The VFF Test is On!

[Farencue]

This thread, Anita, is about your "test" with the IIG, not about migraines or taking pot shots at UncaYimmy.
Do try to post in the relevant thread.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Jim Carr and I have an agreement that either of us is allowed to post freely from our private conversations. Unfortunately my computer has crashed, so I can not retrieve the conversation currently. I posted it somewhere but can't remember where. Luckily, Jim Carr posted most of it on his own website http://www.stopvisionfromfeeling.co...4/aff/1/aft/149/afv/topic/afpg/1/Default.aspx

PS. I never offered him any pictures. It was he who asked me. And I said no.

 

[Farencue]

Again, Anita, I urge you to post in the relevant thread.
This thread is not about your agreements with UncaYimmy.

 

[Chimera]

Did you guys know that once Jim Carr told me...

Inappropriate and tasteless.

 

[SezMe]

As others have rightly noted, stay on topic VFF.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Actually, LightinDarkness and me were corresponding in private messages since the discussion thread was then temporarily closed. LightinDarkness wanted us to make our conversations public afterwards, also I asked him/her to object in case he/she did not want me to publish the content and received no objection. Also I subsequently removed the content from my website as requested.

Anita you are proving yourself to be a liar yet again. I never gave you permission to "make our conversations public afterward". I told you I was ignoring further PMS from you and then you PMed me telling me you would post what I explicitly told you not to post unless I told you otherwise - even though you knew I was not reading what you sent. It is normal courtesy to get explicit (not implicit) consent before posting private details about people. You DID NOT subsequently remove anything from your website, its still up there, and I had to post for days on end to get you to remove what little you did. Everyone who Anita targets should be careful - she will stalk you and not respect your privacy!

Again: Warning to anyone who would submit themselves to Anita's migraine woo cure - she has no respect for your personal details or your privacy. If that does not bother you, go ahead. If it does, steer clear.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, I am sorry I opened the thread back up and provided any more attention.

Good luck to everyone else, but I am out of here.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Why don't you find out by allowing me to give you an attempted migraine treatment and observing the actual outcome that follows in the case that the attempted treatment does not coincide with any significant improvement in your migraine condition, rather than just speculating based on your own worst expectations? At least if I then were to respond dishonestly, you could tell everyone that and say that your suspicions were right. I am actually very eager to falsify this claim.

Strike out again, Anita. You have shown yourself to be a dishonest liar when it comes to simple things like respecting my privacy over PMs, why in the world would I trust you enough to meet you in person? There would be no telling what you would do to me or post on your website.

But let us presume that you are not a liar and actually respect peoples privacy (a big assumption). In that case, it still would be pointless because you practicing your woo on a self-selected group of people with migraines does not provide any scientific evidence. Migraines do not always occur in patterns and single case studies of migraine patterns on 1 or even 5 people with pre-post woo treatment data would prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AND NOT IN ANY WAY FALSIFY YOUR CLAIM. And you, who claim to be a student of science, would know this. But yet you keep trying to lure people into this.

But enough about this - Anita's lies are well documented on this board and on the Stop VFF site. Lets try to stay on topic - Anita, what will you do if you fail the preliminary test? What will be your conclusions about your supernatural powers?

 

[Akhenaten]

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'm afraid I don't see it as a change of tone. I have more than a passing aquaintance with every word Anita has ever written, and to me it's just more of the same.

I'd only ask that it be remembered that VfF's posts here by no means paint the whole picture.


ETA: I'd like to clarify that what I found sinister was that VfF would produce two versions of the same post, one version being specifically crafted in an attempt to fly under the radar at JREF.

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

A certain meanie group of people have believed that they have been witnessing this for quite some time. They even have a website with which to try and stop it from happening.


Regards and respect,

Dave

 

[remirol]

I recommend everyone stick to the IIG test and _not_ volunteer to work with Anita separately unless it is similar to LostAngeles' approach -- ie., contingent on her having taken the IIG test first. I also recommend people quit fishing for protocol information; it will be available for review post-test and can be analyzed at that point.

I certainly understand the desire that a sufficiently precise protocol be in place (though, frankly, it's IIG's $50k, and if they're risking that much without competent people designing the protocols, that's not a good sign for their future or methods. But I also have no evidence to believe that the protocol _won't_ be up-to-snuff yet, because I haven't seen it.) Let's wait and see, eh? There's still a long way to go before this test even happens, and I think it's very important that the test itself happen.

 

[Darat]

For some reason apparently quite normal and rational Members seem to find it hard to enter into a thread which discusses anything to do with "VisionFromFeeling" without tearing up their Membership Agreement.

