VFF and the Diaphragm Test

[Akhenaten]

And here is how I answered, in PM:

Dear Skeptic,

Rudely.

I have decided on a specific claim and have submitted that for testing with the IIG.

No, you haven't, otherwise the test would have been scheduled. Has it?

The test will be based on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys.

Being alive is based on having one or two kidneys. Are you going to be simply detecting which of person is alive? (or words to that effect)

The tangents are merely accounts of experiences and ideas that come up while I am experiencing and investigating my claims as a whole, meanwhile they are not diversions from the main claim and the test that are planned to take place with the IIG.

The tangents are flights of fancy, however, I agree that they aren't diversions and in fact I believe they afford priceless insights into what's behind your Main Claim™

The reason I do not invest time and effort into the pill test, is because if I were to falsify my claimed experience of chemical identification, I would not allow it to also falsify the medical perceptions claim, and so a medical perceptions test would still have to take place.

The facts and the evidence make this decision, not any one person and especially not the test subject.

Also, medical perceptions is my strongest claim and so if it fails, it will falsify any of the subordinate claims with it as well, including the chemical detection claim.

All of your claims of medical perceptions have failed, or were at least still-born. Subordinate claims are your only hope of providing any means of regaining lost credibility, not for your perceptive claims, which are delusory, but for your claims of being any kind of scientific investigator.

I hope that answers your questions.
Regards,
VFF

Your hopes will never produce the evidence that is required to show that you have any ability outside the normal range.

I definitely do not care about her “synesthesia,” but do apologize for the derail.

BTW: These VFF threads contain lots of very well reasoned arguments that are informative and instructive, but they would be so much more satisfying if more effort were put into being succinct and to the point. VFF is not the only one writing more than is necessary.

What's a succinct?

 

[Akhenaten]

I have never seen a VFF thread before. Most entertaining.

And ludicrous.

©Alice Cooper

 

[desertgal]

I have been contact by VFF in response to this previous post of mine:
A buddy of mine was born with one kidney, has a replacement from surviving testicular cancer, and is right now in the hospital recovering from titanium implants in an arm & leg (motorcycle wreck).

As it says, my friend is currently in the hospital getting titanium implants to repair both his leg and arm as a result of a horrific motorcycle accident. VFF wants to know if he is in her area and if she can scan him.

I am sickened and appalled. It is bad enough to be worried about my friend but for someone to take this heartbreaking situation and try to use it for the glorification of their own narcissistic delusion is beyond insulting. She claims to be a healer. That hasn't yet been disproved but it is safe to say that her bedside manner is repugnant.

Especially since a test where the medical problems have been spelled out in detail would be utterly useless. There was no point at all to this vile little message.

Unbelievable, Anita. You have sunk to a new low.

 

[Uncayimmy]

It's certainly easier (and would result in a more controlled test) than finding volunteers who are missing a kidney.

How do you figure? People are born missing a kidney at about the same rate as females aged 15 to 44 use a diaphragm. At least with those born missing a kidney, we get to select from the entire population rather than a subset. Statistically speaking, the number of diaphragm users in the entire population is far smaller than those born missing a kidney. Also, about 50,000 people per year undergo nephrectomies. In other words if you swing a dead cat at the mall, you're more likely to hit a person missing a kidney than you are a person who uses a diaphragm.

If not that, then how about 10 women who are willing to walk past once either with or without a diaphragm. I like that whether or not the woman has a diaphragm in is based on a coin toss and nothing else that might provide Anita information. (Again, she claims she could "see" the diaphragm in, not that she can determine who is or is not a regular diaphragm user.)

That what was I was figuring before you said that we only needed one woman with a diaphragm. Still, there's the issue of getting volunteers. Just because you find someone who fits the bill doesn't mean they are willing to participate in a test. I would say it would be a lot harder to find a woman willing to insert a diaphragm for a test than it would be to find a person missing a kidney just willing to show up and be gawked at.

Doesn't matter much, though, because Anita will never do a controlled test anyway.

Yeh, maybe she will do a study instead!

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe we're thinking too small here. I don't suppose VFF can differentiate between homeopathic water and water?

 

[Ashles]

I've moved on from wondering why Anita won't take part in ANY test of her own paranormal claims.
It is clear now none will ever happen.
Very, very clear.
But some of us keep trying...

I'm simply wondering why she won't even undertake a perfectly simple Synesthesia test?

