The VFF Test is On!

[VisionFromFeeling]

Skeptics with migraines in Los Angeles area

I will be arriving in Los Angeles for my IIG Preliminary demonstration on November 20th 2009. If there is a Skeptic in that area who suffers from migraines I would be very interested in meeting with you to give you an attempted migraine treatment.

The reason I am investigating this is based on a past experience I had where I gave an attempted migraine treatment to someone and he claims dramatic improvement that coincided with the time of receiving the att. treatment. This experience as well as a description of what is involved in an att. treatment is available at www.visionfromfeeling.com/migraines.html.

This claim is not made by me. This claim is made by the man who received an attempted treatment from me. That is why I am interested in trying again but this time with a Skeptic. As a Skeptic, your experience of any changes to your migraine condition would be less likely to be influenced by your expectations, and your accounts would be more reliable as well as more valuable.

Preferably you would already have documentation of the frequency and severity of your migraines at least a few months back before receiving the att. treatment and you would continue to document your migraines at least a few months after receiving the att. treatment.

If the att. treatment does not coincide with improvement in your migraine condition this claim is very likely to be falsified. And if the att. treatment does coincide with significant improvement in your migraine condition, it does not verify the claim but only warrants further investigation into the claim.

This way, perhaps I could falsify two claims in one weekend!

This discussion is held in the Migraine Thread.
att. = attempted

 

[Akhenaten]

I find this version to be more informative:

I will be arriving in Los Angeles, California, on November 20th 2009 for my IIG Preliminary demonstration. If there is a Skeptic in that area who suffers from migraines I would be very interested in meeting with you to give you an attempted migraine treatment, the details of how it works and why I am asking can be found at www.visionfromfeeling.com/migraines.html. It needs to be a Skeptic such that your experience is less susceptible to be influenced by your expectations, and your accounts of any changes to your condition more credible as well as more valuable.

Preferably you should have documented your migraine condition in terms of frequency and severity at least a few months in advance and would continue documenting your migraines several months after the attempted treatment. There is no money involved, and you may remain entirely anonymous if you ask to be. The objective is to investigate the claim that is made by the man whom I gave an attempted migraine treatment, who claims that the att. treatment coincided with dramatic improvement in his condition. If improvement is observed to coincide with the time of the attempted treatment, it does not lend credibility towards the claim but will warrant further investigation with more migraine sufferers, and if improvement is not observed to coincide with the time of the att. treatment, the claim is most likely to be falsified.

The reason I am investigating this migraine treatment claim is mainly because if there is an ability that could offer relief to migraine sufferers I would have every incentive to establish that ability and then to obtain a license and make this treatment available to migraine sufferers, for their benefit not mine. Another reason I investigate is also scientific curiosity.

I will be available in Los Angeles on the weekend of November 20th to 22nd, and an attempted treatment should take only 30 minutes. I can be emailed at brightstar@visionfromfeeling.com

Originally posted here

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While it would be cool if we could all read and dissect the protocol, I think Roger had a point when he brought up the Milgram Experiment. This is an example of a very effective protocol where prior knowledge of the protocol (by experiment subjects) would be very harmful to the experiment.

I know that if I were a subject for an experiment like this, I would go online and try to find out everything about it. For some reason, it seems as though the IIG does not want that to happen. This DOES suggest that the possibility of cold reading exists. For some, that will completely invalidate the exercise. I'm of an opinion that it's possible to minimize (without eliminating) the danger of successful cold reading.

You may recall that the IIG came under similar scrutiny when they were conducting a preliminary test for the MDC a few years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38792

That test ended up working out.

I think that if she were doing tests on chemicals or if she were looking for cards in envelopes, like Connie Sonne, it would be easy for them to publish the protocol. Since VfF will be looking at human beings (one assumes), not playing cards, it seems reasonable that a little more secrecy might be in order.

Or, they could totally blow it. I doubt it, though. Please remember that when she did a test with members of the F.A.C.T. skeptics group in North Carolina, she came in 3rd out of 4 in accuracy. This was a cold reading exercise in which members of F.A.C.T. scored better than she did. She does not appear to be a very effective cold reader.

Some find the very idea of testing her to be repellent. I have no answer to those folks.

I find it repellent to do a poorly-controlled test.

The fact that she's not a good cold reader is beside the point. The results of a test should be conclusive and incontrovertible. If the protocol is designed poorly, it's better not to do it at all.

I don't agree that it's OK as long as she fails the test (as in the cold reading test you mention where skeptics did better than she did).

In fact, if that's the criterion for a good protocol or for everything working out in the end, I find it anathema to the very idea of skeptical testing of paranormal claims.

 

[volatile]

"Treatment", eh?

 

[Akhenaten]

"Treatment", eh?

Yes. Bit sinister, isn't it?

 

[volatile]

Yes. Bit sinister, isn't it?

I don't know about sinister, so much, but it's certainly a change of tone. More than once she has previously balked at accusations of providing treatment, and yet now she is advertising her services.

