This situation is observed in the blockbuster book "Proof of heaven" by Alexander Eben, in which the author describes his experiences in a comatose state, but not in a clinical death.

The only data given supporting his first claim comes from his own book, Near-Death Experiences, Heavenly Insight or Human Illusion?, from 2014. Not sure how relevant that data is now, especially since I've not personally heard of these statistics before. 


He then goes on to criticise the AWARE study, drawing conclusions that conflict with others I've seen, especially on here: 

Alas, the elaborate AWARE study threw away a chance for deeper elucidation of secondary reprocessing in NDE reports. Furthermore, measurements of blood gases soon after successful 
resuscitation were not made, even though an  influential study (from 2010)  revealed a significant correlation between high carbon dioxide pressure and occurrence of NDEs as an indicator of a prolonged re-convalescence and thus the severity of the 
event. In this sense, observations by van Lommel et al. 10] could also be interpreted. In that study, the occurrence of an NDE was associated with memory 
disorders after resuscitation. Finally, the AWARE study merely searched for odd experiences, such as the recollection of elements of one's own resuscitation [7; p. 1802] . But one must inevitably take into consideration the fact that all successfully reanimated patients have never been dead! Indeed, they were all alive. It was just that the organs, including the brain, were in a severe state of 
malfunction. But malfunction does not mean no function at all. Moreover, in other
states of malfunction, such as apallic syndrome, for instance, there are reports of recollections including topics prior to recovery. The next step in the chain of 
reasoning is this: if a person is not dead in a NDE, it is not possible to get insights into the state of being dead.

Pam Reynolds anyone? Also, I'm not sure how remembering things 'prior to recovery' is relevant when there are cases of people seemingly having awareness of present events they should have no knowledge of. 


He goes on to claim that several recorded examples of NDEs aren't NDEs because they 'suffered only from a stroke or an ensuing coma':

Again, the study carried out with patients who never underwent a resuscitation reveals that experiences 
with clarity and an emotional content occur under quite different circumstances, such as after a stroke and a coma!

On EEG and NDEs:

With regard to the "flatline EEG" argument, it is important to bear in mind that EEGs only record the surface activity of the brain...Besides, EEG is not the only approved means to detect brain death. A brain could also function (to a lower degree) in the case of a flatline EEG

And no further elaboration is given on this, or accompanying evidence, of which I haven't heard there is actually much of. 

It could just as well be that NDEs, or most of them, develop in the relatively long phase of re-
convalescence, not forgetting the long time often available for secondary reprocessing until the point of time of when the patient is interviewed, often days, 
weeks, months, or even years later.

Not too sure what to make of this claim. Wasn't Pam Reynolds' case one in which she was interviewed relatively quickly after the experience? Additionally, many NDErs seem to recall their experiences in great detail each time, with few if any inaccuracies or changes in the accounts as far as I know. 


Now we come to his theory as to the cause of NDEs, which he refers to as a 'diathesis-stress model':

The literature contains hints that people with NDEs often have personality traits which “allow” them to develop abnormal experiences more often than other people who do not have such traits. In other words, they have a diathesis to develop NDEs. For instance, different studies reveal a higher risk of developing NDEs in people who have rotatory imagination abilities in dreams, in those who often have 
hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations, or those whose EEGs show temporal discharges. It should be stressed that I am not referring to the mentally ill 
here! And, secondly, not all factors need inevitably occur together. The other conditions concern the circumstances of the clinical death itself, for which I 
frankly prefer to use the word "stress". These are a prolonged disturbance in blood gases after resuscitation, persistent memory disorders, or a long and difficult resuscitation. Each alone indicates a high degree of severity of the event. In short, people with an inclination to abnormal experiences in daily life (diathesis) and a high degree of severity of the clinical death ("stress") have a high risk of developing an NDE.

For some reason, he cites absolutely no sources backing up these claims, and I personally have heard of no such studies. I also seriously doubt his theory applies to every case. And once again, like with all these theories, he ignores anomalous activity in NDEs. Additionally, as Dr Greyson explains, NDErs frequently report exceptional clarity and higher levels of consciousness, not 'persistent memory disorders'. 

A third criterion is secondary reprocessing. The longer ago the clinical death event, the more embroidered and different will be the narrative. People make sense of their experiences and bring them into line with their world view.

You cannot be serious. How does he know that every recorded NDE becomes more elaborate and 'embroidered' as time progresses? As far as I'm aware, while the second part of his statement can make sense and definitely apply to some cases with religious imagery, it's been well-established by now that expectations do not play apart. Furthermore, he seems to be ignoring the fact that NDEs are transformational experiences that drastically alter worldviews rather than abide by them. Howard Storm and other atheist NDEs are the most obvious ones that come to mind. Also, what part of a person's worldview or predispositions causes them to see dead relatives, including ones they hadn't known about? 

He goes on to say that it is necessary for reports to clarify the circumstances surrounding NDEs so analysis of them can be improved (that I agree with). 

Conclusion:

A significant number of current research projects on NDEs does not fulfil the criteria of scientific studies. However, NDEs are explainable by scientific means. 
Structured and self-critical research can still deliver more insights into NDEs. But there is one limitation: research can never solve the question of existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Nevertheless, research in general enables us to take a critical look at such world views.

The scientific means Engmann posits are inaccurate and flawed, as are many others. A scientific, rational explanation does not mean a materialist explanation. It seems he need to apply this 'self-critical' skill to himself and his own research.

It seems he has has published a longer treatment, which I haven't read.

Also three related papers in English here...

Pilot Study Near-Death Experiences in Central Asia...
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow...1&type=pdf

and this one about NDE-like experiences in Germany...
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/675...ngmann.pdf

a letter published in response to the AWARE paper...
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...0808-4/pdf

From the last link you posted: 

NDE can never be a proof of the existence of the afterworld.
Whatever odd reports people give of their NDE in cases of (merely)
clinical death, we are always dealing with a living brain, still func-
tioning even if severely impaired.

What an arrogant statement. He seems to be adamant in proving that expectations and preconceptions in experiences lives somehow result in all of the conditions of NDEs, despite the fact if he'd bothered to do further research, he'd know that's not often the case. Is he familiar with the Pam Reynolds case, and not some warped or inaccurate retelling of the events?

In his study of Muslim NDEs, he once again pushes the idea that they're all just a product of life experiences, memories and preconceptions, and yet still acknowledges the transformational effects on people's worldviews, which seems rather contradictory to me. He again also ignores, in both that study and his book apparently, virtually all anomalous activity reported in NDEs, such as veridical perception.

And yet, in the second link, he concludes his study with this:

Today it is NDEs that offer gnostic knowledge of meeting with God or
a proof of the existence of an immortal soul. Even clairvoyant abilities
in NDEs are reported.

So he's acknowledging that there are reports of clairvoyant abilities that potentially weaken his theories but seems to just dismiss them. Got it. Does he honestly think that the likes of Parnia, Greyson, Sartori, Ring, Moody etc. haven't considered at all that expectations and memories may play a part? 

Maybe if he'd actually try talking with Parnia or other NDE researchers directly and more respectfully he'd understand that there are many cases that contradict his hypotheses. But his letter to Parnia confirms his bias for me. I imagine he'll be one of the first to criticise the results of AWARE II, whenever it's finished, whether there are hits or not.

From the last link you posted: 
What an arrogant statement. He seems to be adamant in proving that expectations and preconceptions in experiences lives somehow result in all of the conditions of NDEs, despite the fact if he'd bothered to do further research, he'd know that's not often the case. Is he familiar with the Pam Reynolds case, and not some warped or inaccurate retelling of the events?

In his study of Muslim NDEs, he once again pushes the idea that they're all just a product of life experiences, memories and preconceptions, and yet still acknowledges the transformational effects on people's worldviews, which seems rather contradictory to me. He again also ignores, in both that study and his book apparently, virtually all anomalous activity reported in NDEs, such as veridical perception.

And yet, in the second link, he concludes his study with this:

So he's acknowledging that there are reports of clairvoyant abilities that potentially weaken his theories but seems to just dismiss them. Got it. Does he honestly think that the likes of Parnia, Greyson, Sartori, Ring, Moody etc. haven't considered at all that expectations and memories may play a part? 

Maybe if he'd actually try talking with Parnia or other NDE researchers directly and more respectfully he'd understand that there are many cases that contradict his hypotheses. But his letter to Parnia confirms his bias for me. I imagine he'll be one of the first to criticise the results of AWARE II, whenever it's finished, whether there are hits or not.

I don't think Engmann is worth going to a lot of trouble to refute. Like most of his closed minded materialist cohorts who even bother to publish on NDEs (like Christof Koch)  he complacently ignores most of the empirical evidence as if it didn't exist, or dismisses it as unscientific anecdotes regardless of its actual quality and quantity. Of course he almost certainly won't respond to argument. He won't bother. So why should you bother? The original paper is in an obscure journal that probably mostly nobody but a few other academic atheist materialist nihilists read. A little echo chamber clubhouse.

This 2015 letter to Parnia and colleagues says it all for me.

 Letter to the Editor

[font=KNCHA C+ Gulliver BL,Gulliver BL][font=KNCHA C+ Gulliver BL,Gulliver BL]The cart was put before the horse – Basic problems in NDE research[/font][/font]

[font=KNCHD C+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT][font=KNCHD C+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT]Sir, [/font][/font]The scientific approach to near-death experiences (NDE) had been impeded by both a lack of prospective studies and a sufficient amount of cases. Undoubtedly, the labour-intensive multicentric study by Sam Parnia and colleagues 1 was a chance to overcome these problems. Unfortunately, however, it is a merely phenomenological one. The study did not investigate whether there are certain personal (ity?) traits which might lead people to have abnormal experiences in daily life and also predispose them to have NDE. Also prolonged convalescence after reanimation as another possible risk factor for NDE has not been examined.

Instead of investigating empirical questions about NDE, the study attempted to prove the existence of heaven. Aeons of philosophical discourses had already shown the failure of such efforts. Religion and science are distinct categories. Nevertheless, the authors tagged boards in certain rooms which the freed "conscious-ness" should detect. According to the authors the test failed because many reanimations were performed in other locations than the pre-pared rooms.

But why should a freed consciousness in "unity with the universe" (Greyson’s NDE scale) hang around in nothing but one little hospital room? If it is universal it should detect everything! Besides, items such as "unity with universe" or "understanding everything" resemble the neo-platonic and Gnostic concepts of ema-nation of world spirit, which had their heydays in the ether and magnetism theories of the 19th century.

Moreover, other features of the study also show its lack of objectivity. For instance, all the patients who reported of experiences after clinical death were divided into those who had "real" NDE and those who did not. This is difficult to understand because there are no core criteria for defining the nature of NDE. The authors used Greyson’s NDE scale to draw the distinction, but this is problematical because most items in it ask about a spiritual content. At least, a personal world view influenced definitions of items of his scale.

NDE can never be a proof of the existence of the after world. Whatever odd reports people give of their NDE in cases of (merely) clinical death, we are always dealing with a living brain, still functioning even if severely impaired.

[font=KNCHA C+ Gulliver BL,Gulliver BL][font=KNCHA C+ Gulliver BL,Gulliver BL]Conflict of interest statement [/font][/font]No conflicts of interest to declare.[font=KNCHA C+ Gulliver BL,Gulliver BL][font=KNCHA C+ Gulliver BL,Gulliver BL]Reference[/font][/font]1. Parnia S. AWARE – awareness during resuscitation – a prospective study. Resus-citation 2014;85:1799–805.Birk Engmann [font=KNCHD C+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT][font=KNCHD C+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT]Fachklinikum Brandis, Am Wald, D-04821 Brandis, Germany E-mail address:[/font][/font]oa.engmann@fachklinikum-brandis.de9 March 2015 http://dx. 

This is just embarrassingly bad but I've seen it before TBH so nothing new for me. Even sceptics will be able to see that.

"The study attempted to prove the existence of heaven "  (sorry but) What a Birk !

I suppose that's where we'll have to agree to disagree Max, but I do agree that he makes a few valid criticisms of NDE research, namely the AWARE study, similar to those brought up here. However, he is still nevertheless deliberately ignoring other details and aspects about NDEs, like other critics tend to, in order to reinforce his own flawed hypotheses. 

The thing that frustrates me the most about his work, besides the speculative and suspicious claims as well as his ignorance of things like Peak in Darien experiences (which was reported in Even Alexander's case and verified by IANDs, something he clearly didn't look into), is his contradictions. 

He claims that NDEs are purely products of memories, preconceptions, predispositions and expectations that filter through because there's some 'risidual activity' that somehow enables these complex and rich experiences. Yet he acknowledges that these are transformational experiences that change people's worldviews. 

Well if NDEs are purely based on prior experience and 'stresses', then why would an NDErs worldview change? There are many examples of this that he just glossed over. He also ignores the many cases in which NDErs come back describing new knowledge or insights they have gained from the experience, even about things like the meaning of life and the Universe. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't happen nearly as often if NDEs are purely filtered experiences. He's also not mentioned void NDEs either, probably because they fly in the face of his theory. 

In my opinion, Engmann is not caught up on the recent research and evidence that NDEs are not purely products of the brain. His theories are outdated, and he cites his own work, from the early 2010s no less, as a source of data to back up the claims he's making now, in 2020.

I agree with you tim. I have no idea where he got the impression that the AWARE study was trying to 'prove the existence of Heaven'. Seems to be he had a knee-jerk reaction. And where is he getting the impression that all NDErs have reported a universal consciousness? The veridical NDEs I've heard about simply report an OBE or remote-viewing-esque experience, not a 'universal consciousness'. 

Methinks some of his 'research' has simply involved him skimming through sensationalist articles on studies that conflict with his own. It's not only biased, as he confirms in the letter, but possibly dishonest and ill-informed.

"Seems to be he had a knee-jerk reaction. And where is he getting the impression that all NDErs have reported a universal consciousness? The veridical NDEs I've heard about simply report an OBE or remote-viewing-esque experience, not a 'universal consciousness'."

It's not just that, it's more or less everything he says. In another paper he tries to make something out of the (former) East Germans not having/reporting NDE's or as many NDE's as the west. In fact there are two really devoted researchers publishing cases from Germany as a whole and there's tons of them from all over, nothing to do with east and west as it was. 

He also cited hard line sceptics Mobbs and Watts "There's nothing paranormal about NDE's". And as Greyson said, if you ignore everything paranormal about NDE's, there's nothing paranormal about NDE's.

Seeing people not known to have died, may, or may not be significant... there is just no way of knowing at present, or what the significance might be. For instance, some people see people in their NDE who are known to be alive. 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.

I’d be very cautious about what seeing either dead, or alive, people might mean. It’s entirely possible that seeing people not known to have died, has been accorded a greater significance than it actually deserves.

That’s not necessarily my own view... I tend to think the NDE is made up from a very complex mix of information from the experient, friends, family, strangers, both immediately local, and more distant. Individuals, and groups, etc... it’s the relationships between this information which defines the experience for the experient, and the narrative it then takes. It is about information, and how we experience this information.

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.