The VFF Test is On!

Joe, you are simply incorrect and this is getting off topic.

Somewhere on this forum are the threads involved in the IIG/JREF Paranormal Challenge of Achau Nguyen that was performed 2-3 years ago. If you review those you should see how the entire procedure was created and it was not created in the way you think it should be. This doesn't necessarily mean that it should not be created the way you think it should be. It just means that it isn't/hasn't/wasn't done that way.

We did have an agreement with Anita on the testing protocol. The only difference is changing the odds. The test is not simply "run a second time" as you claimed. You cannot get from 10,000:1 to 1,000,000:1 simply by repeating any test. You have to do many more rounds in order to get to the correct odds.

For example, Connie Sonne was an applicant for the IIG Paranormal Challenge as well. We were not involved in the final protocol negotiations on the TAM7 test, but we did communicate with Jeff and Alison because we had negotiated with Connie that if she had been successful in the TAM7 Preliminary then we would have considered that a success in the IIG Preliminary. If Connie had been successful in the Preliminary then she would have had to do many more rounds and the rounds that she did for the Preliminary would not have counted towards the Final test.

You have good protocol ideas, but please do not say what an organization does if you have never been directly involved in what that organization does.

Thank you.

-Derek
 
derekcbart said:
You cannot get from 10,000:1 to 1,000,000:1 simply by repeating any test. You have to do many more rounds in order to get to the correct odds.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?
If randomly passing the test has a 1 in 10,000 probability, then randomly passing two such independent (non-correlated) tests would have a 1 in 100,000,000 probability, would it not?
 
The Bonferroni correction is used for adjusting alpha down for multiple comparisons in one experiment, but I don't know if it applies in replications of the same experiment.
Anyone?
 
Akhenaten said:
I don't think it works that way, and the results from two independent 1:10000 tests are still 1:10000 each time.


I could be wrong, of course. That happens heaps.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you look at it. Each trial in Anita's test was 1 in 12. There were three trials. Before trial #1, the odds of her getting all three were 1 in 1,728. Since she failed trial #1, her odds of getting all three were then zero (0 * 1/12 * 1/12). Had she passed trial #1, then before trial #2 she would have a 1 in 144 chance of getting all three: 1/1 * 1/12 * 1/12.

So, before the whole shebang, the chance of passing two separate sets of three trials is 1 in 2,985,984. If she had passed the first set, her chance of passing the second set is 1 in 1,728.

This is why before a coin toss to start a football game nobody asks how many consecutive times the coin has come up heads immediately before that flip. You see, even if it had some up heads 9 times in a row, the chance of it coming up heads a 10th time is still 1/2 (1/1 * 1/1 *1/1...*1/2).

What the IIG is saying is that if you want the $50K, you have to beat 1 in 1,000,000 odds or worse. In order to get a shot at it, you first have to beat (in Anita's case) 1 in 1,728 odds. They consider them two separate "events" so to speak.

Derek can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
ynot said:
Also contradicts credibility of course. Who would knowingly give a wrong result when they are attempting to give a right result? It's just another one of her ludicrous and dishonest multi-level chances of claiming “success” from failure.
Click to expand...

Let's also remember that in her notes, she cited two people in each round as missing a kidney. If she thought she was wrong, then why not switch answers? If that's what she did, then why not switch them back? If that's what she did, then why not switch them again?

No wonder it took so damned long! :D

Seriously, though, it really makes no sense. Her apparent theory about round 2 is that she was detecting each kidney multiple times and *that* is why she was confident. It makes sense if you squint just right. But in reality 11 of the 12 kidneys were there anyway, so...I dunno. It's just a delusion anyway.
 
And don't forget the IIG member that VfF says has a heart condition. That person "knows" about his/her condition, either because VfF told them or VfF can read minds. I wonder which it is.

Ward
 
Last edited:
cj.23 said:
Interesting about the migraine stuff. It's not actually as villainous as it could be - if anyone got better, even by placebo, hell it would be an improvement. If they stopped seeking decent medical help, that would be a tragedy - but not actually down to VFF. At least with migraine if you are suffering an attack you are not going to say "but I'm cured really". You are going to be very upset and seek help. If this goes beyond migraine, to less discernible conditions, like my friend who died of breast cancer after seeking alternative therapies and rejecting medical treatment, my wrath would be terrible,and I'd be writing a cheque to stopVFF right now (if I actually had any money in my bank account).

cj x
Click to expand...

