VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[shandyjan]

That's what I thought, but she ignored where I pointed out that the odds of that happening are less than the odds of her passing the IIG test by random guessing. snip<

Yep... but if they wernt tested on failing, it would always cast doubt that she was right really, (in her own mind) however unlikely they had an unknown missing kidney.
Just saying.......
and to add, interesting reading UC. I recently found out I have 2 and in good order

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

About 1 in 750 are born without a kidney. They make this estimate because they, get this, have found people with missing kidneys and (you guessed it), they told those people they were missing a kidney. Sure, not everyone knows it, but if only half find out (detected at birth, detected by docs looking at other conditions), then that makes it a 1 in 1,500 chance that the person she picked is missing a kidney. Meanwhile, she still missed the target who has a 100% chance of missing a kidney. What are we gonna do if the person tests out as also missing a kidney?

Wouldn't that make it 2 in 750?

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, GeeMack, let's start over. What kind of test protocol do you suggest?

We'd need to start with two things. First, you'd need to specify your claim, definitively, and list all the factors that you believe might influence the outcome of your guesses. And if that list of factors doesn't make the possibility of creating a test so cumbersome that the results would be ambiguous, then we can move along to the second requirement.

So go ahead...

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I realize that having been in contact with JPL even if briefly here on this Forum might disqualify him and his wife from involvement in the Preliminary (Practice) test that I am arranging. A problem is also that so far we only have one kidney donor in San Diego for the test.

While I have not abandoned my considerations for arranging the test in San Diego, and thank you JPL and JPL's wife for offering to assist, I need to consider other more practical options.

I am contacting a national kidney donor foundation and asking whether they would like to take part in this test by assisting me in finding past kidney donors who would be willing to volunteer for this test. I am considering arranging this Preliminary test not in my own state North Carolina which is where I live, work, and study, but in another state that is not quite as far away as California, that has a large population, and probably plenty of past kidney donors and skeptics. And Jeff Corey you are in luck and I expect to see you at the Preliminary test, because I will see if I can arrange this in New York.

A conference room will be booked and I will advertise the event at least with New York Skeptics and Universities. At least one New York Skeptic needs to be involved to ensure that the rules are being followed. People will be charged an entry fee of perhaps $10 that will cover the conference room and travel costs for those involved: VFF and the volunteers. And the remaining money will be donated to the kidney donor foundation in gratitude of their participation.

Big plans from an insignificant claimant who only claims to have seen once that a kidney was missing. The only reason I would ever do this is because that one experience I had is compelling to me. If I fail the test it will be a contribution to skepticism and a valuable example to the pseudoscience community that unconventional paranormal claims need to be tested. If I pass I will be eager to take the IIG test.

The plan is to have this test before the IIG test. The only problem would be if I have the IIG test first and fail it.

So let's work out a really good test protocol. This test is going to be conclusive and able to falsify the claim. This test does not have to necessarily be able to prove the claim if I am successful because that would mean that more is demanded of the test protocol.
And I expect to see Jeff Corey there.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Wouldn't that make it 2 in 750?

Nope. Those who know they are missing a kidney don't volunteer.

Suppose we put out ads for 7,500 volunteers with two kidneys in each of three countries. In the USA, because of the poor healthcare system, nobody knows if they were born missing a kidney. Out of those 7,500 people, about 10 will be missing a kidney.

In Sweden the healthcare is excellent and people love their free ultrasounds. Everybody born without a kidney is aware of the fact. Out of those 7,500 volunteers, how many will be missing a kidney? Zero.

In Canada they have a half-assed healthcare system. Only half the people born without a kidney know it. Out of 7,500 volunteers, how many will be missing a kidney? I'll let you do the math.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I am contacting a national kidney donor foundation and asking whether they would like to take part in this test by assisting me in finding past kidney donors who would be willing to volunteer for this test. I am considering arranging this Preliminary test not in my own state North Carolina which is where I live, work, and study, but in another state that is not quite as far away as California, that has a large population, and probably plenty of past kidney donors and skeptics. And Jeff Corey you are in luck and I expect to see you at the Preliminary test, because I will see if I can arrange this in New York.

Why are you going out of state? It makes no sense.

A conference room will be booked and I will advertise the event at least with New York Skeptics and Universities. At least one New York Skeptic needs to be involved to ensure that the rules are being followed. People will be charged an entry fee of perhaps $10 that will cover the conference room and travel costs for those involved: VFF and the volunteers. And the remaining money will be donated to the kidney donor foundation in gratitude of their participation.

Did you forget the smiley or are you being serious?

Big plans from an insignificant claimant who only claims to have seen once that a kidney was missing. The only reason I would ever do this is because that one experience I had is compelling to me. If I fail the test it will be a contribution to skepticism and a valuable example to the pseudoscience community that unconventional paranormal claims need to be tested. If I pass I will be eager to take the IIG test.

