Mirroed: Asphyxia-activated corticocardiac signaling accelerates onset of cardiac arrest.

#1
Mirrored from the Consciousness & Science forum;

A recent study that claims;
Abstract
The mechanism by which the healthy heart and brain die rapidly in the absence of oxygen is not well understood. We performed continuous electrocardiography and electroencephalography in rats undergoing experimental asphyxia and analyzed cortical release of core neurotransmitters, changes in brain and heart electrical activity, and brain-heart connectivity. Asphyxia stimulates a robust and sustained increase of functional and effective cortical connectivity, an immediate increase in cortical release of a large set of neurotransmitters, and a delayed activation of corticocardiac functional and effective connectivity that persists until the onset of ventricular fibrillation. Blocking the brain's autonomic outflow significantly delayed terminal ventricular fibrillation and lengthened the duration of detectable cortical activities despite the continued absence of oxygen. These results demonstrate that asphyxia activates a brainstorm, which accelerates premature death of the heart and the brain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25848007?dopt=Abstract

This a an article by Medical Daily that breaks down and explains the study;
Near-Death Experiences May Be Explained By Heart-Brain Connection
Apr 9, 2015 12:55 PM By Susan Scutti
The many experiences described by survivors of cardiac arrest — people revived even after their hearts stopped beating, sometimes for many minutes — include moving through a tunnel toward a white light, greeting relatives no longer alive, and overhearing conversations between family members in another room. A new study from the University of Michigan Medical School shows how the brain sends signals to the heart in the moments before death. It is this flurry of mental activity that is key to cardiac demise, the researchers say, and quite probably the foundation of near-death experiences as well.
Reduction of oxygen or both oxygen and glucose during cardiac arrest can stimulate brain activity that is characteristic of conscious processing,” Dr. Jimo Borjigin, lead author of the study, stated in a press release. These current results combined with previous research provide a scientific framework for the near-death experiences reported by many cardiac arrest survivors...
http://www.medicaldaily.com/near-death-experiences-may-be-explained-heart-brain-connection-328640

This an article by Doubtful News;
Belief/Superstition, Discoveries, Perception
More evidence that near death experiences are related to brain activity, not the supernatural
by idoubtit • April 10, 2015
Doubtful News was created by Sharon Hill. She is the founder of Doubtful News. Hill also writes the Sounds Sciencey column for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Hill has contributed reports and articles to Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptical Briefs and contributed to various skeptical, science and paranormal blogs e.g., Hill has posted commentary often to JREF. Hill also has been a speaker at The Amazing Meeting. Hill has obviously worked diligently to place herself close to the center main stream skepticism. There are others, but Sharon Hill and Doubtful News are lauded as the all-around and go-to person and site for all things main stream skepticism, materialism and the assumed pathway (at least that's my impression) to what represents the rational thinkers, pillars academia and conventional science. Which is why she and her site are a good example for what IMO is something that is very wrong with main stream skepticism. There are others, but this example works well.

The article cited Medical Daily, but, Doubtful News often embellishes the materialist angle and seems to send a message of gratuitous self-gladhanding and implied victory lap.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/mor...lated-to-brain-activity-not-the-supernatural/

My question is, why does this study, articles and skeptics that often claim skepticism as their own, that also proclaim to champion science, truth, honesty, education, enlightenment etc..., that not only completely ignore, but seem to pretend that these studies don't exist?

Near-death experiences in non-life-threatening events and coma of different etiologies
Vanessa Charland-Verville, Jean-Pierre Jourdan, Marie Thonnard, Didier Ledoux, Anne-Francoise ]
Donneau,3 Etienne Quertemont, and Steven Laureys
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034153/

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories
Marie Thonnard , Vanessa Charland-Verville , Serge Brédart, Hedwige Dehon, Didier Ledoux, Steven Laureys, Audrey Vanhaudenhuyse
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057620

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a
prospective study in the Netherlands

Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich
http://pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

This is a response by Dr. Pim van Lommel to Micheal Shermer that explains the study in detail;
A Reply to ShermerMedical Evidence for NDEs Pim van Lommel
http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

If I'm missing something in these studies that support the idea that there is some as yet unexplained and anomalous activity taking place during NDEs indicating a need and urge for further research, then please, set me straight and explain it please. Because IMO there is clear and simple division here.