I really do think we're witnessing the birthing pains of the career of a psychic healer here.

 

[volatile]

If the att. treatment does not coincide with improvement in your migraine condition this claim is very likely to be falsified.

No, it isn't.

To start with, there can be no such category as "very likely falsified". I'm surprised a science student would use this form of words. Falsification is by definition and necessity a binary condition.

Secondly, you haven't definitively even established a falsifiable claim. When you have composed a hypothesis such that a test will "very likely" falsify it, you have not composed a falsifiable hypothesis. You need to go back and read some more Popper and, more to the point, actually formulate your claims properly.

 

[Sasha]

Question: if the protocol for the IIG preliminary is secret so as not to allow the volunteers to inadvertently give away their medical condition, does that mean the volunteers don't know what the test will be about? If that's so, are they just supposed to show up with every medical record they've amassed throughout their lives or will they be required to come up with proof of/or lack of organ after VFF has completed her test?

 

[Audible Click]

I don't know about sinister, so much, but it's certainly a change of tone. More than once she has previously balked at accusations of providing treatment, and yet now she is advertising her services.

I really do think we're witnessing the birthing pains of the career of a psychic healer here.

I think this may be her fall back position in case she has "kidney failure" by doing the IIG demonstration. By typing "att. treatment" she has convinced herself that she will be immune from any charges of practicing medicine without a license.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I find it repellent to do a poorly-controlled test.

The fact that she's not a good cold reader is beside the point. The results of a test should be conclusive and incontrovertible. If the protocol is designed poorly, it's better not to do it at all.

I don't agree that it's OK as long as she fails the test (as in the cold reading test you mention where skeptics did better than she did).

In fact, if that's the criterion for a good protocol or for everything working out in the end, I find it anathema to the very idea of skeptical testing of paranormal claims.

In 2004, CSICOP tested Natasha Demkina whose claim was similar to mine. The test design had several obvious flaws in it, that would definitely not make it to JREF test standard. For instance, Natasha was allowed to see the subjects from front view, and the subjects were able to see her throughout the test. Many forms of cold reading and external clues could have been available. However, CSICOP was able to design a protocol that Natasha could agree to, the test was conducted nicely, and the test falsified the claim.

I am very aware of the test protocol for the IIG Preliminary demonstration, and even though I am the claimant, I am also a science student and I would personally not accept this protocol for a test that could conclude in favor of the claim. The Preliminary is incapable of verifying the claim, however it is still fully capable of falsifying the claim. If I do not have the ability of perceiving internal organs through a person's clothed back, the IIG Preliminary is very likely to show that. There is a chance that I might pass the Preliminary even though I would not have an ability, but that likelihood is still very low. The only consequence would be that such a non-ability would be falsified on a formal test instead, using a stricter protocol.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/natasha_demkina_the_girl_with_normal_eyes/

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I really do think we're witnessing the birthing pains of the career of a psychic healer here.

No. I am working to falsify that claim. I need to find a volunteer who is a Skeptic with migraines so that they can be honest and maybe tell me that there was no improvement in their condition. There are two reasons why I won't simply drop this claim just like that. One is that I honestly don't know, he could have been telling the truth and have experienced an improvement and then I would want to establish that ability. The other is that I would rather falsify that claim properly and document that and put it up on my website because I want to contribute to skepticism, and what better way than to falsify my own claims?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

No, it isn't.

To start with, there can be no such category as "very likely falsified". I'm surprised a science student would use this form of words. Falsification is by definition and necessity a binary condition.

Secondly, you haven't definitively even established a falsifiable claim. When you have composed a hypothesis such that a test will "very likely" falsify it, you have not composed a falsifiable hypothesis. You need to go back and read some more Popper and, more to the point, actually formulate your claims properly.

Alright, I will spell it out. To either verify or to falsify the claim of migraine healing will require repeated trials. I hesitate to say that, because I know that you all want the claim to be falsified from one single failed trial, and to be verified only after an incredibly many successful trials.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And, if the protocol were well-designed, it shouldn't even matter that the subjects know the protocol. Again, I suspect an information leak that they're trying to plug up ("protect the integrity of the test") by keeping the protocol secret.

Roger gave an example of a protocol that is ruined by becoming public: the Milgram experiement. Having said that, I'm still suspicious of such a protocol, especially in this day of instant availability of information. Will we feel comfortable after this test that the protocol wasn't leaked (if in fact its leakage matters)?

~~ Paul

 

[pakeha]

I don't know about sinister, so much, but it's certainly a change of tone. More than once she has previously balked at accusations of providing treatment, and yet now she is advertising her services.

I really do think we're witnessing the birthing pains of the career of a psychic healer here.

I agree and have thought so for some time.
Att. treatment, indeed.