She has repeatedly stated that her 'perceptions' must be either genuine paanormal abilty or synesthesia. Nothing else.
I, and many others, have repeatedly stated that these are not the only two possibilities, but she has ignored all this advice and still, even now in this thread, states that the options are

Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, or automatic inaccurate synesthesia.

Okay then Anita, since you have yourself decided to narrow down the explanation of your perception to two options, I have a question.

In your two options, one possibility has no known test and you are completely incapable of generating one yourself.
The other option has a known method of testing and a mundane explanation.

Why not take the test that actually already exists?

Take the test for synesthesia. In any possible genuine 'analysis' of your perceptions, this should by now be the absolute first step.

Why will you not take such a test?

If you fail and do not have synesthesia then proceed to testing for 'paranormal' abilities.
If you pass and actually have synesthesia then there is no need for other tests - the explanation is clear.

So, how genuinely do you want to understand these 'perceptions'?

Will you take such a test?
(And remember such a test will not require you creating it, it already exists so all you have to do is agree to take it.)

 

[LightinDarkness]

And how would I go about being tested for synesthesia?

There are medical and psychiatric professionals who can test for it. Go see one.

What I experience is very consistent with synesthesia, for instance colors and shapes associated to letters, numbers, physics equations and the written abbreviations of chemical elements and molecules.

This is another LIE. Your superpowers are not consistent with synesthesia - there is no form of it that causes the person to have delusions about body organs, birth control mechanisms, or anything else.

As for "superpowers", only a test can determine that.

Its just too bad that you don't want a test thats feasible, quick, and easy, eh?

I don't claim to have superpowers.

Right. The ability to use x-ray vision, communicate with ghosts, diagnose people over TV certainly are not superpowers:
http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com/Discussion/tabid/294/afv/topicsview/aff/2/Default.aspx

Insert counter argument that opposes everything I just said and that tries to convince me against what I know to have experienced and that initiates wasted threadspace and arguments, here _______________________________

Insert Anita ignoring the obvious yet again in order to believe she has super powers here _________________________

 

[GeeMack]

Dear GeeMack, how about that the perceptions are automatic and I am not making them up. And how about I remain skeptical (yes, skeptical) and have not concluded whether there is an extrasensory perception or not. Accurate automatic extrasensory perception, or automatic inaccurate synesthesia. Which do you think it is, GeeMack?

I think that if you were mentally ill, you quite possibly wouldn't know it. If you were mentally ill, you'd quite possibly experience your hallucinations automatically and you'd believe you're not making them up. I think that if you aren't aware that you're lying, when it's been shown time and again in these conversations that you are somewhat of a habitual liar, that could also be indicative of a possible mental illness. I think that everything you supposedly experience has been shown in the past to be part of the conglomerate experience of various people with various types and styles of mental illness. Since mental illness fits all the evidence you've offered so far, and is a known phenomenon, and is common enough, you should consider that to be at least a very high priority candidate to explain all your experiences. Certainly a higher priority than the possibility that you really have some kind of magical powers.

That's if you actually think there's anything real to it.

But something else is even more likely. Many scam artists and frauds of various descriptions over the centuries have used the very same techniques you display. The existence of scam artists is well known and also common. You being a fraud could also easily explain all the evidence you've offered so far. That would explain the lies, the reluctance to be legitimately tested, the repeat visits to this forum to brag up other new and wondrous crap, the evasion, the ignorance, all of it.

You don't have symptoms of synesthesia. You don't have evidence to support extrasensory perception. You haven't ever been even remotely accurate about any of your claims, yet you continue to lie and say you are. So magic, synesthesia, and even just damned good guessing are all off the table to explain your whacked out fantasy.

Until you get a professional mental health evaluation to show otherwise, one of the two most likely explanations for all your crazy claims is common everyday mental illness. The other of the two most likely explanations, and the one probably most widely accepted by the skeptics on this forum?...

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

... you're a liar and a fraud, of course.

 

[Audible Click]

No, you are not.

I just now talked to the Exec. Dir of IIG and you are doing with them exactly what you are doing here: evasion, delay, and vagueness are all common. You have been talking with them for over a year and have not come up with a protocol for the kidney test and, in the process, suggested other kinds of tests. Those alternatives have gone nowhere.

So I assert that you're working with the IIG in EXACTLY the same manner that you are working with us. Which means you are not working toward a test at all. Full stop.

