"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

I'm perfectly fine with your conclusion. I think it would be better if Parnia referred to a specific reflex. The pupillary reflex would seem to be a key indicator. In fact, that is the point of this stream of research--they are finding that greater response of pupillary reflex during resuscitation may be an indicator that the patient has a greater chance of recovery.

Also, it does show that at least some brain activity is occurring for some folks in cardiac arrest during resuscitation.

If I may help...the examination for the Glascow Coma Scale would not take place during a resuscitation. Pupillary and other brainstem reflexes (like a gag reflex) may take place during the resuscitation. However, the examination for the GCS and other reflexes would likely be tested after the resuscitation was over and cardiac function was restored, if the patient remained unconscious. So I suspect that what happened was that Parnia was referring to something like "we know that sometimes CPR is inadequate, because sometimes patients demonstrate acute brain injury post-resuscitation, where the reflexes don't recover" - which would be reasonably accurate. And that got changed to "the reflexes don't recover" (or whatever the original statement was) by the journalist.

Linda

[If you want to start a thread about my behavior because it is so interesting to you, then please do.]

I'm not drawing a lot of conclusions in what I am saying. I am saying:

1. There is at least some brain activity in some patients who are in cardiac arrest and who are being resuscitated. This is evidenced by pupilary response.

I would also add, and I understand some others here may disagree:

2. We can't know what level of consciousness is present in some cases of people in cardiac arrest undergoing resuscitation. Just as we can't know the level of consciousness of some coma patients.

That's because they were able to get more blood up into the brain in some patients than others and that helped to keep the brain cells viable for longer.

I don't think that whether someone continues to have pupillary response during resuscitation has to do solely with the volume of blood getting to the brain. I would think that there would be cases where an equal amount of blood was being circulated, but that in one case there may be pupillary response and in another there would be no response.

I think there may be a matrix of reasons why one patient may have the reflex and another may not. Not simply that the volume of blood in one case is greater.

I don't think that whether someone continues to have pupillary response during resuscitation has to do with the volume of blood getting to the brain. I would think that there would be cases where an equal amount of blood was being circulated, but that in one case there may be pupillary response and in another there would be no response.

I think there may be a matrix of reasons why one patient may have the reflex and another may not. Not simply that the volume of blood in one case is greater.

The pupil reflex is a product of a functioning brainstem. In cardiac arrest, the brainstem stops functioning because it doesn't receive any blood which contains the glucose and oxygen which it needs to function.

It would appear that some restoration of brain stem function is achieved through forcing "some" blood back up into the head through CPR. There is also another correlation as to whether or not a patient survives a cardiac arrest and that is related to the heart (I did know this but I've forgotten and I'm not looking it up) but as I've said, I'm not an expert and there is no point in me adding anything more.