Talk:Sam Parnia

Parapsychology

An IP has removed any mention of parapsychology from the article a number of times, but his work in the field of near-death experiences is parapsychological based, you can read that here [1] Goblin Face (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Parnia's book What Happens When We Die was published by the new age publisher Hay House. His books are also on the "recommended reading" list from the Society for Psychical Research [2]. Goblin Face (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

172.56.19.197 (talk) has again removed the parapsychology template. From what I can tell from several dictionary definitions, all that parapsychology means is that the phenomena studied have no widely accepted scientific explanation at this time. It doesn't mean that the phenomenon of After-Death Experiences doesn't exist, simply that it is as of yet unexplained. The tag seems completely appropriate to me, although the Wikipedia article on parapsychology does seem to be a bit condescending about the subject. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To both - thank you for your input and comments. However the issue here is whether the subject of the person's research is considered parapsychological which according to Wikipedia also refers to pseudoscience. Clearly the study of the mind and brain in people undergoing sudden cardiac arrest is an important area and not considered parapsychological or pseudoscience by the mainstream. Furthermore the fact that people report near death experiences in relation to this life threatening condition does not make the subject of the research parapsychological either. In addition all of this person (Parnia's) scientific publications are in reputabile peer reviewed mainstream medical and scientific journals including the New England journal of Medicine and Resuscitation. The assumption that this work or subject is parapsychological would also imnply that these major scientific journals are publishing "pseudoscience". Labeling a scientist's work as paranormal, parapsychological or pseudoscience borders on libelous which is what the editorial policy requests to be avoided. A link to all of Parnia's publications can be found in the US national library of science's search engine pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=parnia+s%2C. These organizations do not endorse parapsychological works. It is important to avoid bias and remain impartial in Wikipedia. On review of the recent changes made to this article from Dec 2013 to March 2014 - it would appear that most of the changes have been made by people who consider themselves skeptical of the subject of near death experiences. While I am sure bias is not intended and all would agree it is important to address different opinions or interpretations, however this isn't enough to label a scientist's work (that doesn't fit with a specific personal (such as skeptical) opinion) in this way. Again it is important to use peer-reviewed scientific references as the gold standard to back up claims and this subject including Parnia's work being published in mainstream scientific journals doesn't fit the bill. Lastly, while I am sympathetic to the reasoning put forward by Goblin, but again references placed on various societies doesn't make a subject parapsychological or pseudoscientific, nor does a specific book publishers range of subjects. Many publishers publish a wide variety of subjects. I have removed the parapsychology link in order to ensure the article remains balanced and neutral and avoids misrepresentations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.79.43 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

172.254 (and on your other IPS) what you are ignoring is that there are references describing his work in the NDE as parapsychological on the article. Parnia holds strong fringe beliefs about the NDE which are at odds with the scientific consensus. Please also do your research - Parnia has co-written papers with Bruce Greyson and Peter Fenwick two famous parapsychologists who have also written books arguing for mind-body dualism and survival of consciousness. Goblin Face (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Gobin face i understand that some people are skeptical about the subject of near death but it is misleading to label a scientist work in the way you have. Your evidence is either non existent or weak at best. Please provide a series of scientific publications that claim the study of cardiac arrest and near death experiences during this time is parapsychological. None of the references you discuss in the article make such claims either as far as i can see. Please review the policy on living people which states that supporting evidence must be strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.79.43 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see the section on near-death experiences in An Introduction to Parapsychology, 5th ed by Harvey J. Irwin, Caroline A. Watt [3]. Any researcher invoking paranormal ideas about the NDE (like Greyson, Fenwick and Parnia) are doing parapsychology. I also recommend you check out the book The Outline of Parapsychology by Jesse Hong Xiong (pages 193-196) which discusses the parapsychology work of researchers like Karlis Osis and Raymond Moody (who have shared similar views to Parnia on the NDE) they are both described as parapsychologists [4]. Goblin Face (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also see the FAQ on the Parapsychological Association for the question "What do parapsychologists study?" - Near Death Experiences are on their list. [5] Goblin Face (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