I say she's a villain no matter what. Anita says she believes that she is transmitting light into the affected parts of the brain and affecting the voltage. We know it's ********, but if she believes it, then she should know that it's unethical and highly dangerous to be messing with somebody's brain. I've told her this, but she reckons that since she's thinking healing thoughts, nothing can go wrong. How would you judge a layman actually sending electricity into somebody's brain and saying that?

If she doesn't believe it, then she's preying upon desperate individuals for her own self-aggrandizement. That's just sick.

Actually, no matter what only desperate people are going to indulge her. If they believe it to be a success, then they will almost certainly stop taking their medications. If just one person suffers a migraine because Anita fooled them into thinking she was curing them, that's just sick. I suffer migraines. I'd rather burn myself on the stove or step on a nail than suffer a migraine - they can be that bad.

For some people they can last a day or two. They can't work or do much of anything. People have lost jobs because of taking too much time from work or going to work and performing poorly. She shouldn't be messing with people's lives like that, plain and simple.

Sure, nothing bad may come from her "treating" a handful of people, but if she doesn't do it, then we know nothing bad will happen because of her actions.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I say she's a villain no matter what. Anita says she believes that she is transmitting light into the affected parts of the brain and affecting the voltage. We know it's ********, but if she believes it, then she should know that it's unethical and highly dangerous to be messing with somebody's brain. I've told her this, but she reckons that since she's thinking healing thoughts, nothing can go wrong. How would you judge a layman actually sending electricity into somebody's brain and saying that?

If she doesn't believe it, then she's preying upon desperate individuals for her own self-aggrandizement. That's just sick.

Actually, no matter what only desperate people are going to indulge her. If they believe it to be a success, then they will almost certainly stop taking their medications. If just one person suffers a migraine because Anita fooled them into thinking she was curing them, that's just sick. I suffer migraines. I'd rather burn myself on the stove or step on a nail than suffer a migraine - they can be that bad.

For some people they can last a day or two. They can't work or do much of anything. People have lost jobs because of taking too much time from work or going to work and performing poorly. She shouldn't be messing with people's lives like that, plain and simple.

Sure, nothing bad may come from her "treating" a handful of people, but if she doesn't do it, then we know nothing bad will happen because of her actions.
Click to expand...

She transmits light into the brain? Does she know how light-sensitive migraine sufferers are? Oh, I know it's probably magical invisible light that goes directly to the brain, not through the eyes; regardless, the very idea is making me feel sick.
 
Sean84 said:
Do we need any real reason?

She's a huge floppity failure, right?
Click to expand...

Other than that the odds may have been even more in her favour than they should have been, not really.

...oh ... and other than the fact that as Joe and Gzuz (iirc) have pointed out repeatedly - a poorly designed test is not better than no test at all.
 
Lucian said:
She transmits light into the brain? Does she know how light-sensitive migraine sufferers are? Oh, I know it's probably magical invisible light that goes directly to the brain, not through the eyes; regardless, the very idea is making me feel sick.
Click to expand...

Maybe she's holding up a flashlight and shining it into their faces, for all we know. This is the part that really disturbs me-- the weird diagnoses of people with actual medical problems-- but what can anybody really do about it? I guess I could see that this might be an area where it could potentially be worthwhile to try to keep engaging Anita in dialogue. Should this maybe be another thread?
 
chillzero said:
We don't know that for a fact.
Click to expand...

What would be the reason for saying that? The reason we know that one in 500 to 1,000 people is born without a kidney is because kidneys are routinely detected in the womb and through other medical examinations. I know my kids have two kidneys each. I know I have two. Lots of people with just one know they have just one. The odds of it being undetected are probably thousands to one. Even by the freak chance some nutcase wanted to lie about it, the blinding of the subjects as to the true nature of the test made it unlikely for such a person to even have the opportunity.

We *know* with 100% certainty that there were at least six kidneys in each trial. We know the chance of a second person being without a kidney was probably less than the chance of Anita getting all three trials correct.

Most importantly, Anita operated under the belief that there were 11 kidneys, which explains her "success" in detecting them.
 
UncaYimmy said:
What would be the reason for saying that?
Click to expand...
Because it is true.

UncaYimmy said:
We *know* with 100% certainty that there were at least six kidneys in each trial.
Click to expand...
Also true.

UncaYimmy said:
We know the chance of a second person being without a kidney was probably less than the chance of Anita getting all three trials correct.

Most importantly, Anita operated under the belief that there were 11 kidneys, which explains her "success" in detecting them.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing any of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom