Doesn't this piss you off?

Here is an article about the work of Sam Parnia.

After death, you’re aware that you’ve died, say scientists

Fine. We've all seen similar articles saying much the same. I've read other articles under The Big Think banner - some have even been interesting. What pisses me off is the default "hey, this is all very weird but here's the real science" disclaimer at the end. Something we invariably see on news bulletins, newspaper articles and blogs dealing with anomalous subjects. In this case the line is, quote:

"For more on the scientific perspective on a near death experience, click here:" 

(and then they attach this Youtube video)



I mean, watch it by all means and then decide: is this really the "scientific perspective"? Or is it the typical sceptical handwaving attempt at "nothing to see here". After deigning to publish an article about the findings of Parnia - someone actually doing research - they just can't resist reaffirming their sceptical credentials by having a hip teen feed you the "real" view from science. And, if what she tells you is the "scientific perspective", where does that leave Parnia and his research?

Even most of the comments in the Youtube video don't agree with them, lol.

Even most of the comments in the Youtube video don't agree with them, lol.

I tend not to bother with YouTube comments as they are usually knee-jerk, uninformed and often hateful. Makes you long for the sanctuary of calm reason that is Psience Quest.

I tend not to bother with YouTube comments as they are usually knee-jerk, uninformed and often hateful. Makes you long for the sanctuary of calm reason that is Psience Quest.

Fun and creepy fact, youtube has been caught changing peoples comments as they post them. I'm trying to find the original video, but it's something I recently saw on a show Dreamsoap watches that I think is either called "The Ralph Retort" or "The Killstream". Or maybe they're one in the same, I don't know, here's a link in any case

https://theralphretort.com/

In any case the guy had this happen to him a couple times before he decided to try catching it on film. Which means that this has probably been going on for months. Meaning you can no longer trust youtube comments as they may be altered to make it sound like people believe certain things they don't. Given all the rest of the overt censorship and everything else going on, it's not all that surprising. But the end result is the hostility you see may not actually be real and is just yet another reason to disconnect from any and all mainstream services and switch to free and open source everything.

Given's googles ability to mimic voices, faces, and more I'm willing to bet that there's already some of this happening with audio and video as well .It's happened with subtitles as the SecureTeam10 channel experienced. I'm also trying to find the video where he has the segment showing this but his clickbaity titles don't make it easy to remember. Good channel though.

In answer to the title of this thread - Yes - Always!

Here is an article about the work of Sam Parnia.

After death, you’re aware that you’ve died, say scientists

Pretty weird. It says the following:

Scientists are beginning to think an NDE is caused by reduced blood flow, coupled with abnormal electrical behavior inside the brain.

Shortly afterwards, in the same paragraph, it says:

Dr. Sam Parnia is the director of critical care and resuscitation research, at NYU Langone School of Medicine, in New York City.

The clear implication is that the two statements are related, and in particular, that the authority figure (Dr Parnia) is advocating the view of the first sentence.

Did they even read or listen to anything Parnia has said???


By the way, does anyone have any idea which of Dr Sam Parnia's research they mean in this sentence? *

In previous work, he’s conducted animal studies looking at the moments before and after death.

I can't be bothered to dissect the rest of the article. It just looks like an exercise in disinformation to me.

* That's a rhetorical question, undoubtedly it's a reference to work not conducted by Parnia.

Pretty weird. It says the following:

Shortly afterwards, in the same paragraph, it says:
The clear implication is that the two statements are related, and in particular, that the authority figure (Dr Parnia) is advocating the view of the first sentence.

Did they even read or listen to anything Parnia has said???


By the way, does anyone have any idea which of Dr Sam Parnia's research they mean in this sentence? *

I can't be bothered to dissect the rest of the article. It just looks like an exercise in disinformation to me.

* That's a rhetorical question, undoubtedly it's a reference to work not conducted by Parnia.

On second reading of the article, I have to agree that whoever wrote it seems intent on putting a different slant on Parnia's findings. To the extent that the article seems to suggest that Parnia's research is purely about monitoring an oxygen deprived brain in the moments before it shuts down completely. So they are aligning his research with the rat brain studies which, from everything I've read about Parnia (and also from what he's said himself in debates you can watch on YouTube) is far from what he's concluded. Here's a comment about the Borjigin (rat brain) study from Parnia himself:

But other scientists are unconvinced. They question how much rat brains can really tell us about humans. "I don't think that this particular study helps in any way to explain near-death experiences in human beings," says Sam Parnia, who studies dying and near-death experiences at the Stony Brook University School of Medicine in New York.