On one side, there are main stream academia and skeptics that continually claim victory every time a study even so much as mentions asphyxia. While on the other side, there are a considerably smaller academia and skeptics that are pointing out a phenomena that, from the data, cannot be explained by conventional science, yet claim no answers at all, let alone some self-proclaimed victory. No, they admit they do not know(heresy?), but do know and understand that more research is required. In fact seemed only concerned with the science, results and paving the way ahead.

How?!? How, is it rational or even possible that the prior group are taken seriously in any way, at all? Why is this group given a pass on being required to play on a level field of science? It would be a troubling problem, if it wasn't as equally comical. For example, here's an article by Doubtful News responding, as is typical on this website, to;
AWARE—AWAreness during Resuscitation—A prospective study
Dr. Sam Parnia
...by writing this article;
Media, Perception, Questionable claims
One not too impressive study does not prove life after death
by idoubtit • October 7, 2014
So, now we're back to Doubtful News and Sharon Hill. This site and person are obviously held in high regard and are apparently supposed to represent rational minds of this time. But, don't even think about having a rational debate at Doubtful News. Because unless you are in lockstep agreement, your article comments will never be seen and you may even be banned. But, you don't have to take my word on it, Sharon Hill makes it very clear here;
Comment policy
THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR DEBATE
This site attempts to counteract misinformation. It is not a forum, nor a place to debate claims. Therefore, we will not allow the comments section to be a platform for outside misinformation. We heavily moderate the comments section to only include worthwhile contributions by our discretion.

Comments should ADD to the interpretation of the story, especially if you are involved in the story. Additional info you can add is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED but it should be verifiable. Putting in your “two cents” is discouraged.
Questions on the story and for other commentators are welcome if cordial.
This is a science-based site. We will delete propaganda, invitations for debate, pseudoscience, or faith-based comments. We moderate in accordance with staying true to the goals of the site, so, if you are simply against the established scientific consensus on a topic, or just want to argue, comments will not be approved.
Comments longer than the original post are unlikely to be approved. Feel free to include a link to more information instead.
Try to keep comments specifically to the topic of the story. Comments too far afield may be removed.
Overcommenting on one or many threads is not appreciated. Continued posting on the same thread just to argue will be curtailed.
Incivility, name-calling, sexist or prejudiced remarks are not allowed.
A comment that is grammatically incomprehensible will not be allowed.
Please note that we do not write the news stories we link to, we frame it to emphasize critical thought and add context. If you do not like what the news is about, we can’t help that.

If you feel the moderation behavior has been in error, send an email to editor@doubtfulnews.com. We’re sorry that authors can’t respond to every comment individually.

Finally, we reserve the right to approve really silly or dumb comments for a good laugh or illustrative purposes – it’s our site.

Please read this piece about the privilege of commenting.

PERSONAL WEBSITES ARE NOT A PUBLIC FREE-FOR-ALL
JUST BECAUSE WE MODERATE COMMENTS DOES NOT MEAN WE RESTRICT FREE SPEECH.

YOU ARE FREE TO WRITE YOUR OWN BLOG WITH WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU CHOOSE.

Editor, Sharon Hill
Am I over thinking this? Is this much a due about nothing? I don't think so. IMO this site, person and behavior are extremely ridiculous, but also very disturbing. That a person so connected is remotely allowed to speak with such authority and then taken seriously stretches reason and credulity beyond understanding. At least mine. Maybe I have this all wrong and would welcome, again, to be set straight on this matter. Otherwise it's nearly impossible to wrap my mind around this.

Again, there are many more persons and examples, not just Sharon Hill and Doubtful News, but why bother?

Matt
 
Last edited:
#2
Doubtful news' comment on this proves to me that we're all subject to confirmation bias, skeptic and believer alike. As one who is generally pretty cynical about NDEs and the afterlife, I find the conclusions they are jumping to a bit premature, the scientists themselves say 'may be an explanation'. Doubtful news makes it sound like its a forgone conclusion.
 