In the past we have tried to moderate these threads with moves to AAH (such as the one I have just done), putting threads on [Moderated Status] and so on however that appears to have had very little success. Since those actions apparently haven't made it clear that the MA needs to be observed I really don't have any other option but to warn Members such as LightinDarkness & VisionFromFeeling that you will be banned if you cannot in future keep to your Membership Agreement when posting in these types of threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thank you for volunteering, however let me first carefully look into what applies in California law.

Perhaps it falls under this exception?

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to discriminate against any particular school of medicine or surgery, school or college of podiatric medicine, or any other treatment, nor shall it regulate, prohibit, or apply to any kind of treatment by prayer, nor interfere in any way with the practice of religion.

 

[dlorde]

As a Skeptic, your experience of any changes to your migraine condition would be less likely to be influenced by your expectations...

This assumes that expectation bias and/or the placebo effect is mainly a conscious, rational effect, and all the evidence contradicts this. DBTs were developed because even sceptical scientists were shown to be subject to these biases, so there's no reason to assume that a skeptic will be less prone. Of course, this doesn't mean that a skeptic won't try to rationalise away any apparent placebo effects, but it does suggest that selecting your test subjects according to their professed beliefs in an attempt to control for it is questionable. When you have a sample size of one, with no controls, it seems pointless.

 

[desertgal]

Perhaps it falls under this exception?

How does "prayer" or "practice of religion" apply here?

 

[AvalonXQ]

How does "prayer" or "practice of religion" apply here?

If her "treatment" is entirely a mental phenomenon (not changing the person's habits or anything, but staring at them until they get better), then I think it would follow under this exception in the law. You get in trouble if you use woo to actually have people do things (like fasting, dieting, stopping prescription meds, etc). This I think would not be a problem.

 

[Marcus]

If I can't pass the Preliminary, there is no hope that I could pass a more elaborately and more strictly designed formal test, and I would be happy to conclude on the claim as falsified if I fail the Preliminary.

Judging from this thread (I didn't read your other ones) you seem very rational to me, and appear to have respect for scientific methods. I have high hopes that you will be the very first (if you fail) to admit that you don't have your claimed powers. Good luck!

 

[wardenclyffe]

Information leakage doesn't have to come in the form of intentional cheating or deceit, but a well-designed test should rule it out.

Mightn't then a well-designed test conceal the protocol from the test subjects? I gave the example at the top of this page of reason1. Wouldn't NOT revealing the protocol actually be part of a well designed protocol in that case?

Ward

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Mightn't then a well-designed test conceal the protocol from the test subjects? I gave the example at the top of this page of reason1. Wouldn't NOT revealing the protocol actually be part of a well designed protocol in that case?

I have addressed this question several times. Since the test is really about her getting information that the subjects already know (but getting that information through paranormal means), any protocol that relies on the subjects not knowing (or being able to figure out) the protocol to prevent information leakage by normal means is not very well-designed.

The comparison was made to Milgram's experiment, but that experiment did not involve testing a claim of getting information that the subject had through some other means. Instead, it was a test of subjects' willingness to obey authority when they thought (here was the deception) that they were inflicting pain on other volunteers. It's not analogous.

See Devnul's post comparing it to encryption strategies.

Prevent information leakage by relying on the subjects remaining ignorant of the protocol, in this situation, is a sign of a likely flaw in the design. I suspect the protocol will allow cold reading techniques to come into play, and the way they're attempting to avoid that is to keep the subjects ignorant about what specific information (as in what organ's absence or what implant's presence or whatever) VFF will be looking for. I further presume that the internal organ situation that VFF will be asked to address will be verified based on some form of the subjects' report. That is, I suspect the subject does know the information that VFF will be trying to get through paranormal means.

If that's so, a conclusive test would make information leakage from the subjects impossible. (And VFF's claims of x-ray vision are consistent with using a sheet as a barrier between her and the subjects to cut off all information leakage.)

 

[wardenclyffe]

Perhaps IIG has talked her into using a sheet, but they're just being extra-precautious. Breathing patterns and foot tapping can be heard through a sheet.

Ward

 

[desertgal]

Yes, that might be true but she came out on this site and I was one of the first members to respond to her and I am a great believer in loyalty. Let's not test my ability to antagonize the people who antagonize the woman I might have checked motel rooms for spooks with.

Why go there?

Be respectful.

Uh, the few posts after Darat's reminder were not disrespectful. No one was "going there" until you revived it-which was unnecessary, since Darat's warning was being heeded.

Would you just address the actual topic of thread-the IIG demonstration?