Latest from Dr Sam Parnia

Yeah I'm kinda done with Parnia to be honest, barring some amazing report coming through.

I never liked the study design, seemed kinda clear it was destined to fail and even if 20 people saw the stickers it wouldn't matter...

I don't see it as a full failure because it still showed there's zero brain activity correlated with NDEs (despite the fact that parnia did basically have to shove in some "spikes" explanation to appease materialists) and it showed they're not hallucinations, CPR induced consciousness, dreams, or false memories.

Yeah I'm kinda done with Parnia to be honest, barring some amazing report coming through.

I never liked the study design, seemed kinda clear it was destined to fail and even if 20 people saw the stickers it wouldn't matter...

I know what you mean Sci and you've certianly got a point, but I think he has to go this way (I remember Peter Fenwick saying years ago that we must get the hit..we must get it)

Even without the hit this is what Donald Hoffman said :

"The physicalist approach to consciousness which says that brain activity causes consciousness faces a problem with the new empirical results we're getting from resuscitation of patients up to an hour with no brain activity. These patients are routinely reporting very, very clear conscious experiences, seeing a light, a tunnel, life review and so forth and so all the physicalist theories
about how brain activity could cause conscious exxperiences are completely incapable of explaining those conscious experiences"

Lindsey Gurin :

"People frequently come out of an event like that (cardiac arrest) and can describe things that were happening in the room,
can describe vivid experiences and memories that they were having.. and this goes against everything we know about how the brain functions.

In the brainstem there is a pathway that sends impulses up to the brain, consistently sending alertness messages called the ascending reticular activiting system. You have to have that intact to be awake and then in order to experience conscious awareness you also need a variety of higher level brain networks.

In the setting of cardiac arrest where presumably most of those are off line, how are patients having these events? How are patients laying down memories when the memory networks are not working?" 

I'll post what Lance Becker said when I can find it.

I suspect many have already seen this letter to the editor from Sam Parnia. It was posted on Aware of Aware (which I don't contribute to anymore after we had a disagreement about the definition of death)

To the editor,

We are grateful for Dr’s Greyson and Van Lommel's comments.
AWARE-II identified a spectrum of covert consciousness and cognitive activity in cardiac arrest patients. First ∼40% of survivors reported a perception of consciousness without explicit recall, while ∼20% reported features consistent with a recalled experience of death (RED) and ∼3% overt visual and auditory awareness. Second, it identified electroencephalography (EEG) based physiological markers compatible with a spectrum of consciousness. These ranged from high frequency beta waves – normally associated with high levels of awakening with conscious thoughts and logical thinking - to alpha and theta, as well as delta waves, which are ordinarily associated with lower degrees of awareness such as during dream states.

Although, survivors with EEG monitoring were among those without explicit memories (due to low survival), however, the absence of explicit recall cannot be assumed to indicate absence of consciousness. This has in part been demonstrated by studies of implicit learning (discussed in the manuscript).

 The use of EEG (e.g., bispectral) is an established way to detect and measure the depth of consciousness in comatose patients in the intensive care unit and during surgery. Our study extended this application to detect markers of consciousness in comatose patients undergoing CPR. In view of these data, we respectfully disagree with the suggestion that consciousness had not been present due to the absence of explicit memories.
All EEG data were captured during pulse checks with minimal or absent movement. All artifactual data were removed and EEG waves were interpreted by neurophysiologists based on the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) Standardized Critical Care EEG terminology (2021) protocols as highlighted in the manuscript.

As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death. The identification of brain correlates of consciousness cannot provide a causative mechanism for any form of conscious experience, The question of consciousness and its relationship with the brain remains one of the biggest mysteries in science. In view of the absence of studies showing any causative mechanism between brain processes and consciousness, both top-down and bottom-up theories have been proposed to account for consciousness (highlighted in the manuscript).

Based on our analyses, we were able to show that the recalled experience of death is unique and different to imaginary experiences such as ordinary dreams, hallucinations, delusions, as well as CPR induced consciousness. We therefore put forth a novel mechanism to account for how this real experience may arise based on the underlying physiological brain processes to death – including disinhibition.

