VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[VisionFromFeeling]

I think an acceptable protocol, would be for Anita to have no information about any of the subjects, including how many of them, if any, are missing a kidney ...

Yes, that goes along with my suggestion that she scrap the crap she's proposed so far and start over.

If we know that only one in ten is supposed to have one kidney, that way I pick one person who I claim to see has one kidney, and if it is not the target person I only have to pay for one ultrasound to verify how many kidneys the person I picked has.

If we have potentially many persons with one kidney then how do we do that test? Wouldn't I then have to say how many kidneys each of them has, and wouldn't then all of those that were meant to have two kidneys have to undergo ultrasound? From a cost perspective, (since I am paying ) we have to stick with the 1 in 10 protocol. We can always find more two-kidney volunteers and up the odds but I would still have to pick one person who I say has one kidney.

Will the test be videoed?

You bet.

(...) how can the test be turned into one that gives 1 in 10,000 odds? If this takes 4-5 hours (...)

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. If I am allowed 20 minutes to see one volunteer, one trial will take 3 hours and 20 minutes and the test will take 13 hours and 20 minutes in total and conveniently be split up into two trials a day for 6 hours and 40 minutes a day with a nice break in between the two trials of a day. Two sets of Skeptics can attend the tests so that none of them have to be there the whole day.

 

[Agatha]

Why are you so focused on detecting who is missing a kidney? Does your ability only work with kidneys or does it work with other body parts? Can you distinguish between a fist and an open hand if they are behind a curtain? Because that would be so much easier to test.

Like in the third "study" procedure here? http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/induced1.html It seems not. And this is with still being able to see some of the person's head, getting feedback each time, and with no randomisation.

 

[Kariboo]

I only have to pay for one ultrasound to verify how many kidneys the person I picked has.

Have you checked with ultrasound people in San Diego if they even do this? There is a difference for paying out of pocket for a medically necessary ultrasound (uninsured) and just having one for fun. I am doubtful you can just call and arrange one for whatever reason. Please check this before you continue with this in your protocol. For instance I couldn't have an ultrasound here without being referred by an MD.

the test will take 13 hours and 20 minutes in total and conveniently be split up into two trials a day for 6 hours and 40 minutes a day with a nice break in between the two trials of a day. Two sets of Skeptics can attend the tests so that none of them have to be there the whole day.

Yah, So what is your timeline? If IIG is planning this test before the end of the year you will have to plan YOUR test before that. You also stated that you would like IIG to use info from YOUR test to adjust theirs so they won' t be able to get that going before you conclude your test. Not to mention the time it generally takes for you to report back (how are you doing with the scans of that FACT study btw?). When do you suggest you have your pre pre test?

also what if you get tired/nauseous during the test. The test will have to be canceled. Since this has happened before how do you know it won't happen again? If you know beforehand that you are able to sign this declaration then why include it? Also how can you be sure beforehand, excluding just wishful thinking.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

(...) These are important questions that need to be answered.

This 1 in 10 Preliminary test we are discussing here is not necessarily an IIG test. I am acting out on the suggestion that I should perform "independent preliminary testing" to prepare myself for the possible outcome of the official IIG test and also to get more practice with this before the big day.

Now that this one might take place in San Diego, California, being close to where the IIG is, the IIG might want to be involved. I don't know that yet. Our correspondence is low. They only meet once a month. I have suggested a 1 in 1,000 odds by having three trials each with one one-kidney person and nine two-kidney persons and await their reply.

It needs to be discarded completely because its design is purely amateurish and any results obtained would be useless.

What we are discussing here is simply some preliminary testing to see what I can do or not do before the actual IIG test. An amateurish preliminary test is better than no preliminary test at all.

I think we are all confused because I chose to call this a Preliminary test rather than a Practice test, which it what it really is.

Have you checked with ultrasound people in San Diego if they even do this? There is a difference for paying out of pocket for a medically necessary ultrasound (uninsured) and just having one for fun. I am doubtful you can just call and arrange one for whatever reason. Please check this before you continue with this in your protocol. For instance I couldn't have an ultrasound here without being referred by an MD.

This is a Preliminary (Practice) test. If one of the two-kidney persons in fact would be born without a kidney, then according to my claim I would detect the target person and the person born with one kidney. I will write down all persons I think have one kidney and even if we don't have an ultrasound on an alleged two-kidney person I've picked then it would be very interesting if the target person was not on my list.

How do you know this beforehand? If you include this part in your protocol there are 2 options (well 3 really). 1. There are no conditions that are averse to you. 2) there ARE conditions that are averse to you and then the test will have to be canceled, not a great idea. 3) You are ok in the beginning but get tired/nauseous during the test. The test will have to be canceled. Since this has happened before how do you know it won't happen again? If you know beforehand that you are able to sign this declaration then why include it? Also how can you be sure beforehand, excluding just wishful thinking.

I will sign a statement before beginning the test, and then before seeing each person and after seeing each person, and then again after having seen all ten persons. It's ok, all it takes is a signature and a statement.

So what is your timeline? If IIG is planning this test before the end of the year you will have to plan YOUR test before that. You also stated that you would like IIG to use info from YOUR test to adjust theirs so they won' t be able to get that going before you conclude your test. Not to mention the time it generally takes for you to report back (how are you doing with the scans of that FACT study btw?). When do you suggest you have your pre pre test?

If the IIG test will take place before this Preliminary (Practice) test then that is ok. The main objective of the test we are discussing here is to get practice and experience. The IIG have not requested that I have this Preliminary test, they have only recommended it.

The scans are sitting here on the desk while I am discussing the Preliminary (Practice) kidney test with you all, and while I am not sitting here I am studying for my Physics classes this Fall. I would have this Preliminary (Practice) test as soon as possible. Tomorrow, if it could be arranged.

 

[Ashles]

If we have potentially many persons with one kidney then how do we do that test? Wouldn't I then have to say how many kidneys each of them has, and wouldn't then all of those that were meant to have two kidneys have to undergo ultrasound? From a cost perspective, (since I am paying ) we have to stick with the 1 in 10 protocol. We can always find more two-kidney volunteers and up the odds but I would still have to pick one person who I say has one kidney.

If it were multiple people with one kidney how many people are you going to utlrasound if you wrongly diagnose them as having one kidney? All of them? Why? That wouldn't make sense. If you get one wrong then it's worth ultrasounding them as you would have anyway. If it is more than one then statistically there is extremely little likelihood that both have previously undetected single kidneys.

So no, it would cost you no more than in practicality one ultrasound. So that objection is unfounded.

So again I ask why there shouldn't be more than one person with a single kidney.

Look this is your claim - you clam you can detect this! Yet everything you are suggestive seems indicative of someone who can't and wants to keep the odds for simply guessing on their side.

You begin this test with a 1 in 10 chance of simply guesing, you refuse to have the subjects hidden behind a screen, you already know how many subjects will have a single kidney, you even already know a certain amount about the person that it will be!

And you ask how this test could be better designed?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Anita, you didn't address the issues regarding the very low odds of 1 in 10.
What use is a test that can be relativly easily passed by chance alone.
Also it's worth us finding out what will you take from a failed test? (i.e. you select the incorrect person).
Will you assume you do not actually have this ability after all? Will you abandon the paranormal claims?
Will you move to a different claim?
Or will you try to create a new experiement about this same claim anyway?

I did answer those questions already. 1 in 10 odds are terrible for a test and I hope to involve more trials and more persons who have had a kidney removed. Even if we only have a 1 in 10 test it could be interesting. It would meet the reasons why I am having this Preliminary (Practice) test in the first place, to have more practice and experience. I would get to try a set up of the test and what it is like to actually take a paranormal test before the big day when I go to Hollywood to take the IIG test. If I fail a 1 in 10 test then that is significant and adds to the evidence of falsifying the claim, meanwhile I wouldn't take one 1 in 10 trial as conclusive evidence one way or another. If I failed this test and under 1 in 10 odds I would be prepared for falsifying my claim in the IIG test and would want to go ahead and have the IIG test anyway to falsify the claim properly, if that is where it will lead.

 

[GeeMack]

Do share your idea, that's what we're here for.

Yes. I'll be glad to. Just let us know when you acknowledge that your existing protocol sucks as badly as everyone here says it does, and abandon it completely. Then we can start from scratch with something that is actually scientifically reasonable and not just some silly game to indulge your whim and fancy.

 

[Ashles]

I think we are all confused because I chose to call this a Preliminary test rather than a Practice test, which it what it really is.

So we need to ensure we don't get confused between your
Preliminary Tests
Practice Tests
Surveys
Studies
Tests

So if you ever decide on a specific claim and actually get a skeptical organisation to agree to a protocol you suggest, there only needs to be about 5 different stages of testing before you would be ready to carry out a test which might actually yield a result you would consider in some way indicative of something?

 

[Ashles]

I did answer those questions already. 1 in 10 odds are terrible for a test and I hope to involve more trials and more persons who have had a kidney removed. Even if we only have a 1 in 10 test it could be interesting. It would meet the reasons why I am having this Preliminary (Practice) test in the first place, to have more practice and experience. I would get to try a set up of the test and what it is like to actually take a paranormal test before the big day when I go to Hollywood to take the IIG test. If I fail a 1 in 10 test then that is significant and adds to the evidence of falsifying the claim, meanwhile I wouldn't take one 1 in 10 trial as conclusive evidence one way or another. If I failed this test and under 1 in 10 odds I would be prepared for falsifying my claim in the IIG test and would want to go ahead and have the IIG test anyway to falsify the claim properly, if that is where it will lead.

That is all just repeating what you said earlier which in essence was that this test will not yield anything useful either way.

If you fail the test at low odds, what does it then achieve to ask a skeptical organisation and many volunteers to give up their time to help you falsify a claim for which there is no evidence, at far higher odds?

That would be no different to me contacting the IIG and asking them to arrange all that testing for my claim of kidney detection. I would have exactly as many succesful tests as you and exactly the same amount of evidence.

If you fail this test at 1 in 10 that should be considered an end of the matter for the sake of IIG and the volunteer's time.

 

[Audible Click]

The scans are sitting here on the desk while I am discussing the Preliminary (Practice) kidney test with you all, and while I am not sitting here I am studying for my Physics classes this Fall. I would have this Preliminary (Practice) test as soon as possible. Tomorrow, if it could be arranged.

Do you see why many of the posters who are trying to help you design a workable protocol are becoming doubtful and frustrated? In case you don't get it, let me remind you that you promised those scans to us months ago. Obviously you don't intend to post them on JREF, thereby breaking your word to us. If this is indicative of what your behavior will be with the results of the practice kidney detection test then the frustraion level here will just escalate to the point of no return, meaning that no one will put in the time and effort to help you. Do you understand that, Anita?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

This would seem to be an attempt to shift the responsibility for delays onto the IIG. How can they be arranging a test when your protocol is still the shambles that it is?

The IIG and I are having our own protocol negotiations. The IIG are quite capable of forming test protocols, thank you, even if I am allegedly not. Progress is slow, I am just waiting for their reply.

I'm aware of the points that I've raised, thank you. Your reminder does not answer my question. How are you going to screen volunteers when it is acknowledged that some/many/most may not know how many kidneys they have?

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

A medical-imaging geek would know that there's no such thing as a free lunch ultrasound. Maybe you aren't one after all.

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.

Think about what you're saying: If you fail to detect the target, then you want somebody to spend their free time testing for something that is extremely unlikely just to prove that you might have made a 1 in 5 guess.

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

Give them a target date like they asked. Otherwise we're going to hear excuses about how you need to study for exams or whatever.

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.

Nobody owes you anything. You are asking strangers to spend their valuable free time indulging you because, what? You told Dr. Carlson you knew he was missing a kidney after he told you he was missing a kidney? On that basis you want people to jump through hoops to prove that you weren't wrong this time?

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.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

So was the reading with Dr. Carslon. You missed, but you call it a hit.

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

*And yes, saying it in large font and Caps Lock does make it so.

 

[Farencue]

and your point is what?

 

[Uncayimmy]

This 1 in 10 Preliminary test we are discussing here is not necessarily an IIG test. I am acting out on the suggestion that I should perform "independent preliminary testing" to prepare myself for the possible outcome of the official IIG test and also to get more practice with this before the big day.

Either it is or it is not for the IIG. If the test is for you to gain confidence, then what's the point of even assisting you? You already believe this nonsense without a shred of credible evidence. No test will change that. If it's for the IIG, then follow the IIG protocol to the letter.

The fact that you don't know means that we are wasting our time.

Now that this one might take place in San Diego, California, being close to where the IIG is, the IIG might want to be involved.

If it's for the IIG, they will be involved. If it's just for you, why would they be involved? BTW, San Diego and Hollywood are about 150 miles apart. I'd hardly call that close.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

It's strange that seeing through clothes (and even other materials) has not caused you a problem in the past, but a thin screen does. (NB I have a degree in Experimental Psychology not Test Design, but creating tests and studies was part of it)

The problem is not the material that covers the person's body. The problem is locating the target tissues and having a sense of distance. Through the sheet I could still form images of tissues, but not quite as easily. The main problem was locating the target tissues. I was seeing all sorts of things first, fat tissues, heart, and other organs, and it took me a while longer to find the kidneys.

So the one time you experienced it before you only needed just over five minutes, including 'double-checking' time?

I really don't want to take the test to find that I wasn't given enough time to make sure on my answers. I don't want time to be a factor in determining whether I can do this or not.

The other issue is that you have previously blamed poor performance on 'becoming tired'. As Kariboo points out - how does signing a form before the test prevent you from claiming you got tired during the test?

I will sign a statement after each reading whether I was tired or not during the reading.

