VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Farencue]

I have already declared that I am ready to take the official IIG test. The IIG however have recommended that I perform some preliminary testing before I have their official test so that I am better prepared for the outcome of that test. And I agree, and would be glad to have some experience with what it is like to take a paranormal test. Meanwhile I am ready to take the official IIG test.

Oh but Anita the IIG say that they are aware of only ONE missing kidney detection test that you have undertaken, the one with Dr Carlson.
You need to immediately inform them of the "at home missing kidney detection test" you have just undertaken so they know that you have had two practice tests not one.

Let the IIG know that you had no problems with that one either and that you are ready. I dont know why the IIG are mucking you around like this.

 

[GeeMack]

Please just stop this, you are criticizing everything I say. You know full well that I am the one who will be paying for one ultrasound, so it is free to the volunteer. You are wasting my time, stop playing around.

Your suggested protocol sucks from a scientific point of view. When you can't develop a reasonable protocol for testing your absurd claim about magical medical imaging and refer to yourself as a medical imaging geek, that is a glaring contradiction. You're not above criticism. Buck up, kid.

I DID NOT MISS IT, I SAW THAT HE WAS MISSING A LEFT KIDNEY BUT I ONLY FAILED TO WRITE IT DOWN!

You missed it. You have so far established a 100% failure rate at identifying a missing kidney. And now you're proposing a child's guessing game as a pre-preliminary-study-survey-almost-test to see if you can find a person with a missing kidney, but apparently you refuse to accept a protocol which could actually show whether you do or don't have the super powers. There must be some reason you're not willing to actually work with a reasonable protocol. Maybe if you can determine why you're so unwilling, you can get past that problem and get to work on a reasonable test?

We can't have multiple persons who have had a kidney removed because that would mean that I have to say how many kidneys all volunteers have and that would mean that I would have to pay for multiple ultrasounds and I simply can't afford that. Unless we let people come and watch the test and charge for admissions. I can't agree to have a screen that confuses my sense of orientation in the body and reduces my chances of detecting a kidney. Meanwhile to see a kidney just by looking at a person's back with eyesight is not supposed to let you see how many kidneys they have. A screen might not be necessary.

You claim practical issues prevent you from developing a reasonable protocol for yourself, and you won't accept a reasonable protocol from anyone else, so you're dead set on pursuing one that is useless? Now there's some good science, alrighty!

Remember, when you're brave enough to find out that you don't have the super powers, you just chuck this whole stupid idea you're working on and we can get you into a test that will cost you nearly nothing and actually provide some very useful information.

I already know that the protocol so far has some serious problems with it and I don't take that personally. So go ahead and let us know what you suggest.

I suggest abandoning your current useless idea. You haven't done that yet. You let us know when you get that far. Then we can move on to a method for developing a realistic test.

 

[GeeMack]

let the iig know that you had no problems with that one either and that you are ready. I dont know why the iig are mucking you around like this.

Uh...

 

[Farencue]

...sorry Geemack

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Your suggested protocol sucks from a scientific point of view. When you can't develop a reasonable protocol for testing your absurd claim about magical medical imaging and refer to yourself as a medical imaging geek, that is a glaring contradiction. You're not above criticism. Buck up, kid.

How would I test a claimant with my claim? I would be pleased that they are going to see the volunteer from behind only, and that the head and neck of the volunteer are concealed behind a screen. I would ask the claimant how much time they need, and if they ask for 30 minutes I would allow that. I would try to arrange a 1 in 10 test with multiple such trials and since humans aren't supposed to be able to see through clothes and skin into kidneys I would accept that the claimant does not want to work with a full-body screen. I would perform this kind of test with the claimant and if she passes this test I would then invest more serious thought into making the test conditions more rigorous. Because I would expect this claimant to fail the preliminary test. This kind of test would suffice as a Preliminary, and I would not expect a human to pass.

You missed it. You have so far established a 100% failure rate at identifying a missing kidney. And now you're proposing a child's guessing game as a pre-preliminary-study-survey-almost-test to see if you can find a person with a missing kidney, but apparently you refuse to accept a protocol which could actually show whether you do or don't have the super powers. There must be some reason you're not willing to actually work with a reasonable protocol. Maybe if you can determine why you're so unwilling, you can get past that problem and get to work on a reasonable test?

Oh stop that. I am not unwilling. The only thing, as I see it, that makes this test inadequate is the 1 in 10 odds. Simply by finding additional persons who have had a kidney removed we can improve the odds and the preliminary test protocol should be deemed acceptable.

You claim practical issues prevent you from developing a reasonable protocol for yourself, and you won't accept a reasonable protocol from anyone else, so you're dead set on pursuing one that is useless? Now there's some good science, alrighty!

Suggest a protocol. The only things I am not agreeing to here, is to buy ten football shirts when we can simply draw a number on the volunteer's arm, and the screen which should not be necessary anyway since people aren't supposed to be able to see kidneys through the body, and that I am asking for 30 minutes with each person. Why don't we try the underground bunker protocol?

Remember, when you're brave enough to find out that you don't have the super powers, you just chuck this whole stupid idea you're working on and we can get you into a test that will cost you nearly nothing and actually provide some very useful information.