Reply to AWAreness during REsuscitation and EEG activity - Resuscitation (resuscitationjournal.com)

With this speculation about brain activity many tens of minutes into resuscitation, I think Parnia is actually trying to get the big pharmaceuticals on board (think I said this somewhere else so apologies for the repetition) to fund more  treatments (drugs) that can be given to patients during resuscitation. Formerly of course, it was assumed the brain cells died and were not viable anymore after five or ten minutes  but he says (as we all know now) he's got the evidence that near normal brainwaves appear late into resuscitation. He then hpothesizes that these are markers of consiousness ! 

I don't know why he thinks he can get away with this, because it doesn't actually make sense as an explanation for NDE's. But then again, without a proposed mechanism of some kind, for how his patients created memories from their period of cardiac arrest (death) he would surely have been accused of being unscientific.  I was therefore not too surprised to see the term novel inserted. Novel indeed almost certainly fictional. 

As I was reading that letter, I highlighted this sentence (and particularly the part which I placed in bold text):

As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death.

https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...X/fulltext

That seems to leave things wide open as to what might really be going on.

As I was reading that letter, I highlighted this sentence (and particularly the part which I placed in bold text):


https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...X/fulltext

That seems to leave things wide open as to what might really be going on.

Yes this was unusual explicit from Dr. Parnia

As I was reading that letter, I highlighted this sentence (and particularly the part which I placed in bold text):


https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/art...X/fulltext

That seems to leave things wide open as to what might really be going on.

In what way, Typoz ? What are you hinting at specifically ? Interesting.

In what way, Typoz ? What are you hinting at specifically ? Interesting.

Nothing special really. It just means - as I read and understand it - that Parnia explicitly states that the RED (formerly known as NDE) is unexplained. They found some measurable stuff but that doesn't imply it is the cause of consciousness, for example it could just as easily be a symptom or result caused by consciousness. Or something else entirely. That's what I meant by 'wide open', they are not reaching any particular conclusion.

Yes I know there is some hypothesis which is talked about, but there are other hypotheses too.

I should add too that the term 'consiousness' in this area of discussion has more than one meaning. Firstly it means the patient is having an experience, they are aware and conscious. The other meaning is more of a medical one, it means whether or not the patient is responsive or inert, but this is just an external observation from the outside.

that Parnia explicitly states that the RED (formerly known as NDE) is unexplained.

Strictly speaking of course, yes, not explained. But his comments on the subject of what they mean are fairly clear, "it's not the end we thought it was". Peter Fenwick also said recently that there is life after death, he said the evidence is basically good enough. That kind of talk doesn't go down well with some (they get quite angry I have to say), so we must remain cautious, of course.

I suspect many have already seen this letter to the editor from Sam Parnia. It was posted on Aware of Aware (which I don't contribute to anymore after we had a disagreement about the definition of death)

To the editor,
.........................................................

I think Parnia was being as tricky and ambiguous as usual. He is choosing his words very carefully so as not to exclude an implied significant probability that the materialist position is true, and thereby he attempts to keep his perceived credibility with the scientific community.

The phrase needs to be read carefully:  "As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death." Notice that logically all this does is state that a particular study involving certain brain biomarkers failed to indicate that REDs = brain processes. Logically, "Failed to indicate that REDs = brain processes" doesn't imply "did indicate that REDs are not brain processes". The statement leaves completely open the implied significant possibility that other studies looking at different biomarkers or having completely different methods would in fact reveal this, the materialist mantra. 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I think Parnia was being as tricky and ambiguous as usual.

I don't necessarily agree with that statement, nbtruthman but some would, no doubt. 

He is choosing his words very carefully so as not to exclude an implied significant probability that the materialist position is true, and thereby he attempts to keep his perceived credibility with the scientific community.

But I do agree with that!

As the study concluded, the identification of brain EEG biomarkers suggestive of lucid consciousness does not indicate brain processes produce the recalled experience of death.

I think this is very clear and I also think he is being bold in saying so. What he is basically stating is that something other than brain processes is producing the recalled experience of death. Now what could that be other than what we all (most of us not all) suspect it is ? 

His novel "theory" referred to, I personally think is utter nonsense, but I believe I understand why he is happy to run with that, as I've said.  He's got evidence that patients can be aware during cardiac arrest which should be literally impossible. So, by what mechanism are they aware? Scientists require a mechanism and there isn't one. And he doesn't have the "hit" which would persuade science to look at other possibilities.

So are his colleagues really going to swallow his novel theory ?  They might prefer it to, god forbid, soul talk which is anathema to them, but I doubt if any of them actually give it any credence. But if it gets him his funding, does it matter.  Every time I hear him talking about it, I feel even less convinced.