Latest from Dr Sam Parnia

It unfortunately doesn't make me as confident as I would like to be because last time I checked, most vocal (pseudo)skeptics think Parnia is a 'biased charlatan with an agenda' who tried to 'explain away' his research from AWARE I. They won't listen to him anyways.

Surely that’s their issue? Not Parnia’s or indeed, yours.

Surely that’s their issue? Not Parnia’s or indeed, yours.

It's just depressing to me, that's all. It's not fair is it?

I personally suspect one of the reasons Parnia always seemed to be a bit coy and private about his research and opinions at times is because he's aware (no pun intended) of the sensationalism around his studies and being frequently misquoted by terrible journalists.

It unfortunately doesn't make me as confident as I would like to be because last time I checked, most vocal (pseudo)skeptics think Parnia is a 'biased charlatan with an agenda' who tried to 'explain away' his research from AWARE I. They won't listen to him anyways.

Do YOU think Parnia is a 'biased charlatan with an agenda'?

That is, are you either

a) an extreme sceptic
or
b) someone who places his trust in extreme sceptics?

I think you need to decide where you stand. You are free to plant your feet on whichever piece of ground suits you, there's no problem with your doing so. I find your viewpoint or position confusing, perhaps even not entirely honest. I should apologise for expressing things that way, but maybe you are not being quite open and straightforward about something.

Do YOU think Parnia is a 'biased charlatan with an agenda'?

That is, are you either

a) an extreme sceptic
or
b) someone who places his trust in extreme sceptics?

I think you need to decide where you stand. You are free to plant your feet on whichever piece of ground suits you, there's no problem with your doing so. I find your viewpoint or position confusing, perhaps even not entirely honest. I should apologise for expressing things that way, but maybe you are not being quite open and straightforward about something.

What I mean is that regardless of whether or not Parnia gets a hit, and regardless of what he says, they'll still just dismiss it under the slanderous accusations against him that I've seen. 

I don't think he is a charlatan with any kind of 'agenda'. He definitely isn't biased given what he's said in the past. It just upsets and infuriates me to see him get labelled that.

It unfortunately doesn't make me as confident as I would like to be because last time I checked, most vocal (pseudo)skeptics think Parnia is a 'biased charlatan with an agenda' who tried to 'explain away' his research from AWARE I. They won't listen to him anyways.

Listening to that interview, the relevant part (with that cheesy unnecessary irritating music--why ?) it's clear he hasn't changed his mind at all. I noticed he said that consciousness appears to continue even when the brain is not functioning. I think there might just be a clue there.

From Parnia's Lab website

Consciousness, Awareness & Cognitive Experiences During Cardiac Arrest | NYU Langone Health

The phenomenon of awareness during cardiac arrest is not well understood from a biological standpoint. In some rare cases, patients may even move and show transient signs of being visibly conscious  (Woerlee's argument NDE by CPR) 

However, these instances typically do not represent a true cardiac arrest (refuted by Parnia) For example, some people may have a beating heart but are so ill that their pulse is weak and impalpable by hand. Clinicians will thus start CPR, which strengthens the heartbeat and enables enough blood flow to reach the brain and body while CPR is underway for people to show visible signs of movement.

However, in a true cardiac arrest, when there is no heartbeat, even with CPR there is insufficient blood flow to the brain (around 20 percent) to meet the needs of brain cells. Consequently, seconds after cardiac arrest, brain function ceases as evidenced by brain stem reflexes and electrical activity in the brain. People also immediately lose any visible signs of consciousness and are deemed unconscious by all available clinical assessments.

However, cognitive activity and conscious awareness have been reported by 10 to 20 percent of people from the period of true cardiac arrest. Studies of cardiac arrest survivors’ experiences of awareness during a time when the brain is not functioning support the idea that—as with many other conditions that biologically mimic death, such as deep hypothermic circulatory arrest—even when people lose conscious awareness of the outside world and do not feel pain or discomfort, the entity of the human consciousness and mind may not become immediately annihilated once the heartbeat ceases.

Not sure whether this has any relevance to NDEs but Parnia seems to be investigating terminal lucidity as well(?):

https://nyulangone.org/news/new-studies-...on-methods

New research by Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, is aiming to create measurements and methods to better capture end-of-life phenomena such as cognitive lucidity and to identify novel approaches to enhance the quality of resuscitation after cardiac arrest...

Are they implying there's evidence of surges in brain activity?

Are they implying there's evidence of surges in brain activity?

No for both NDEs and terminal lucidity. They think that for terminal lucidity that might be how it happens, but of course we don't know yet so this study is really good news.

Don't think there's any mention about any surges related to NDEs, other than maybe Parnia would probably LIKE them to be there because it means you've got a better chance of living. Parnia doesn't want you to be in a state where you have an NDE remember, he wants you to be as close to alive as you can be so it's easier for him to bring you back.

Parnia doesn't want you to be in a state where you have an NDE remember, he wants you to be as close to alive as you can be so it's easier for him to bring you back.

Yes, the thing about Parnia is that he wears (at least) two hats. In his day job, his primary interest is the physical well being of his patients, including the brain of course since that is easily vulnerable to damage. But he does have a spiritual side too, he is interested in ideas around the nature of consciousness, survival and so on. But all of his research has to be encompassed within the role of a doctor genuinely wanting better medical care for the patients. Ethically, this must be the case, the people under consideration are not willing volunteers or 'guinea-pigs', they are just ordinary people who find themselves in need of care. Of course as people like Penny Sartori have pointed out, it is necessary to listen to the patients, hear what they have to say - in the past anyone describing apparently 'other-worldly' experiences would be likely to be shut-down, ignored, not listened to. And once one takes the time to listen ... that's when all this other insight comes pouring forth.

I think of people like Parnia as akin to a Supreme Court. [They are wary of making broad changes to public life with their opinions.]

My guess is [Parnia and others like him] are quite wary of challenging religious orthodoxies including that of the Physicalist faith, the latter having a lot of potentially violent fundamentalists among its adherents.

What does it mean for the people of the world if there's an afterlife that doesn't involve damnation at all? If there are mass suicides is that something that should be on your conscience? Instability in governments? Increased terrorism?

Maybe the world as it stands currently just isn't ready for Survival to be the scientific standard.