We are not calling Parnia a parapsychologist. We're simply linking to a template on parapsychology. We're doing that because the study of NDEs falls into that category, so readers who are interested in the subject can investigate similar articles.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding scientific consensus on the NDE, Parnia's views are in complete opposition. The problem is that Parnia has not been around as long and is not as notable as other researches in the NDE like Raymond Moody so there is little critical coverage of his claims. This paper by Caroline Watt [6] contradicts what Parnia has claimed about the NDE. The problem is that it would be original research to mention it as Parnia is not mentioned in the references. Goblin Face (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia has published his research in peer-reviewed publications such as: Resuscitation, Medical Hypotheses, Critical Care Medicine and Respiratory Research (See PubMed database.) According to Stony Brook School of Medicine he is Director of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Research (with Board Certification in Pulmonary Medicine (ABIM) and Internal Medicine (ABIM)). I don't see a very strong link to Parapsychology here. Maybe some overlapping research interests, but hardly enough to qualify as Parapsychology. Just my opinion :) --Hawol (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How does this affect the content of this article if he is not referred to as being a Parapsychologist? I don't see the point to your comment. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have followed Mr Parnia's research for some time and I do not see him as a Parapsychologist, and I have (so far) not found any indications that Mr. Parnia understands himself to be a Psychologist, let alone a Parapsychologist. However I welcome input on this matter if anyone cares to investigate it further. He might have some overlapping research interests with the field of Parapsychology but I don't know if it's enough to call him a Parapsychologist? I can see that there is some popular precedence for labeling his popular (mainstream) books as Parapsychology. The bookseller Barnes & Noble has put his books in the Parapsychology section, and the Library of Congress catalogue mentions Parapsychology as one of the subjects of his popular book "Erasing Death". However, I find it difficult to classify him as a Parapsychologist based upon these secondary labels. His biography at Stony Brook School of Medicine has no mention of Parapsychology, and it describes him as a professor of Medicine, specializing in Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine. His medical, peer-reviewed, publications are listed in the PubMed database. His 2001 study received approval by the local ethics committee at Southampton General Hospital, while the 2014 AWARE study obtained ethics approvals from each participating medical center prior to recruitment and data collection. These are all signs of professional approval which - in my view -indicate that his medical work belongs in the professional world of Internal and Respiratory Medicine.--Hawol (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Where has he been 'classified' as a parapsychologist? The fact is that his notability revolves around his AWARE study work which clearly ties in with parapsychology and there is no original research involved in the tie. The AWARE study is cited in a multitude of sources directly dealing with parapsychology, and that includes popular culture. The template at the bottom of the page merely indicates that his work is connected with parapsychology for readers who have come to Wikipedia in order to further pursue this line of investigation and information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not gonna drag out the issue, only make a few final points...so bear with me :). I see that there is a popular perception (mostly among Skeptical blogs) to consider his work as a branch of Parapsychology, but I'm still not convinced about the template, which (in my view) appears to represent an over-simplification of the medical career of Sam Parnia. I don't see much reference to him as an exponent of Parapsychology in major periodicals and news sites. Newsweek (July 23, 2007) calls him "a British pulmonologist", The Register (09/16/2008) calls him "an expert in the field involving consciousness during clinical death", Science Daily (Sep. 10, 2008) calls him "an expert in the field of consciousness during clinical death", University of California, Riverside (May 21, 2013) calls him "director of resuscitation science" and TIME Magazine (Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008) calls him an "expert on the scientific study of death". No mention of Parapsychology in any of these articles. In an interview with Der Spiegel (July 29, 2013) Parnia says: I'm neutral. I'm just a researcher. For many people, death has to do with religion and philosophy, not science. To me, that makes no sense. I deal with death every day in my life. What we study is very scientific, there's nothing paranormal about it. With regard to the AWARE-study, it is possible that the study is associated with Parapsychology in popular culture and in the blog-culture of the WWW. I have not investigated the matter. However, I did notice that Jerry Nolan, Editor-in-Chief of the medical journal Resuscitation (www.resuscitationjournal.com), which published the study, stated that: “The AWARE study researchers are to be congratulated on the completion of a fascinating study that will open the door to more extensive research into what happens when we die.” (University of Southampton Press Release, October 2014). I do not associate this kind of recognition with the domain of Parapsychology. That said, I do of course welcome other viewpoints, and I see that some aspect of Parnia's work (mostly his popular books, published by Barnes and Noble) might be associated with Parapsychology in the popular culture. However, I do not think that this aspect of his work is sufficient in order to label his main work as Parapsychology.