"We have no evidence at all that the rats had any near-death experiences or whether animals can have any such type of experience, first of all," Parnia says.

Nevertheless, they still find the need to link the silly video outlining all the standard sceptical suppositions which is what really pissed me off on first reading.

On second reading of the article, I have to agree that whoever wrote it seems intent on putting a different slant on Parnia's findings. To the extent that the article seems to suggest that Parnia's research is purely about monitoring an oxygen deprived brain in the moments before it shuts down completely. So they are aligning his research with the rat brain studies which, from everything I've read about Parnia (and also from what he's said himself in debates you can watch on YouTube) is far from what he's concluded. Here's a comment about the Borjigin (rat brain) study from Parnia himself:



Nevertheless, they still find the need to link the silly video outlining all the standard sceptical suppositions which is what really pissed me off on first reading.

I don't think it's worth being angry about, they're just hastening the demise of their own credibility and that of their paradigm by repeatedly doing things like this. As evidenced by the increasing amount of people calling them out on it. If anything you should be happy that they're doing so much of the work for you by repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot.

In answer to your question, Dave yes it does piss me off. And to be honest, I sometimes think they 'get off' on planting bullshit like this all over the net. A healthy crop of quotes (from this article) will soon appear elsewhere and that will muddy the water nicely for all the pseudo sceptics who loathe the implications of what this research is really pointing to. 

In previous work, he’s conducted animal studies looking at the moments before and after death. 

No he hasn't. Although he might have dissected some dead animals during his medical training of course.

 Even after our breathing and heartbeat stops, we’re conscious for about 2-20 seconds, Dr. Parnia says. That’s how long the cerebral cortex is thought to last without oxygen. 

Wrong again. As it has been stated many times by experts, in cardiac arrest, consciousness is basically lost instantly. The 2-20 seconds is the amount of time it takes all electrical activity to disappear (apparently).  And how long the cortex can "last" is a vague and confusing misunderstanding..."last" meaning stay conscious ? (it doesn't) or "last" meaning the cells haven't died ? (they don't die for many hours in certain conditions, apparently)   

"Brain waves from the cerebral cortex soon become undetectable. Even so, it can take hours for our thinking organ to fully shut down.

This bit is very bad. Hours for our thinking organ to shut down (what's a thinking organ and how could anyone still be "thinking" in the normal sense, hours after their hearts and brains have stopped functioning? 

Usually, when the heart stops beating, someone performs CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation). This will provide about 15% of the oxygen needed to perform normal brain function. 

I believe they mean 15% of the blood which may or may not equal 15% of the oxygen, I don't have the time to check that out. 

"If you manage to restart the heart, which is what CPR attempts to do, you'll gradually start to get the brain functioning again,” Parnia said. 

No. I'm not an expert but as I understand it, CPR is not performed to re-start the heart, it's primary purpose is to try to get some blood flow up into the brain and  around other organs to delay the eventual irreversible death of the cells. 

It's a really bad article and the video posted entitled why we see the white light is an appropriate accompaniment.  

"If you manage to restart the heart, which is what CPR attempts to do, you'll gradually start to get the brain functioning again,” Parnia said. 

No. I'm not an expert but as I understand it, CPR is not performed to re-start the heart, it's primary purpose is to try to get some blood flow up into the brain and  around other organs to delay the eventual irreversible death of the cells. 

It's a really bad article and the video posted entitled why we see the white light is an appropriate accompaniment.  

My cardiologist explained that CPR is, as you say, to force the blood around the body until the heart rhythm can be corrected - usually by electric shock. So people apply CPR until the paramedics arrive or until someone appears with a defibrillator.

She also said that you can't restart a flat-lined heart with a defibrillator (those TV dramas that show a patient with a flat line and the doctor shouts for the paddles are nonsense). The defib is used to correct a wayward rhythm, not restart a non-existent rhythm.

[EDIT] However, according to Wikipedia, CPR is used (together with drugs) in hospitals when the heart has stopped.

Asystole [flat line] is treated by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) combined with an intravenous vasopressor such as epinephrine (a.k.a. adrenaline).