#3
Seems to be par for the course these days. Not only in the science news but the mainstream news as well. Opinion and incomplete information passed off as fact.


Mirrored from the Consciousness & Science forum;

A recent study that claims;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25848007?dopt=Abstract

This a an article by Medical Daily that breaks down and explains the study;
[QUOTE
]Near-Death Experiences May Be Explained By Heart-Brain Connection
Apr 9, 2015 12:55 PM By Susan Scutti
The many experiences described by survivors of cardiac arrest — people revived even after their hearts stopped beating, sometimes for many minutes — include moving through a tunnel toward a white light, greeting relatives no longer alive, and overhearing conversations between family members in another room. A new study from the University of Michigan Medical School shows how the brain sends signals to the heart in the moments before death. It is this flurry of mental activity that is key to cardiac demise, the researchers say, and quite probably the foundation of near-death experiences as well.

“Reduction of oxygen or both oxygen and glucose during cardiac arrest can stimulate brain activity that is characteristic of conscious processing,” Dr. Jimo Borjigin, lead author of the study, stated in a press release. These current results combined with previous research provide a scientific framework for the near-death experiences reported by many cardiac arrest survivors...
http://www.medicaldaily.com/near-death-experiences-may-be-explained-heart-brain-connection-328640

This an article by Doughtful News;

Doughtful News was created by Sharon Hill. She is the founder of Doubtful News. Hill also writes the Sounds Sciencey column for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Hill has contributed reports and articles to Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptical Briefs and contributed to various skeptical, science and paranormal blogs e.g., Hill has posted commentary often to JREF. Hill also has been a speaker at The Amazing Meeting. Hill has obviously worked diligently to place herself close to the center main stream skepticism. There are others, but Sharon Hill and Doughtful New are lauded as the all-around and go-to person and site for all things main stream skepticism, materialism and the assumed pathway (at least that's my impression) to what represents the rational thinkers, pillars academia and conventional science. Which is why she and her site are a good example for what IMO is something that is very wrong with main stream skepticism. There are others, but this example works well.

The article cited Medical Daily, but, Doughtful News often embellishes the materialist angle and seems to send a message of gratuitous self-gladhanding and implied victory lap.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/04/mor...lated-to-brain-activity-not-the-supernatural/

My question is, why does this study, articles and skeptics that claim skepticism as their own, that also proclaim to champion science, truth, honesty, education, enlightenment etc..., that not only completely ignore, but seem to pretend that these studies don't exist?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034153/


http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057620


http://pimvanlommel.nl/files/publicaties/Lancet artikel Pim van Lommel.pdf

This is a response by Dr. Pim van Lommel to Micheal Shermer that explains the study in detail;

http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm

If I'm missing something in these studies that support the idea that there is some as yet unexplained and anomalous activity taking place during NDEs indicating a need and urge for further research, then please, set me straight and explain it please. Because IMO there is clear and simple division here.

On one side, there are main stream academia and skeptics that continually claim victory every time a study even so much as mentions asphyxia. While on the other side, there are a considerably smaller academia and skeptics that are pointing out a phenomena that, from the data, cannot be explained by conventional science, yet claim no answers at all, let alone some self-proclaimed victory. No, they admit they do not know(heresy?), but do know and understand that more research is required. In fact seemed only concerned with the science, results and paving the way ahead.

How?!? How, is it rational or even possible that the prior group are taken seriously in any way, at all? Why is this group given a pass on being required to play on a level field of science? It's would be a troubling problem, if it wasn't as equally comical. For example, here's an article by Doughtful News responding, as is typical on this website, to;

...by writing this article;


So, now we're back to Doughtful News and Sharon Hill. This site and person are obviously held in high regard and are apparently supposed to represent rational minds of this time. But, don't even think about having a rational debate at Doughtful News. Because unless you are in lockstep agreement, your article comments will never be seen and you may even be banned. But, you don't have to take my word on it, Sharon Hill makes it very clear here;


Am I over thinking this? Is this much a due about nothing? I don't think so. IMO this site, person and behavior are extremely ridiculous, but also very disturbing. That a person so connected is remotely allowed to speak with such authority and then taken seriously stretches reason and credulity beyond understanding. At least mine. Maybe I have this all wrong and would welcome, again, to be set straight on this matter. Otherwise it's nearly impossible to wrap my mind around this.