Coast to Coast AM interviews

Parnia has talked on Coast to Coast AM writing:

• "The whole concept of what we are...mind & consciousness, doesn't seem to disintegrate after people have died, at least not in the first phase of death." [7]

• "Rather than the popular concept that death leads to unlimited knowledge in the afterlife, he suggested that "people take their own level of thought to the other dimension." Therefore, Parnia posited that perhaps the purpose of life on Earth is to prepare us to better understand this next level when we arrive there." [8].

Science is it? It sounds like paranormal speculation. Goblin Face (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

NDE Target Identification Experiments

This is very odd indeed. Parnia seems to have a history of conducting experiments where symbols or targets are placed in hospital rooms to test if a subject during an OBE or NDE can read them i.e. by their consciousness leaving their body but thing is Parnia never reports the results from these experiments because they are all negative. This type of experiment has been practiced in parapsychology since the 1970s but all have produced negative results (see the link below). He mentions it in his 2001 paper with Peter Fenwick:

• "hidden targets were used to test the transcendental theories on potential out of body claims" (In the abstract)
• "in order to test prospectively the possible veridical nature of out of body experiences, boards were suspended from the ceiling of the wards prior to the commencement of the study. These had various figures on the surface facing the ceiling which were not visible from the floor. If out of body experiences are indeed veridical, anybody who claimed to have left their body and be near the ceiling during resuscitation attempts would be expected to identify those targets. If, however, such perceptions are psychological, then one would obviously not expect the targets to be identified." (in the paper)

The paper can be found here [9] but the results are not mentioned! The results were deliberately left out because the experiments had obviously failed. This website concludes that all experiments into NDE target identification have failed [10] (and it mentions Parnia's paper). There needs to be a section on this added to the article. Goblin Face (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And Parnia has performed similar experiments in 2008 which were also negative:

• "The study, due to take three years and co-ordinated by Southampton University, will include placing on shelves images that could only be seen from above." "And if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories." [11]

• Susan Blackmore commented in 2008 "If Parnia does the experiments properly, and his patients really can see those images, then I will change my mind about the paranormal. I don't think it's going to happen but I do think it's worth him making the attempt." [12]

Well it seems Blackmore was correct. I noticed the results were quietly hidden, obviously negative then. And now 2013-2014 Parnia is doing the same sort of studies again. All this needs to be added to the article. Goblin Face (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think repeated studies that were not published on the same thing deserves mention if we are mentioning another study on the same... - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As Parnia has a long history of never actually publishing results, his statement that results have been submitted for peer review should not be added until supported by third party reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

According with the study, OBE´s are very rare. Only two were reported in the sample and none of them happened during a cardiac arrest in the environments where the targets were set. Indeed, as reported in the paper, 80% (if I remember correctly of CA´s ocurred out of hospital environment.

Horizon Research Foundation

Parnia seems to be conducting his AWARE study with the Horizon Research Foundation, this is not a scientific institution or organization but a Registered Charity that investigates parapsychology, mind-body dualism and other fringe science. [13]. Regarding the Aware study it reads "the results of the first phase of the AWARE study have been completed and have been submitted for publication in a medical journal. The study results are now undergoing peer review. It is anticipated that after the completion of this process, the investigators will announce the results to the public through conventional media channels." [14]. Goblin Face (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Parnia is the Chairman of the Horizon Research Foundation, and the owner is Peter Fenwick (Fenwick has written books claiming reincarnation and spirits are real) [15]. Goblin Face (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Aware Study failure

It took me a long time to find this, basically the Aware study failed, just like all of the previous studies on the NDE and targets. None of the subjects saw the image targets [16]. I added this to the article. Goblin Face (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've found the original abstract online,here and here. Bowman's conclusions seems to be rather different than those of the original source:

• He did not mention that only 22% of the rooms had images on display.

• He did not mention that the two patients who recall visual experiencies "did not have CA in areas with images.", thus putting in question his own conclusion (that none of the subjects saw the image targets).