You are just feeding your need for attention or something like that. I'm no psychologist but something doesn't seem right with you and it is not that you can peer into people's bodies.

This post says volumes about what is going on here. If Anita truly wants the IIG test she certainly isn't doing what needs to be done. At one point in time I really hoped, that through a good protocol, her main claim could be proven or falsified. I'm at a loss as to why she won't test anything. I hope she answers SezMe's post since she had led us to believe that IIG would test her by the end of the year. Anita what happened to the person you were going to look at that had some internal organ missing? Wasn't that set for last weekend?

 

[Ashles]

Ah, stop it with the synesthesia nonsense this instant. All of you. If you don't, I'm gonna turn this thread around and take us home.

I understand your frustration with the Synesthesia claim.

But Anita has now brought it up too many times as the only other explanation she is prepared to consider.

So surely at this point every single claim she makes that is paranormal has to be considered secondary to the alternative mundane possibility she herself keeps suggesting.

As the genuine investigator of her own perceived 'abilities' that Anita keeps claming she is, surely the only logical first step now is to take a test for Synesthesia?
Any genuine person honestly attempting to get to the root of such 'perceptions' would willingly take such a test.

There is no gain for Anita to fake success in such a test as it would render her paranormal claim ended.

If she takes such a test and does not have Synesthesia then we can rule it out and Anita can stop offering it as an alternative explanation. Then Anta can move on to attempting to generate a real paranormal protocol.

If she takes such a test and is found to actually have Synesthesia then the 'perceptions' are explained and there is no further need for testing.

Surely Anita can agree this would be the logical and scientific next step in her claim?

Of course if Anita refuses such a simple and logical test then everyone could draw certain conclusions from that refusal.

I eagerly await Anita's explanation for why she will not take a test for Synesthesia...

 

[LightinDarkness]

I'm simply wondering why she won't even undertake a perfectly simple Synesthesia test?

She won't take a synesthesia test because she knows that her superpowers are not really consistent with those who have synesthesia, and if she was actually tested the even more mundane explanation - mental illness - is almost guaranteed to come up.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

People are born missing a kidney at about the same rate as females aged 15 to 44 use a diaphragm. At least with those born missing a kidney, we get to select from the entire population rather than a subset. Statistically speaking, the number of diaphragm users in the entire population is far smaller than those born missing a kidney. Also, about 50,000 people per year undergo nephrectomies. In other words if you swing a dead cat at the mall, you're more likely to hit a person missing a kidney than you are a person who uses a diaphragm.

I had no idea being born with one kidney happened with such frequency. (I just looked it up, and I see it's about 1:750.)

According to Wiki, ". . .in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception." If I'm doing the math right, that means 1 out of 500 women.

As an aside, I've also got a sentimental attachment to diaphragms--based on an interesting historical find I made in my house.

So you're right, maybe it wouldn't be so difficult getting one-kidney volunteers. (Though there's still the problem that she won't do it with a screen in place, which just opens up too much information leakage.)

But again, "use the diaphragm as a primary method of contraception" is not the claim. We'd only be looking for women willing to insert one. (Granted, it'd be easier to use women who at least have been fitted for one, whether or not that's what they use as their primary form of contraception.)

At any rate, since she refuses any test with a screen, I at least liked the idea of testing this specific claim--where she sits in a room and the subject just walks past the doorway.

 

[Farencue]

Im beginning to get dizzy, the energiser bunny keeps going and going in circles.

We have on hold so far:
a contractor who is missing an organ
a southern skeptical society
the IIG
the missing kidney protocol
the diaphragm idea
and some rather distasteful PM's

Is that where we are up to?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I had no idea being born with one kidney happened with such frequency. (I just looked it up, and I see it's about 1:750.)

The Kidney foundation says 1:500 to 1:1000 (just to point out the margin for error).

According to Wiki, ". . .in 2002 only 0.2% of American women were using a diaphragm as their primary method of contraception." If I'm doing the math right, that means 1 out of 500 women.

Yep. ETA: To be exact, 1 out of 500 women aged 15 to 44.

But again, "use the diaphragm as a primary method of contraception" is not the claim. We'd only be looking for women willing to insert one. (Granted, it'd be easier to use women who at least have been fitted for one, whether or not that's what they use as their primary form of contraception.)

They are available by prescription only in the USA. Don't know about other countries.

At any rate, since she refuses any test with a screen, I at least liked the idea of testing this specific claim--where she sits in a room and the subject just walks past the doorway.