Please tell me what that protocol is.

I suggest abandoning your current useless idea. You haven't done that yet. You let us know when you get that far. Then we can move on to a method for developing a realistic test.

Alright let's start over. Tell us what you suggest as the protocol, GeeMack. Will you tell me what your protocol is, or will you not? Which do you think it is?

 

[Farencue]

Anita, you are the claimant. You need to develop the protocol.
Maybe you do need help with developing the protocol.
Many JREFers were happy to help you out.
Then things got ridiculous.

You know things are ridiculous. Please print out the following excerpt from your website and show a mathematician at your university.
Have a discussion with that person.
Let us know how it went.

2. If I see ten persons at a time, I would like to have the opportunity to in the middle of that trial to select five persons out of the ten who I think have both kidneys and I will then leave the room and those five will leave the row of ten. I would then return and only have five to look at, and that way it is easier for me to narrow down to the one I think is missing a kidney when there are only five left, because I keep going back and forth looking at the volunteers. I would very much like this detail in the test, although it adds a little bit more work for everyone else. It should not take away from the quality of the test but would make it much more convenient for me. I'd still like a total of ten persons at a time, so that I know that one of them is missing a kidney, however ten people are a lot so that way I can then narrow it down to five.

Before you do that Anita, which incidentally would prove to me that you are indeed a self described serious student of science, please note the bolding of the above excerpt is mine. If a mathematician does not know what you are talking about perhaps you could have a chat with a close friend.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, you are the claimant. You need to develop the protocol.
Maybe you do need help with developing the protocol.
Many JREFers were happy to help you out.
Then things got ridiculous.

You know things are ridiculous. Please print out the following excerpt from your website and show a mathematician at your university.
Have a discussion with that person.
Let us know how it went.

2. If I see ten persons at a time, I would like to have the opportunity to in the middle of that trial to select five persons out of the ten who I think have both kidneys and I will then leave the room and those five will leave the row of ten. I would then return and only have five to look at, and that way it is easier for me to narrow down to the one I think is missing a kidney when there are only five left, because I keep going back and forth looking at the volunteers. I would very much like this detail in the test, although it adds a little bit more work for everyone else. It should not take away from the quality of the test but would make it much more convenient for me. I'd still like a total of ten persons at a time, so that I know that one of them is missing a kidney, however ten people are a lot so that way I can then narrow it down to five.

Before you do that Anita, which incidentally would prove to me that you are indeed a self described serious student of science, please note the bolding of the above excerpt is mine. If a mathematician does not know what you are talking about perhaps you could have a chat with a close friend.

I've already given up that requirement! Why don't you keep up with the progress in this thread before you post comments that are out-dated!

ETA: GeeMack, please post your suggested protocol.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/donorFamilies/index.cfm

There are no outward signs of organ donation

So, why do we need a screen again?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We don't, because the test will never happen ...

 

[Farencue]

I've already given up that requirement! Why don't you keep up with the progress in this thread before you post comments that are out-dated!

ETA: GeeMack, please post your suggested protocol.

I beg your pardon Anita? I merely followed the link you posted to me.
I cant see any further correspondence between yourself and the IIG.
Have you informed the IIG of your "at home kidney detection test" yet?
May I see a link to it please?

 

[Uncayimmy]

http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/donorFamilies/index.cfm
So, why do we need a screen again?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

The screen is much better because then you can perform the test with just two subjects in far less time. Let me 'splain one possible way.

* Find a person missing a kidney. Find another person who has the same general physical characteristics.

* Put up a screen that blocks Anita from seeing what happens on the other side of the room.

* Put marks on the floor and screen to indicate where the subject should stand. Take necessary precautions that the subject is not visible.

* Tester flips a coin to determine if the Missing Kidney Guy (MKG) or control is to stand in the target area.

* With Anita out of the room, have the subject stand in the target area.

* Bring Anita into the room. Have her do the reading and record MKG or Not MKG with the tester.

* Anita leaves the room.

* Lather, rinse, repeat.

In just 15 trials Anita could establish her ability by beating 1 in 10,000 odds.

Got it?

 

[Farencue]

Thanks uncaYimmy, I got it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I pick one person out of ten. If that one person is not the target person I may send that person to an ultrasound.

Uh, no. You may request that, but you can't send anybody anywhere. What would be the point? Please tell us what happens after the ultrasound.

Please just stop this, you are criticizing everything I say. You know full well that I am the one who will be paying for one ultrasound, so it is free to the volunteer. You are wasting my time, stop playing around.

Funny you should talk about people wasting your time. You're wanting to waste the volunteer's time by making them undergo an ultrasound because you failed to identify the target. Are you paying them for their time?

What 1 in 5 guess? Where does that come from?

No wonder you lost that 4.0. Suppose we set up a test with one known target and nine controls. You fail to identify the target. We test the control you pick and find out he should also have been a target. How many potential targets where there?

If you said two, give yourself a cigar. So, that means you had a 2 in 10 chance (1 in 5) of picking somebody who was missing a kidney.

The target date is any weekend of their choice. If I have an exam (which likely I will have every week since essentially I am studying over 20 credits) nearby then I will simply bring my books.