• He fails to mention that one of the two patiens who recall visual experiencies "accurately described details corresponding with a verifiable period that may be up to 3-5 minutes of CA in which cerebral function would ordinarily not be expected."

• He fails to include in his analysis that barely 8.9% of the cases were consistent with a "conventionally defined NDE."

• More important, he fails to cite the abstracts main conclusions, i. e.: "Awareness during CA may be more common than previously thought. ", "These experiences may not reflect the conventionally defined NDE, yet indicate that consciousness may not cease as expected with cessation of heartbeat during CA.", and "Claims of visual awareness consistent with so called out of body experiences during CA are unlikely to be hallucinatory."

I will add the abstract's conclusions (from the abstract itself) and remove Blackmore's remarks, which not only are off-topic stuff but also are arranged in a way that seems to advance Bowman's flawed statement about the image targets (see WP:SYN and WP:NPOV).Darius (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Darius you have added a source from [17], firstly this is not a scientific paper or a reliable reference. It's a talk that is going to take place on April 21-26, 2014 called "Toward a Science of Consciousness" [18] [19]. In the link that you cite which is titled "Awareness During Resuscitation - A Prospective Case Study" like I said this is a talk not a reliable reference, and search for the word "AWARE" in the text. There's no evidence this study is part of the AWARE project. It seems to me this is a separate study even if it is the results from part of the AWARE study it's a talk that hasn't even taken place not a scientific paper, it shouldn't be cited as it's an unreliable reference. You talk about Bowman's conclusions being wrong and that "he fails to cite the abstracts main conclusions"... you are talking about an "abstract" to a talk that has not even taken place yet. Like I said whatever this abstract is, it is not conclusive that it is the results of the AWARE study. A quick look online and no other websites mention this "abstract" yet many mention Bowman's conclusion that the AWARE failed on the targets.

You also write you will "remove Blackmore's remarks" because they were off-topic. They were not off-topic at all. WP:NPOV would indeed be a problem here because you are adding unreliable fringe claims to the article and deleting valid criticisms. Goblin Face (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Bowman's article also fails to establish any relationship between Parnia's statistics and the AWARE project, therefore we should also have his statement removed.

"Awareness During Resuscitation - A Prospective Case Study" is a work by Sam Parnia himself and made public by a University's website (see WP:SOURCE), no matter if a paper, a comment or a mere interview to be published tomorrow, in 2015 or 20 years from now, thus it should be mentioned here.

The above mentioned abstract is published in the official page of the University of Arizona. The Center for Consciousness Studies (CCS) is hosted by the Department of Anesthesiology, Wayne Jacobsen MD Chairman, at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, and was established in 1997 by the Arizona Board of Regents, hardly a fringe source.(see the bottom line)

Yes, criticism should be cited in this article, but remember that the subject of this page is the biography of Sam Parnia, not the article on NDEs, where we should represents all scientific (and non-scientific) points of view.

Since it is obvious that Bowman's statement did not come out from nothingness, and he neither tell us a word on AWARE results, I propose to put the last paragraph of the "AWARE" section on hold until further notice from an indisputed source (IMHO, Sam Parnia's abstract is a reliable source).Darius (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just reading over this conversation, there's a couple points that seem to be missed.

1. Parnia is a primary source on himself. We can use him, per WP:SPS, but secondary sources are strongly preferred.
2. WP:CRYSTAL indicates we should not be reporting on things that haven't happened yet.
3. We can't do original research in order to analyze the sources we're using. Whether a source appears to us to properly cover the subject isn't a relevant factor in making content decisions.
4. Links to NPOV and SYN have been provided, but they don't apply here (at least in the way they are being advanced). I'd urge rereading both.

