Evidence for paranormal aspects in NDEs

I don't think anybody is going to recall hidden, secret, real time information in AWARE II, and if they do... the possibility for sensory leakage will cause any hits to be dismissed. AWARE II's lack of hits is going to get used as evidence that NDE OBE's are just sensory leakage, or information leakage etc. A real pity, but the proponents of the idea that something is leaving the body, seem determined to do it. Instead, I think we'll see breakthroughs coming from laboratory studies in the fields related to magnetobiology.

"....and if they do... the possibility for sensory leakage will cause any hits to be dismissed"

No, I disagree, Max. Double blind carried out correctly is good enough and we don't have any reason to suggest that the study coordinators won't do it right. If you are trying to suggest that someone is going to somehow accidentally see the laptop picture on the pole and tell the patient, one might reasonably ask why this didn't happen with one of the 22% of patients who had a cardiac arrest in a area with a board fitted. In other words, why didn't a nurse climb up and look at the picture and then accidentally tell someone that had had a cardiac arrest, what was up there ?

 "AWARE II's lack of hits"

When was this announced ?

"A real pity, but the proponents of the idea that something is leaving the body, seem determined to do it."

Of course and why wouldn't they ? Are we not supposed to listen to the patients ? They are adamant that they were on the ceiling and they back it up with accurate reports. What they don't say is that as I was lying on the gurney, "my compromised energy field interlocked with the attending doctors uncompromised energy field and produced a real time crystal clear visual view of my resuscitation which I then automatically altered to a birds eye view because that's how OBE's are nearly always reported !  

"I think we'll see breakthroughs coming from laboratory studies in the fields related to magnetobiology."

The only way this phenomenon will ever be studied, is on the assumption that "something" is leaving the body...or not. Thereby testing the claims of patients, not the claim of someone with a novel theory that doesn't have any evidence to back it up.

On the other hand, the study did produce a veridical NDE, so it was actually successful. Just on a small scale.

Thanks, Typoz. Good point.

Thanks tim. I understand what you're saying - there was nothing to test.

It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us. I guess if there were dozens of NDEs and none of them saw the target that might constitute failure, maybe not even then. Do you happen to know what the criteria for success were?

Thanks tim. I understand what you're saying - there was nothing to test.

It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us. I guess if there were dozens of NDEs and none of them saw the target that might constitute failure, maybe not even then. Do you happen to know what the criteria for success were?

"It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us."

It's anybody's guess, Obiwan. Personally, I feel certain it won't fail but that's a fat lot of use to anyone else. We just have to wait and see, it may take decades to get enough hits to finally shut down the debate. I certainly don't know what the criteria are for success (how many hits). I do know that many physicians know there's something going on which cannot be attributed to brain delusions.

"It makes me wonder what would constitute failure in that scenario and what failure would tell us."

It's anybody's guess, Obiwan. Personally, I feel certain it won't fail but that's a fat lot of use to anyone else. We just have to wait and see, it may take decades to get enough hits to finally shut down the debate. I certainly don't know what the criteria are for success (how many hits). I do know that many physicians know there's something going on which cannot be attributed to brain delusions.

I think that's perhaps one of the difficulties with studies like this. They have criteria for success and if they're not met, then even if there are interesting results, effectively they don't count toward the purpose of the study.

Nobody seems to be interested in my suggestion of repeatedly giving a person a heart attack and resuscitating them until they give us the answer

I think that's perhaps one of the difficulties with studies like this. They have criteria for success and if they're not met, then even if there are interesting results, effectively they don't count toward the purpose of the study.

Actually they do count. All outcomes count.

Currently AWARE II is in progress. You can be sure that the outcomes - all of them - from AWARE were used in the design and planning of its successor.

They also count in that the study generated information - it tells us things we didn't know before the study. When investigating areas which are under-researched, all information is of enormous value.

There hasn't been a hit on a secret, hidden visual target, so there has never been any reason to raise the issue of leakage to explain a hit. But people are naturally curious, as Penny Sartori says...

"When I did a pilot study I realised that my colleagues were very curious about the symbols and in my absence many of them had climbed up on ladders to view them. This in itself could have invalidated the research especially if my colleagues had discussed the symbols within earshot of any patient – if a patient had reported an OBE, it could be a mind model constructed from what the patients heard the staff talking about. So I had to renew all of the symbols and spoke to each staff member and explained the importance of them not knowing what the symbols were. I showed them the previous symbols that I had to replace and their curiosity was satisfied and they no longer had the need to climb on ladders."

Any hit's and comments similar to Pennys will be immediately raised as the reason.

That's old technology now, Max. I could be wrong but I think the pictures on the laptop change every few minutes (but don't quote me on that)  

I'm currently talking to and writing a book based on the experience of someone who not only left his body, he 'walked' about all over the hospital and travelled instantaneously around the United States, checking up on old friends. A fanciful claim, yes but he has witnesses. He saw things he couldn't possibly have seen or known about and confirmed it all later when he recovered. I'm afraid "field theory" wouldn't explain his report.

I understand your point Typoz but it doesn't really move me - even I can extract lessons from failure . What happened to me was still a failure nevertheless