If they aren't then you don't do the test or the IIG stops the test. You can't start blaming poor test conditions for useless results before the test has even been created! You are already giving yourself an out.

We are discussing a Preliminary (Practice) test. The IIG test will be perfect, and this one is just to try things out. Why can't we have that? The IIG asked me to do this, and I agree that I should.

Why? If you have the ability this is pointless. If you don't have the ability it only makes it easier to guess. Please explain why you would like to know the number of people with one kidney if it is a reason other than it greatly increases your odds of simply guessing.

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.

You have invented what should have been clear hit/miss kinds of tests before into which you have introduced a confusing and unhelpful marking scale into.

There's no confusing scale in this test. A person either has one kidney, or they don't have one kidney (they have two).

If only her supernatural ability to see down the molecular level weren't blocked by an opaque sheet of thin cloth... (...) All this just doesn't make sense. She said she can work through a screen. Her human body scanning as she describes it is extremely effective. She can even see through the skull.

The problem with the screen is that I lose a sense of location and distance to the body.

Obviously JPL does not need to answer those questions Anita, but imagine if he was so inclined. Where does that leave your protocol for the preliminary test of the preliminary test?

The main objective of this test is not to prove my claim but to have more experience and practice, as recommended by the IIG.

Dr Carlson has publicly said that he does NOT believe you have an ability worth testing. The same Dr Carlson you gushed about on your webpage. It is extremely weird that anyone would want to take up more and more pages here with a childish guessing game for a missing kidney when it is public knowledge you failed.

Refer to.

 

[Farencue]

Thankyou for clearing all my concerns up Anita.

What I understand is that the purpose of the thousands of words you have already written in this particular thread is not to develop a protocol for the IIG test which is a preliminary test for the MDC but rather just a practice test before a preliminary test for the MDC.

Well it really is simple. You have had 2 practice tests.
1) You detected dr Carlson's missing kidney although you failed to write it down.
2) You very recently conducted an "at home missing kidney detection test" with your friend and you were able to conclude that he in fact does have 2 kidneys.

Why do you want yet another practice test? Looks like your good to go straight to the preliminary test for the IIG.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

If it were multiple people with one kidney how many people are you going to utlrasound if you wrongly diagnose them as having one kidney? All of them? Why? That wouldn't make sense. If you get one wrong then it's worth ultrasounding them as you would have anyway. If it is more than one then statistically there is extremely little likelihood that both have previously undetected single kidneys.

That's not very accurate, Ashles. If I have to diagnose all volunteers as having one or two kidneys, then wouldn't each who I've claimed has one kidney, but who has not had a kidney removed, need to undergo an ultrasound? I can't pay for that.

So again I ask why there shouldn't be more than one person with a single kidney.

Because I would have to pay for more than one ultrasound and I can't afford it.

You begin this test with a 1 in 10 chance of simply guesing, you refuse to have the subjects hidden behind a screen, you already know how many subjects will have a single kidney, you even already know a certain amount about the person that it will be!

I would love to find several persons who have had a kidney removed, by no means am I intending to have a 1 in 10 test but if that were to be the best that can be arranged I would have that since it is better than nothing. Of course I refuse to use a screen because it reduces my claimed ability. Why don't we try the underground bunker while we're at it.

And you ask how this test could be better designed?

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.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Yes. I'll be glad to. Just let us know when you acknowledge that your existing protocol sucks as badly as everyone here says it does, and abandon it completely. Then we can start from scratch with something that is actually scientifically reasonable and not just some silly game to indulge your whim and fancy.

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.

So if you ever decide on a specific claim and actually get a skeptical organisation to agree to a protocol you suggest, there only needs to be about 5 different stages of testing before you would be ready to carry out a test which might actually yield a result you would consider in some way indicative of something?

The only reason this test that we are discussing wouldn't be indicative is if it ends up being a 1 in 10 test.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Well it really is simple. You have had 2 practice tests.
1) You detected dr Carlson's missing kidney although you failed to write it down.
2) You very recently conducted an "at home missing kidney detection test" with your friend and you were able to conclude that he in fact does have 2 kidneys.

Why do you want yet another practice test? Looks like your good to go straight to the preliminary test for the IIG.

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.

 

[Farencue]

Anita I wouldnt panic about having to pay for a lot of ultrasounds if there is more than one person missing a kidney.
You only have to get ultrasounds for the people that you guessed incorrectly - the point of the ultrasound is to prove to YOU that you did indeed guess incorrectly. You dont need an ultrasound to prove you are right do you?
After all, you are always right, you just dont write it down sometimes.

I suggest you head over to the IIG and continue to discuss your protocol for a preliminary test, looks like you are all set.