What I'm seeing from the discussion is that Blackmore is a secondary source, and his comments are being replaced by Parnia, a primary source, based on an event that hasn't yet taken place. We absolutely can't do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe the conference had not taken place yet, but the abstract is already published online.
• Blackmore comments are certainly a secondary source analysis about Parnia's methods, but we can hardly used them for the conclusions of AWARE since those conclusions still had not been full published.
• We should undestand that this article is about Sam Parnia, no matter if Parnia is considered by some, many or all a charlatan, we should represent his theories and point of view here (including, of course, criticism by other authors). All reliable material which relates to Sam Parnia should be included here.
• More important: User Goblin Face has put in question whether or not the abstract I cited refers or not to the AWARE project; but I found that Bowman's article also fails to clarify if the statistics he mentions come from AWARE or not. I repeat, I'am for putting the last paragraph of the "AWARE" section on hold until the definitive results are published by a reliable source.Darius (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You're still arguing to use primary sources over secondary sources. Yes, we can and should use secondary sources to discuss the conclusions of AWARE. We don't hold off on publishing sourced criticism just because we expect more information to surface in the future. We publish what we have now. That is, the reception of AWARE in the relevant academic community as reported by our reliable (secondary) sources today. If that changes in the future, then we update our article in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, but what I'am questioning is the inclusion of a source (namely Bowman's article) that doesn't mention the AWARE project at all (the same concern of user Goblin Face regarding the abstract). We should put this statement on hold (or at least move it from the "AWARE" section) not because "we expect more information to surface in the future" but because we are taking for granted that he is referring to AWARE, and this is WP:OR.Darius (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, if the article doesn't mention AWARE, and we have no sources which explicitly set out the link, then it shouldn't be used to discuss AWARE. That's certainly correct.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not getting into an argument over this. I believe both myself and Dagos have basically said the same thing but about different sources. I removed any references to the results because they are not official. On the actual website it says:

"The study results are now undergoing peer review. It is anticipated that after the completion of this process, the investigators will announce the results to the public through conventional media channels. This will likely take place through collaboration between the university media offices, the medical journal and national and international media outlets. Unfortunately due to the strict nature of scientific peer review, the process can take several months. The authors and researchers cannot disclose the results until they have been formally published, as medical journals do not permit results to be revealed prior to publication and place an embargo on researchers and universities." [20]. Per correct policy I think we should wait till the results are published in a reliable scientific paper rather than public talks or other unconfirmed sources. Goblin Face (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be ok to publish results discussed in news outlets when we don't have a scientific source available. If the "final results" hadn't been formally published, we could of course mention that too. The concern above is pertinent, however. An explicit link has to be present to AWARE to make it viable for that section.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone wouldn't be annoyed or confused over this! Parnia and the AWARE study has been going on for years (since 2008) but no results are ever officially reported. And before the AWARE, Parnia has conducted similar experiments with the targets but never reported the results. Bold claims were made in 2000 by Parnia and Fenwick but the results were never reported [21]. In 2001 he co-wrote a paper [22] with Fenwick and others which talked about using targets to test out of body claims but the results were never published not even in the paper itself! Read the paper he mentions the targets in the abstract and briefly in the paper i.e. the methodology but the results are left out of the paper? I have never seen this before in any scientific paper. The results are left out?

In 2004, again Parnia and Fenwick made bold claims [23] about testing OBEs but the results were never published. No results can be found. The same is happening again, these are from 2008 [24] [25] which talk about testing out of body claims by using image targets but as of 2014 no results for those studies can be found anywhere. Parnia seems to have a history of making bold claims but not publishing any of the results. We now have the same situation again with the more recent AWARE studies that have employed targets, but no official results can be found and only contradictory or unofficial information on the subject. There's something weird going on here. There isn't a single scientific paper that reports any of Parnia's results on these target identification experiments, this has been going on since 2000. This website seems to conclude that the reason for this is because the results are all negative [26] which is supported by the history of target identification experiments which have been conducted in parapsychology for over 30 years, all of them have produced negative results. [27]. Goblin Face (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens a lot. That's why it's appropriate to report on what we have now, and not wait for the "final results" to come out, leaving our article in a perpetual state of "we haven't yet figured out if this is a real phenomena." If we have any sources that say "preliminary results of AWARE", we can report that. If we have any sources criticizing AWARE for not publishing, that's reportable too. We can mention that the "final" report hasn't been published, if that's sourceable, but our weight should appropriately be placed on the consensus of the academic community, which AFAIK clearly rejects NDEs (including this research). We don't cover that much in the article now, which is a gross omission. I'd fix it, but I've been doing my best to do things off wikipedia, not spend all day looking at sources ;). I'll see if I can find some time to look too.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, shouldn't we make mention of the fact that the study is now undergoing peer review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.195.30 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Other references