No. A "target date" is an actual date. They asked for a date. Seriously, they flat out asked you to give them a date. Just pick one, Anita, and shut up about it already.

If I was asked to sit 30 minutes to take part in a paranormal test and to contribute to skepticism I would most certainly do that. Especially if there was a 1 in 10 chance of getting a free ultrasound out of it.

LOL! Right.

First off, it's not just 30 minutes. Any idiot can figure out that even if you develop a protocol that only requires 30 minutes of sitting time that the actual time (driving, waiting, etc) is far more than that.

Second, who wants a free ultrasound when they don't need one? Are you being deliberately obtuse? Nobody wants to be forced to take even more time away from work/family to go visit a medical clinic and undergo an ultrasound. That's absurd.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Yes it makes it easier to know that one out of the ten people are expected to have one kidney. It would also make the statistics easier..

OK, you are a b+ or A- science student. I have two questions for you.
1. What is the probability that you would guess the one missing kidney by chance? p= ___.
2. What is the generally accepted alpha level for scientific studies to be considered to be statistically significant? p< ___.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Four trials, each of which has one one-kidney person and nine two-kidney persons, for a total of 4 one-kidney persons and 36 two-kidney persons for the test and no more than 4 possible ultrasounds, the total odds of the test are 1 in 10,000.

You're stuck in this ultrasound thing. Why? Please explain exactly why you believe you need to have the subject undergo an ultrasound to prove they are not missing a kidney?

 

[shandyjan]

You're stuck in this ultrasound thing. Why? Please explain exactly why you believe you need to have the subject undergo an ultrasound to prove they are not missing a kidney?

I think that was because of the fact some people can be born with one kidney and not know it! So a fail could be unkowingly a hit!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Why not stop messing around and just use rats. They have kidneys and we could obtain 100 lab rats, have a qualified rat kidney remover take one out of 50 randomly assigned rats and do a sham operation on the other fifty. After a decent recovery period, Anita could attempt to sort them out and a statistician could analyze the data.
And as a side benefit, we could get some of this. http://www.reciprocity.com/Food/pie8-large.jpg

 

[GeeMack]

This kind of test would suffice as a Preliminary, and I would not expect a human to pass.

With your current ridiculous proposal I'd expect a human to make a successful hit on the missing kidney about one in ten times on average, over the course of a realistic number of attempts. Duh. But if you run the test once and get the missing kidney guy correct, you know nothing. And if you get it wrong you know nothing. If you run the test 5 times and get the missing kidney guy three times, big deal, you still know nothing. You can get heads ten times in a row on a coin flip. You can roll a die fifty times without rolling a three. Big deal.

If history is any indicator, you're trying to set up a protocol with results so useless you can continue to claim that your fantasy hasn't been disproved and therefore you merit more attention. Big deal. Learn how to play the piano really well and you'll get plenty of attention. And people won't think you're nuts.

Oh stop that. I am not unwilling. The only thing, as I see it, that makes this test inadequate is the 1 in 10 odds. Simply by finding additional persons who have had a kidney removed we can improve the odds and the preliminary test protocol should be deemed acceptable.

Several times you've been given suggestions that would eliminate the need to find a bunch of people with a missing kidney, but that makes the test do-able so you reject those suggestions. You clearly don't want a do-able test. It would end up proving you don't have any super powers and you'd have to find another hobby.

Alright let's start over. Tell us what you suggest as the protocol, GeeMack. Will you tell me what your protocol is, or will you not? Which do you think it is?

Your smart-assed reference to my question from the distant past about whether you're lying or mentally ill is noted. Just remember it was you who brought it up. I think it's fair to explore those possibilities if you're willing to bring them back into the discussion. I've always thought it's reasonable to consider the common, mundane explanations for someone's claim to be able to see things nobody else can see. Obviously x-ray vision and magic aren't on the table as rational explanations.

But getting back to the missing kidney pre-preliminary-sorta-study-survey-test-kinda-thing. Are you agreeing with everyone here that your current protocol is totally junk and you're abandoning it completely?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Yes, GeeMack, let's start over. What kind of test protocol do you suggest?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think that was because of the fact some people can be born with one kidney and not know it! So a fail could be unkowingly a hit!

That's what I thought, but she ignored where I pointed out that the odds of that happening are less than the odds the odds of her passing the IIG test by random guessing.

About 1 in 750 are born without a kidney. They make this estimate because they, get this, have found people with missing kidneys and (you guessed it), they told those people they were missing a kidney. Sure, not everyone knows it, but if only half find out (detected at birth, detected by docs looking at other conditions), then that makes it a 1 in 1,500 chance that the person she picked is missing a kidney. Meanwhile, she still missed the target who has a 100% chance of missing a kidney. What are we gonna do if the person tests out as also missing a kidney?

We're also talking about multiple trials here. Suppose she does three 1 in 10 trials and passes two, then, sure, double-check on the third one if you want to really, really, really sure. But if she misses two of them? If we figure 1 in 750 that means the odds of both people missing kidneys is 1 in 562,500. It would be ridiculous to ask them both to undergo a test.