Near Death Experience Study Opinions?

[Pat Mustard]

Howdy all,

I recently found out that Sam Parnia (researcher of Near Death Experiences) was on the Dr. Oz show, as one of the other users on here started a thread on that. As some of you probably remember, Parnia is the doctor responsible for the AWARE studies, where he is trying to scientifically test Near Death Experiences.

For those who are unaware, the AWARE study has many tests put in place that attempt to study 

a) what happens to the brain at "death"

b) attempts to test when experiences occur, (if NDEs are true, then they should occur when the brain is absolutely dormant)

c) sets up hidden images as targets in places in the hospital room above the patients bed to see whether or not a patient claiming to have hovered over their bodies during an operation can identify these targets. If they can actually identify these targets without prior knowledge of targets being there, this could be big.

 I'm sure you are well aware of the first aware study done a few years ago which basically failed. Parnia did not prove anything big. However, now he is working on aware ii, which is supposed to be published in about 2020 or 2021. This time, he hoped to get more people, and put targets in more rooms to try to prove OBEs. While aware ii is still going on, Parnia has recently been coming on to tv and saying that he has scientific proof that a life after death exists. I wanted to ask you your opinion on:

1) Do you think this means that some patients he is using for aware ii have already seen hidden targets during their OBEs?

2) do you think that even though this study is supposed to be scientific that he may be biased and lie about NDEs being proof of a life after death?

I just don't know what to think of this.

https://www.doctoroz.com/episode/medical...6849591001

Study was bullshit. The original goal was to count how many people read messages Parnia placed where people couldn't see them without an oob experience (like on top of wardrobes). Half way through he changed the goal (itself a red flag as it's basicly an admission you're going to manufacture a particular result) and ended up with the "conclusive proof" of one man's vague description of what he says he saw of his own operation while allegedly out of body (and not even in a near death state) which was lots of stuff you'd get from watching ER or House, rather than a real working hospital.

If you dig deep enough you'll find a host of problems with the study such as no blinding, no control group, changing variables as the study progresses which individually would invalidate it as usable research but taken together prove Parnia's a fraud and a disgrace to his profession.