Again, there are many more persons and examples, not just Sharon Hill and Doughtful News, but why bother?

Matt[/quote]
 
#4
The article cited Medical Daily, but, Doughtful News often embellishes the materialist angle and seems to send a message of gratuitous self-gladhanding and implied victory lap.
Doubtful news makes it sound like its a forgone conclusion.
How? From the Doubtful News piece (bolding mine):
It’s long been suspected that what we describe as near death experiences (NDEs) may be related to processes in the brain that create a flurry of activity to produce the strange sensations.
...
New research supports the idea that it may be physiological, not supernatural.
...
Including prior research, Dr. Jimo Borjigin explains that the reduction of oxygen during cardiac arrest can stimulate brain activity that may be interpreted as what we call an NDE.
...
Scientists suspect that the same thing might happen in humans. The activity can create perceptions of a heightened state of consciousness.
Pat
 
#5
Including prior research, Dr. Jimo Borjigin explains that the reduction of oxygen during cardiac arrest canstimulate brain activity that may be interpreted as what we call an NDE
You could reword that to: reduction of oxygen during cardiac arrest can stimulate rodents brain activity, so that it becomes highly synchronised, resembling a wakeful human undertaking a visual task.

Amazing...! ;-)
 
#9
How? From the Doubtful News piece (bolding mine):


Pat
My impression is the of same opinion of politicaljunkie. But, I was speaking in general terms concerning the website and owner. It's a running theme with the majority of articles presented.
Seconded. The article seems to be appropriately holding off on drawing firm conclusions. Not sure where "foregone conclusion" comes from.

Linda
The Scientific Method does not support Confirmation Bias. So a self-proclaimed "science, skepticism and reason" website should not be credible or even rational if not only supports, bit encourages Confirmation Bias. Definitely not one as openly as this one does.
 
#10
The Scientific Method does not support Confirmation Bias. So a self-proclaimed "science, skepticism and reason" website should not be credible or even rational if not only supports, bit encourages Confirmation Bias. Definitely not one as openly as this one does.
Are you referring to the idea that the conclusions depend upon ignoring other research in the field? They don't. The research you linked to does not contradict the conclusions drawn, but rather complement this study. The rat study provides a mechanism for why NDEs are seen even when the subject was not near death or comatose. The study on characteristics of memory of NDE shows that it is remembered as fairly unique, and the rat study suggests that it should be, given that the connectivity they discovered is a fairly novel event. And Pim van Lommel's study wasn't really designed to address whether these experiences are anomalous or supernatural (although he seems to believe that they are).

I'm not really seeing the confirmation bias or the foregone conclusion. I don't disagree that there is an agenda behind the Doubtful News site, which is more about presenting a skeptical approach than about giving a scientific overview. But she seems to have done a decent job providing a scientific overview of this study (speaking as someone who has read this new rat study, plus much of the decent quality research on NDEs).

Linda
 
#11
Are you referring to the idea that the conclusions depend upon ignoring other research in the field? They don't. The research you linked to does not contradict the conclusions drawn, but rather complement this study. The rat study provides a mechanism for why NDEs are seen even when the subject was not near death or comatose. The study on characteristics of memory of NDE shows that it is remembered as fairly unique, and the rat study suggests that it should be, given that the connectivity they discovered is a fairly novel event. And Pim van Lommel's study wasn't really designed to address whether these experiences are anomalous or supernatural (although he seems to believe that they are).

I'm not really seeing the confirmation bias or the foregone conclusion. I don't disagree that there is an agenda behind the Doubtful News site, which is more about presenting a skeptical approach than about giving a scientific overview. But she seems to have done a decent job providing a scientific overview of this study (speaking as someone who has read this new rat study, plus much of the decent quality research on NDEs).

