Latest from Dr Sam Parnia

I wonder if Parnia has seen the article. I'm sure he would not appreciate being misquoted.

Here is the quote : I think it speaks for itself really; poorly expressed/bad grammar.  

However, Dr Parnia says there are scientific explanations for these reaction, and says seeing people is not evidence of the afterlife, but more likely the brain just scanning itself as a survival technique.

(He said thanks to modern technology and science "death does not have to be limited to philosophy and religion, but it can be explored through science")

Nevertheless, many readers of that newspaper for whom the concept of life after death or a continuation of consciousness, is anathema, will take great comfort from it. And I rarely if ever see any of the impressive cases correctly reported.

Parnia's Mr A for instance is almost universally bastardised, in that he (Mr A) apparently now only heard "a bleep" and not the automated words "shock the patient." And as any self respecting sceptic worth his salt knows....there's nothing special about hearing a bleep in hospital, is there. Nor seeing a bald headed man in blue scrubs that you didn't know was there. So even though the guy was dead, and his ears couldn't have been working (and he was also behind a curtain) that's not very impressive.

Reading the comments sections of these articles is usually even more depressing. The comments tend to run along the lines of....Bullshit !...how can there be life after death, when you're dead you're dead ! Stands to reason and anyway these people didn't really die !

...or...the brain can function for ten minutes after the heart stops, it's been proven by rats.

And then there's usually someone who claims to have been dead (maybe several times just to let us know that he/she is a bona-fide expert) and they didn't experience anything.

I've even seen "oxygen deprivation" making a comeback.

And then you get the inevitable "Don't listen to false prophets (people who report NDEs) The Bible says .......... "

Hardly anyone seems to be aware that where we are currently (scientifically) is that... in the first stage of death, after the heart and respiration has stopped and all brain function has ceased, that thing that makes us into who we are, our mind, our self, our psyche, our soul, call whatever you like, doesn't seem to be annihilated at least in the first few minutes after death.

Nevertheless, many readers of that newspaper for whom the concept of life after death or a continuation of consciousness, is anathema, will take great comfort from it. And I rarely if ever see any of the impressive cases correctly reported.

Agreed. It is an unending source of annoyance the way the media reports these subjects. There's always that pandering to the skeptics that I mentioned earlier. Some are beyond skepticism and start from a position of outright denial. I happened across this article on the BBC website recently (it was still being featured on the landing page even though it is three years old):

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141030...paranormal

Out-of-body experiences, meanwhile, are now accepted neurological phenomena, while certain visual illusions could confound the healthy brain and create mythical beings.

Accepted by whom? I'd venture to say not by most of the people who experience them.

Some more examples.

This from the same newspaper: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/8...paranormal

This, the team say, is a sign that OOBEs are caused by a combination of problems with the vestibular system and psychological disorders.

The study reads: “Altogether, our data indicate that OBE in patients with dizziness may arise from a combination of perceptual incoherence evoked by the vestibular dysfunction with psychological factors (depersonalization-derealization, depression and anxiety) and neurological factors (migraine).”

And from a medical publication: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318464.php

Following surgery, Reynolds was able to describe aspects of the procedure that had happened at a time when she was clinically dead. She claimed to have surveyed the scene during an OBE.

Although skepticism abounds, proponents of the afterlife have repeatedly used this story as "evidence" of an ability to float beyond the body.

Some of these stories are intriguing and compelling. But at this stage, they are nothing more than unverifiable stories.

A further quote from the medical news today paper.

A study from 2014, titled Awareness during Resuscitation (AWARE), was the first serious large-scale investigation to look at NDEs. The study addressed the possibility of veridical perception during OBEs.
The research involved multiple hospitals and hundreds of interviews with cardiac arrest survivors. To investigate whether any individuals had genuinely floated above themselves and viewed their surroundings, researchers placed pictures on shelves that would only be viewable from above. In this way, they could test whether people experiencing OBEs really could leave their bodies.
Although there were only two veridical OBEs during the study, neither could accurately relate the images from the shelves.

This is a perfect example of either wilful mischief or plain stupidity from the author of the article. Neither of the out of body experiences occurred in an area with a board fitted (research area) so how could they relate the images from the shelves ?

Doesn't matter to them though. I truly believe they take a delight in it...like some of the members on here do.

The above examples show precisely the kind of confirmation bias that skeptics are supposed to be wary of. Note the scare quotes around the word "evidence" in the Reynolds snippet above. I'd surmise that most medical professionals have no interest in this subject so will take an article like that at face value. Then, when someone asks for an opinion, they will repeat it with the air of authority that only medical professionals can muster. Thus the cycle of confirmation is repeated and serious studies like Parnia's are either ignored or misrepresented.

The above examples show precisely the kind of confirmation bias that skeptics are supposed to be wary of. Note the scare quotes around the word "evidence" in the Reynolds snippet above. I'd surmise that most medical professionals have no interest in this subject so will take an article like that at face value. Then, when someone asks for an opinion, they will repeat it with the air of authority that only medical professionals can muster. Thus the cycle of confirmation is repeated and serious studies like Parnia's are either ignored or misrepresented.

So it is, unfortunately!

I must admit that even after so many years having dealt with them, i.e. debunking their outrageous comments on NDE-cases, skeptics  can still make me furious. The worst skeptic in this regard is anesthesiologist Gerarld Woerlee aka Gerry. Particularly in the Reynolds case he goes on ignoring the testimonies of her neurosurgeons Robert Spetzler and Karl Greene, who did the real work. Woerlee never ever was there when it all happened, yet, he claims to know better than Spetzler and Greene. Tim can testify how he and I were driven to despair by that man.
It is all described in my Chapter 11 of the book The Self Does Not Die.

Smithy

A further quote from the medical news today paper.

Although there were only two veridical OBEs during the study, neither could accurately relate the images from the shelves.

This is a perfect example of either wilful mischief or plain stupidity from the author of the article. Neither of the out of body experiences occurred in an area with a board fitted (research area) so how could they relate the images from the shelves ?

Doesn't matter to them though. I truly believe they take a delight in it...like some of the members on here do.

They also wilfully mislead the readers' attention away from the astounding fact that there actually were [at least] two veridical OBEs.  That in itself should be cause for astonishment, but like a stage magician distracting his spectators, the aim is to avoid the audience noticing that anything unusual is happening.

I say "at least" because some of the details described elsewhere by Dr Parnia don't necessarily find their way into the formal reporting of results.

In this study, we will be testing the hypothesis that by limiting ischemia during resuscitation, higher cerebral oxygenation leads to improved cortical function during CPR and is associated with improved survival as well as favourable neurological, functional and neuropsychological outcomes. We further hypothesize that mental and cognitive activity and awareness during CPR may reflect verifiable events and is associated with the quality of brain resuscitation. 

I'm not one who is naturally very up on medical terminology, but would this be related to Parnia's theory that more people have NDEs then we think and that their memories are blocked because of certain variables? In this case, "the quality of the brain resuscitation"?