Oh, she'd still want 15 minutes with each person just to be sure.

 

[SezMe]

I have decided on a specific claim and have submitted that for testing with the IIG. The test will be based on detecting whether a person has one or both kidneys.

I again want to make it absolutely clear that the ONLY matter in agreement is that the test is to specify if a person has one or two kidneys. In over one year there has been no progress beyond this point. There is no protocol, no date, no personnel, nor any location that has been set in stone.

Her continual trotting out of the IIG test is evidence only of her dishonesty.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I again want to make it absolutely clear that the ONLY matter in agreement is that the test is to specify if a person has one or two kidneys. In over one year there has been no progress beyond this point. There is no protocol, no date, no personnel, nor any location that has been set in stone.

Her continual trotting out of the IIG test is evidence only of her dishonesty.

Correction. She first contacted the IIG in July 16, 2007, so it would be more accurate to say that this is the sum of the progress over two years.

 

[Fnord]

When examining a claim, one should ask these questions:

1. Is the claim testable? If no, then it is merely a claim, and nothing more.
"We can't test the claim because the women would not let us examine them for diaphragms."

2. If the claim is testable, has it been tested? If not, then it is merely a claim, et cetera...
"We have never tested the claim because the obvious results are a foregone conclusion."

3. If the claim has been tested, then was the test methodology relevant to the claim? If no, then the claim is merely a claim, and the testing was a waste of time, resources, and effort.
"We tested the claim by examining the local drugstore's purchasing records for feminine hygeine products."

4. If the test methodology was relevant to the claim, do the results consistently support the claim each time the same methodology is used to test the claim? If no, then either there are other factors involved, the methodology leaves too much room for error, or the claim itself is invalid.
"We tested the claim by tracking down the women hours, days, or even weeks later and asking them if they were usuing a diaphragm at a certain location, at a certain time, and on a certain date."

The claim must be testable, and actually tested by a relevant methodology that yields consistent results that repeatedly support the claim.

 

[bookitty]

When examining a claim, one should ask these questions:

1. Is the claim testable? If no, then it is merely a claim, and nothing more.
"We can't test the claim because the women would not let us examine them for diaphragms."

2. If the claim is testable, has it been tested? If not, then it is merely a claim, et cetera...
"We have never tested the claim because the obvious results are a foregone conclusion."

3. If the claim has been tested, then was the test methodology relevant to the claim? If no, then the claim is merely a claim, and the testing was a waste of time, resources, and effort.
"We tested the claim by examining the local drugstore's purchasing records for feminine hygeine products."

4. If the test methodology was relevant to the claim, do the results consistently support the claim each time the same methodology is used to test the claim? If no, then either there are other factors involved, the methodology leaves too much room for error, or the claim itself is invalid.
"We tested the claim by tracking down the women hours, days, or even weeks later and asking them if they were usuing a diaphragm at a certain location, at a certain time, and on a certain date."

The claim must be testable, and actually tested by a relevant methodology that yields consistent results that repeatedly support the claim.

In her very first thread, VFF was offered a very simple test based on her claims - detect which cup of water held salt, sugar or baking soda. She responded to this with enthusiasm.

Perhaps she has derailed her own mental thread by getting caught up in the medical aspects of her talent. On the outside it would seem that detecting a missing kidney or a rarely used form of birth control would be a dramatic way to prove her talent. But something as simple as detecting substances in water would be proof enough. If the test were repeatable, it would change nearly everything we believe about paranormal ability.

It would be in the best interests of everyone involved to go back to that simple, easy and definitive test. It would give VFF the chance to finally prove herself.

 

[Apology]

They are available by prescription only in the USA. Don't know about other countries.

This is correct, because they need to be correctly fitted to the user. When used correctly, the diaphragm has a 5% failure rate. With "typical use", they have an 18 - 20% failure rate. One of the facets of "typical use" is that few women have their fit checked on a regular basis.

In case anyone is interested: Everything you ever wanted to know about the diaphragm + 5% more than you wanted to know

 

[blue sock monkey]

TMI, Apology!

I confess I don't see any advantages to developing a protocol for this claim over the missing kidney claim. There are bound to be exactly the same contretemps over permissible clothing, use of a full or partial screen, amount of time needed per subject, rounding up subjects, etc. Many weeks and hundreds of posts would probably leave us exactly where we are.

Or is that why VfF has suggested this new diversion?