Two references here which criticize Parnia and the aware studies from the Skeptic's Dictionary [28] and [29]. The "Horizon Research Foundation" that Parnia belongs to [30], profile here [31] is definitely a pseudoscience organization or "charity". The president is Peter Fenwick (a believer in psychic powers) and includes other fringe proponents who endorse paranormal phenomena, quantum woo and dualistic "non-materialistic" models of consciousness. Goblin Face (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also some information about Parnia here from the International Association for Near-Death Studies [32]. Goblin Face (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

For the last few months (and on other IPs) has been removing the Keith Augustine source from the article. This IP has been told many times not to remove this source as it is reliable but they keep removing it. The article may have to be locked if this IP is just going to keep logging in doing this. Goblin Face (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As the IP user is a WP:SPA, I'd suggest that, should they continue, they should be blocked for edit warring, or I'll open an ANI into their content 'dispute'. The IP hopping can be picked up from there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard filing done. here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The result was semi protected for 10 days. I don't think this is an appropriate resolution as the series of IP editors seems to return about monthly to do the same vandalism. Anyone care to weight in at 3RRNB or take this elswhere? - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

AWARE

In a Dec. 2013 (a month after the paper cited above was published) forum titled "Experiencing death: an insider's perspective" Parnia was discussing dualism et al. when he referenced "the first case that we can verify of someone that had consciousness -at least during the 3-5 minute period in which the brain should not have been functioning- rather than when the brain was coming back online". He notes that they used external stimuli to gauge if the brain was (in layman's terms) still "offline" or if it was "rebooting". The transcript of the forum is here, or for a simpler approach, you can hear it directly from the horse's mouth at the 1:05 mark of this video. During the meeting, he mentions several times that he is unable to thoroughly discuss the results, so he merely "hints" that he is referencing to an OB/NDE. Thus we can't directly say that, but a quote of that assertion should be more than enough. The fact that it may be a "first case" of a medical recording is notable enough for inclusion. And in either case, that particular bit should probably be included to balance the article a bit and deal with the warring. 172.56.0.124 (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm always dubious of using 'straight from the horse's mouth' content per primary source recommendations. In this context, I'm be particularly unreceptive to using the forum material as it leaves far too much scope for being on the POV side of 'interpretative'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose that the following text is added to the end of the AWARE study section.

"The AWARE study said that "One [participant] had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected". The "verification" was that the participant remembered event of the resusciation and a person who performed the resuscitation. The person who performed the resusciation visited the participant the day after the resuscitation. The study interview was conducted weeks after the resuscitation."

The passage demonstrates that the study uses a low standard for verification of the idea that near-death experiences involve people actually looking down on themselves. That is necessary. The issue of primary sources is not relevant here because the AWARE study is a primary source but this section of the article is about the primary source. As for the issue of parapsychology, Sam Parnia is studying parapsychology because he says that the mind can do things which are not accepted that it can do. Specifically, look down from a ceiling when the heart has stopped for two minutes. It does not matter that he is not declared to be a parapsychologist as the facts speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Nielsen (talk • contribs) 06:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently published study

Content based on a study published in the last few days, supported only by that study and an article based on material provided by the institution sponsoring the study, needs careful consideration. Both sources are primary, making them low quality evidence. Content for an encyclopedia should be based on secondary, third party independent analysis, interpretion and context. The details of the results are undue, unless a secondary source considers them notable enough to discuss. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Essentially, it boils down to the fact that Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. Any OR parsing of primary sources runs contrary to the project. We don't write articles on miracle diet pills based on the research findings of the company who produce it. It may be a lame analogy, but it is appropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Science Direct Article level metrics (right column): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957214007394 The article has been covered by secondary sources such as Huffington Post, USA Today, CBC and SPIEGEL ONLINE. However, these are not strong sources from a source-critical point of view. I am awaiting academic citing of the article. Preferably PubMed. --Hawol (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Caroline Watt

