How on earth can you conclude what I will or will not do after the results of a test are in? We just have to be patient and wait and see. A test can definitely show that I do not perceive accurate health information, if I claim to see information that is shown to be inaccurate. If I claim to detect something during a test, and I report a good confidence level in what I see, then that enables those perceptions to be checked for accuracy.
Ah, but even in the case where your "see" and are confident about medical information in the test which later proves to be false it would not show that you have no extrasensory ability, only that your extrasensory ability, if it exists, did not work during
that test. The test can never exactly reproduce the conditions of your previous readings because the conditions of the test must be controlled while your prior readings were not.
My conclusion was based upon this statement;
If I fail tests and tests show that there is no extrasensory ability I will admit to the conclusion that the perceptions are not based on extrasensory perception.
The rest is simple logic. You did not simply say, "if I fail the IIG test then I will conclude that I do not have ESP." You added a qualifier which the IIG test cannot meet, hence you will not come to the aforementioned conclusion.
Well, I like to throw in information that I did not detect, just to see if the person is going to agree with everything I say. It is so much fun when I detect a shoulder problem and I say, "Do you have a shoulder problem?" and they say yes. I do not detect headaches, and I say "Do you have headaches?" and they say no. So that is one thing I like to do.
You should record yourself when you ask these questions. Psychics aren't the only people who pick up on subtle cues. You could give away the fact that a particular question is meant to be answered negatively quite unconsciously.
For example, perhaps when someone has a headache you say, "You have a headache don't you?" but when someone does not have a headache and you are simply testing their honesty you ask, "you don't have a headache do you?"
It could easily be more subtle such as a different expression worn or inflection used when asking your honesty-test question.
By recording yourself during a reading and reviewing the recording you might rule these out.
I also ask and plead that they answer honestly, and that when possible they prove that what I detect does in fact exist.
This could tell people that you feel strongly about your ability and reinforce their desire to give your the answer they think you want to hear.
I tell persons that I am more interested in finding out the truth than in being correct all the time, and I tell people that if they would give a false positive result then that could lead me to waste time and work in a more proper test and that we don't want that.
Have you ever noticed that people often fail to inform others when their shirts are untucked at the back or when they have been ◊◊◊◊ upon by a bird? People don't like to bear bad news even when that news would be helpful to know.
Thank you for posting the list of testable ailments you sent to IIG. I can see why several of them might have been deemed unsuitable. Two stand out as being very simple to test though and I am surprised that the IIG have not based the entire test around one of them.
14) Deafness in one or both ears. Tinnitus. We should not deal with partial hearing loss in order to avoid discussion about whether it is significant enough to be considered present.
15) Person who has taken a supplement of the "friendly" bacteria that are used for restoring function of the digestive system. The supplement has been taken at recommended doses for at least two days prior to test.
I would not have thought it too difficult to arrange for a test group made up half by deaf people half by people with no hearing problems for you to try to distinguish between.
Even easier would be to have a group of subjects take unmarked pills for two days before the test, half taking "friendly bacteria" and half taking sugar pills. You could then try to distinguish between them.
In fact, the second test is one that you could perform for yourself under double blind conditions if you could arrange for, say, 20 willing subjects and an assistant.
Did you ever discuss a single-ailment test with IIG before designing the multiple-ailment protocol?
Because I looked at a person and detected serious reproductive cysts, and later on it is confirmed. I have never perceived cysts to the extent as in her, and all the other women I've known have correspondingly not been diagnosed or scheduled for surgery for this. And because I detected a vasectomy and it was correct. What on earth is the problem? All I conclude from this is to proceed toward further and more proper tests? Why is that wrong. 