But with that as my opinion, I still say all the best for the 21st of November.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Alright, I will spell it out. To either verify or to falsify the claim of migraine healing will require repeated trials. I hesitate to say that, because I know that you all want the claim to be falsified from one single failed trial, and to be verified only after an incredibly many successful trials.

You know this, how ?

Source ?

 

[LightinDarkness]

Anita will minimize the failure that this test will bring about. We will be told that, even though she failed, the test does not provide evidence against her paranormal claims. Excuses will be made of varying degrees to explain the failure and paint the picture that, even though she failed, she still has supernatural powers.

I sincerely hope I am wrong. I hope that - contrary to all evidence we have - that Anita proves she has supernatural powers OR that, when she fails (much more likely), that she sees she is a normal human being and lives a normal life without the woo. But the chance of either of these things happening - given Anita's conduct here - seems EXTREMELY low.

 

[SezMe]

I find it repellent to do a poorly-controlled test.

Hang on Joe. I didn't say the test was poorly controlled. I would caution to not extrapolate my concerns too far. It's a decent protocol. Not perfect but not poor either.

 

[LightinDarkness]

I will be arriving in Los Angeles for my IIG Preliminary demonstration on November 20th 2009. If there is a Skeptic in that area who suffers from migraines I would be very interested in meeting with you to give you an attempted migraine treatment.

The reason I am investigating this is based on a past experience I had where I gave an attempted migraine treatment to someone and he claims dramatic improvement that coincided with the time of receiving the att. treatment. This experience as well as a description of what is involved in an att. treatment is available at www.visionfromfeeling.com/migraines.html.

This claim is not made by me. This claim is made by the man who received an attempted treatment from me. That is why I am interested in trying again but this time with a Skeptic. As a Skeptic, your experience of any changes to your migraine condition would be less likely to be influenced by your expectations, and your accounts would be more reliable as well as more valuable.

Preferably you would already have documentation of the frequency and severity of your migraines at least a few months back before receiving the att. treatment and you would continue to document your migraines at least a few months after receiving the att. treatment.

If the att. treatment does not coincide with improvement in your migraine condition this claim is very likely to be falsified. And if the att. treatment does coincide with significant improvement in your migraine condition, it does not verify the claim but only warrants further investigation into the claim.

This way, perhaps I could falsify two claims in one weekend!

This discussion is held in the Migraine Thread.
att. = attempted

As someone that Anita has previously targeted: If any skeptics are seriously considering this - DO NOT DO IT. Anita has no respect for privacy or your well being and will plaster any communications you have with her on her website. Unless you want your personal information on VFF's website permanently, do NOT submit to her woo healings. As we all know, a 1 on 1 migraine "healing" isn't anywhere close of a good test of VFF's claimed healing powers to begin with.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hang on Joe. I didn't say the test was poorly controlled. I would caution to not extrapolate my concerns too far. It's a decent protocol. Not perfect but not poor either.

I understand that. And I realize that since I don't know anything about the protocol I don't know whether or not it's poorly designed. The need to keep it secret suggests that there is the possibility of information leakage from the subjects. (And the test is really about Anita getting information that the subjects already have, but through some paranormal means.) Also the fact that Anita thinks this protocol would not be acceptable for JREF makes me suspicious.

I agree with what someone else said here recently--whether a test is well designed is really an all or nothing sort of thing.
___________

Roger gave an example of a protocol that is ruined by becoming public: the Milgram experiement. Having said that, I'm still suspicious of such a protocol, especially in this day of instant availability of information. Will we feel comfortable after this test that the protocol wasn't leaked (if in fact its leakage matters)?

Again, see Devnull's analogy to encryption. If the test depends on the subjects being ignorant of the protocol (and their not being able to figure it out) in order to prevent the information getting from the subjects to Anita through other than her x-ray vision, then it's a poorly designed test. (Doesn't it also depend on the subjects not being able to figure out the protocol while it's going on?)

Milgram's experiment wasn't about a claim of a paranormal ability to get information that the subject already possesses. If the design of the test is such that it depends on the subjects not knowing the protocol in order to avoid information through ordinary means (like cold reading techniques), then it's a poorly designed test.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In 2004, CSICOP tested Natasha Demkina whose claim was similar to mine. The test design had several obvious flaws in it, that would definitely not make it to JREF test standard. For instance, Natasha was allowed to see the subjects from front view, and the subjects were able to see her throughout the test. Many forms of cold reading and external clues could have been available. However, CSICOP was able to design a protocol that Natasha could agree to, the test was conducted nicely, and the test falsified the claim.

According to Ray Hyman:

My colleagues, Andrew Skolnick and Richard Wiseman, agreed with me that, given the circumstances, we could not conduct a “definitive” test of Natasha’s claim.

Again, in my opinion, if the test isn't definitive, it's better not to do it. No one has to accept the results of an inconclusive test.

I disagree with the notion that an inconclusive test is OK as long as the claimaint fails. (Which is pretty much the reasoning behind using a poorly-controlled test for a preliminary.) Again, that approach is anathema to skepticism.