Asphyxia-activated corticocardiac signaling accelerates onset of cardiac arrest.

A recent study that claims;
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.

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...

This an article by Doughtful News;
Belief/Superstition, Discoveries, Perception
More evidence that near death experiences are related to brain activity, not the supernatural
by idoubtit • April 10, 2015
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 News are lauded as the all-around, 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.

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?

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

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

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

Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich 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

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 Doughtful News responding, as is typical on this website, to;
AWARE—AWAreness during Resuscitation—A prospective study
Dr. Sam Parnia 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 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;
Comment policy
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.

  1. 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.
  2. Questions on the story and for other commentators are welcome if cordial.
  3. 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.
  4. Comments longer than the original post are unlikely to be approved. Feel free to include a link to more information instead.
  5. Try to keep comments specifically to the topic of the story. Comments too far afield may be removed.
  6. Overcommenting on one or many threads is not appreciated. Continued posting on the same thread just to argue will be curtailed.
  7. Incivility, name-calling, sexist or prejudiced remarks are not allowed.
  8. A comment that is grammatically incomprehensible will not be allowed.
  9. 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 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.



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 Doughtful News, but why bother?

Last edited:
Once again they seek to draw attention away from evidence toward things that fit their model. Nothing in here explains how a person whose heart and brain stopped working 3 minutes earlier can observe events in a room when there is not clear activity going on in either area. Until they can explain this the rest does not matter.