Linda
Are you implying prior research should be ignored? That's your opinion. I never said it did. But, it ignores prior research. Are you asserting correlation does imply causation? NDEs are not exclusive to cardiac arrest. The study concluded somewhat more than that. The researchers propose that NDEs can't be considered as imagined events, which have significantly fewer characteristics. NDE events are really perceived. NDE experiencers report memories that contain both more emotional and self-referential information than other target memories is more likely due to the hyperreal and veridical qualities. Are implying the van Lommel's study does not contain relevant research and data? So if research doesn't somehow attempt to cover all conceivably unknown scope of a study that critics from the future will poo-poo, it's what? Mediocre and should be marginalized and ignored?

Then we can agree to disagree Linda, because the site is rife with it and I've read too many of Hill's OP-EDs to know better. How can you separate skepticism from science? Seems rather counterintuitive. So...she seems to have done a decent job providing a scientific overview of this study (speaking as someone who has read this new rat study, plus much of the decent quality research on NDEs). Really? If a science, skepticism and reason website, that favored van Lommel's and other research, posted an article that read; More evidence that near death experiences are related to duality or non-local activity consciousness, because this site did a decent job of providing a scientific overview of this study. You'd okay with that? It's your metric, so I just want to be clear on it.
 
#12
Are you implying prior research should be ignored?
Not in the least. I'm saying that this research (and Sharon Hill's article) does not ignore prior research, but uses it instead.

That's your opinion. I never said it did. But, it ignores prior research. Are you asserting correlation does imply causation?
Not sure what you're referring to,

NDEs are not exclusive to cardiac arrest.
Exactly! So a study which shows how NDE can take place under different conditions than just cardiac arrest, is relevant to understanding NDEs. That's one of the valuable features of the rat study.

The study concluded somewhat more than that. The researchers propose that NDEs can't be considered as imagined events, which have significantly fewer characteristics. NDE events are really perceived. NDE experiencers report memories that contain both more emotional and self-referential information than other target memories is more likely due to the hyperreal and veridical qualities.
Right, so a mechanism which doesn't correspond to "imagined events" (i.e. the novel mechanism discovered in the rat research is unrelated to "imagined events") may be relevant.

Are implying the van Lommel's study does not contain relevant research and data?
Not at all. I'm just pointing out that it wasn't designed to address the issue of whether these experiences were anomalous or supernatural. It was designed to describe the frequency of various elements of the NDE amongst a cohort of subjects, and their association with medical, pharmacological, demographic and psychological factors. And then to measure change over time of a life change inventory.

So if research doesn't somehow attempt to cover all conceivably unknown scope of a study that critics from the future will poo-poo, it's what? Mediocre and should be marginalized and ignored?
Not in the least. Don't know where you're getting that from.

Then we can agree to disagree Linda, because the site is rife with it and I've read too many of Hill's OP-EDs to know better. How can you separate skepticism from science?
I think Skepticism focuses on whether or not a study requires a change to the status quo, whereas Science is more about the range of ideas the study could support.

Seems rather counterintuitive. So...she seems to have done a decent job providing a scientific overview of this study (speaking as someone who has read this new rat study, plus much of the decent quality research on NDEs). Really? If a science, skepticism and reason website, that favored van Lommel's and other research, posted an article that read; More evidence that near death experiences are related to duality or non-local activity consciousness, because this site did a decent job of providing a scientific overview of this study. You'd okay with that? It's your metric, so I just want to be clear on it.
That's not a fair comparison. Pim van Lommel's study wasn't designed to address the question of whether or not NDEs are related to duality, so if somebody claimed that, they'd be misrepresenting his study. Hill, on the other hand, stuck with presenting the results of what this study was designed to address - the kind of brain activity taking place under conditions of cardiac arrest, asphyxia, and other crisis-like events.

Linda
 
#13
Linda...I've been down these type of semantic arguing many times. I stated my stance, mainstream academia and skepticism does not operate from a strict adherence to the Scientific Method and, quite often, simply ignores any science, research or data that contradicts or threatens their subjective worldview of unknown or not understood phenomena. The mantra seems to be; well, we don't understand it yet, and if we don't no one else will either, but we will and then we'll be proven correct. Soon...you'll see While harshly and ruthlessly attacking the smallest mistakes or perceived lack of scientific rigor of opposing research and results. Can you honestly state this does not occur?
 
Top