Caroline Watt's analysis of AWARE's results fails to mention the fact that the patient accurately recalled the timing of the defibrillator, the appearances of the medical team, and what was said during the resuscitation. 94.13.81.144 (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC) 16:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If these were 'facts', I'm certain she wouldn't have omitted such compellingly detailed 'recollections'. Moral of the story: don't read forums, blogs with obsessive believers in the paranormal who preface anecdotes with 'apparently'. Also, please note that this is a Wikipedia article talk page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Those recollections don't come from blogs or forums, they come from the Resuscitation journal itself. It's entirely plausible that Caroline Watt would have ignored them - Sam Parnia has been accused of lying, misrepresenting facts and having confirmation bias by a number of materialists, so it seems hypocritical to pretend that Watt is above such things (and I've seen materialists lie to defend their viewpoint just as often as non-materialists, most notably Dan Dennett's "consciousness does not exist"). If this really was not a soapbox, the article would not have randomly added quotes from Caroline Watt in order to disprove the research. 2.223.248.100 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a forum for espousing conspiracy theories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What conspiracy theory? I'm not sure what you mean, but I think you're either implying that: Sam Parnia is part of a conspiracy because he found evidence of something on which other scientists have declared some kind of absurd war; or that I think Caroline Watt is part of a conspiracy because there's no other way for a materialist to be wrong. Either way, I'd like actual reasons why all of my points are wrong, not just accusations about conspiracy theories. 90.212.64.68 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your words: "It's entirely plausible that Caroline Watt would have ignored them - Sam Parnia has been accused of lying, misrepresenting facts and having confirmation bias by a number of materialists, so it seems hypocritical to pretend that Watt is above such things (and I've seen materialists lie to defend their viewpoint just as often as non-materialists, most notably Dan Dennett's "consciousness does not exist")." This is entirely WP:OR on your behalf. What does or doesn't exist in the primary source is irrelevant to Wikipedia as it is based on conclusions/interpretations according to your reading, not the analysis of a peer reviewed and acknowledged academic/expert via a secondary source. Try reading WP:RS, WP:BIAS... and WP:NPOV. I'm not engaging in further communications on this level. Find reliable secondary sources relevant to the content: then there may be something to discuss (unless it's WP:UNDUE). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why primary sources are irrelevant, but whatever, I'll go with it - I'm not trying to add another source, I'm merely pointing out that Caroline Watt is not a reliable secondary source because her review is incomplete and because she decided that near-death experiences were hallucinations long before the AWARE results were published (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15494379). (I also wouldn't call her "an acknowledged academic expert", because she lacks a page here on Wikipedia, implying that she is not notable - but I admit that isn't such a good judgement.) 90.196.203.81 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

She doesn't need to be a 'notable' in your sense of the concept to be a secondary source. Neither does she need to be unbiased (see WP:BIASED). The only criterion she needs to meet is that of being an acknowledged expert in the field. You're welcome to have your own POV; form your own opinion through original research; indulge any fantasy world-view or empirical world-view you choose to... but it doesn't belong in the content of an encyclopaedic article. It certainly sounds to me as if you're trying to pick holes in her expert opinion because you just don't like it. Wikipedia has nothing to do with your opinion or my opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't that she doesn't fit my concept of notability, it's that she doesn't fit what I assumed was Wikipedia's concept of notability. I'm not clear on why Watt doesn't need to be biased, as you've told me to have a neutral point of view before and the pages on systematic bias seem to be against the concept if anything. Being an expert in the field doesn't automatically guarantee freedom from dogmatism or prejudice (which I've already mentioned regarding Dan Dennett and others). As I've repeatedly said, this is NOT original research nor a fantasy world-view as the visual recall of the medical team and the memory of the words was mentioned in the Resuscitation journal. As for picking holes in her opinion, maybe I don't agree with her, but I've picked holes in opinions I do like just as often (as has Sam Parnia, I believe) - in this case I care more about how in-depth her analysis is (if she had come up with another way the patient could have remembered so many details about his cardiac arrest, I would treat this as another flawed study and move back to logical evidence rather than empirical). Besides, Caroline Watt could easily be accused of picking holes in an opinion she doesn't like, so again I have no idea why she is considered a good source for an encyclopaedia with an edit rule about such things. 2.217.197.175 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

My final response: read WP:NPOV. In fact, please familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. This is a talk page, not a forum, blog or any other form of advocacy. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I understand now that Wikipedia cares more about publicizing the views of "famous" people than presenting rational judgements and facts on a particular topic. I'll stop trying to talk sense into a brick wall. 90.196.201.202 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)