Get Dr. Carslon, one other person, and a screen. You can do the test with virtually no cost and be done in a few hours. I already gave you the protocol. Are you not listening?

 

[shandyjan]

You really think people will pay to see? You have no credentials, this isnt going to work.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

We'd need to start with two things. First, you'd need to specify your claim, definitively, and list all the factors that you believe might influence the outcome of your guesses. And if that list of factors doesn't make the possibility of creating a test so cumbersome that the results would be ambiguous, then we can move along to the second requirement.

So go ahead...

Claim: Detecting whether a person has one or two kidneys.

Conditions: All I do is look at the person with my eyes. The distance between me and the person is 3 feet. I only see the back of the person. The person's head, neck, arms, and body beneath pelvis are screened off. The person's back need not be bare and the person is wearing a shirt of their choice. The person is seated during the test and I am seated during the test.

I require normal room temperature and not heavily air conditioned. The test will take place indoors and with normal lighting. I require no speaking with the person or other interaction such as touching. I need no prior information about the person. I ask for 15 minutes of time to see each person. Pen and paper so that I can take notes on my perceptions.

There are no other conditions that would affect the performance of my claim. I have no additional requirements other than those given here.

 

[Audible Click]

A conference room will be booked and I will advertise the event at least with New York Skeptics and Universities. At least one New York Skeptic needs to be involved to ensure that the rules are being followed. People will be charged an entry fee of perhaps $10 that will cover the conference room and travel costs for those involved: VFF and the volunteers. And the remaining money will be donated to the kidney donor foundation in gratitude of their participation.

Why should they pay for your travel costs?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Conditions: All I do is look at the person with my eyes. The distance between me and the person is 3 feet. I only see the back of the person. The person's head, neck, arms, and body beneath pelvis are screened off. The person's back need not be bare and the person is wearing a shirt of their choice. The person is seated during the test and I am seated during the test.

Your claim is imprecise. You are not seeing the back of the person. As you describe it you are not seeing the person at all. You are seeing the general shape of their body through their clothing. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that a screen could be used.

If so, this test is a slam dunk. You could do it at the next F-A-C-T meeting.

 

[Apology]

Why does it have to be kidneys? Why can't it be tonsils? Far more people have had their tonsils removed than have had kidneys removed, there's no symptoms of missing tonsils, and a doctor can simply look down every volunteer's throat in a jiffy and tell who has tonsils and who doesn't. You wouldn't need a screen because people without tonsils look exactly like people with tonsils. There's no need for ultrasounds or a widespread search to find people who are missing their tonsils. Tonsillectomies are really common.

Of course, in being common, tonsillectomies aren't very grand, are they? Not much pizzazz in a tonsil, is there? There's a certain je ne sais quoi in a kidney, a sort of life-threatening romanticism that a plebeian tonsil couldn't hope to match, I suppose. There's no life-threatening illnesses or poignant acts of altruism involved in tonsillectomies after all.

 

[Farencue]

Is it just me or does the test before a preliminary test for the MDC challenge
appear to be getting more elaborate?

Charging money? Good luck with that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Why does it have to be kidneys? Why can't it be tonsils? Far more people have had their tonsils removed than have had kidneys removed, there's no symptoms of missing tonsils, and a doctor can simply look down every volunteer's throat in a jiffy and tell who has tonsils and who doesn't. You wouldn't need a screen because people without tonsils look exactly like people with tonsils.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the reason for the screen is only partially related to visual cues of the medical condition. There are other ways to work around that besides a screen.

Using a screen means you only need two subjects - one with the condition and one without. Since Anita never sees the person, you can reuse the same two people for each trial. Flip a coin to decide which person Anita reads behind the screen. She says "one kidney" or "two kidneys" and the trial is over. Repeat this 14 more times. If she gets all 15 correct, she has beaten one in 10,000 odds.

To do the equivalent without a screen you need 40 people, 4 of whom have the condition you're testing. Not only do you need 20X as many volunteers, but the test will take almost 3X as long.

With a screen she has all the resources she needs right now with her local F-A-C-T group.

 

[GeeMack]

*blah blah blah*

Okay, so are you or are you not willing to abandon your crappy, wholly usless protocol? What ever happened to this?...

Yes, GeeMack, let's start over. What kind of test protocol do you suggest?

I know it was like, almost a whole hour ago, but Jesus H. Christ, kid. Here you are treating everyone on this forum like crap again, and you have the nerve to ask for their help? Anita, your entire protocol is dog-doo. Every part of it. You demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of everything about it. It won't provide any valuable information. Like I said before, it is only useful to an Internet attention whore, not to anyone legitimately interested in sorting out their magical powers from their delusions.

Now if you're on the legitimately interested side of that line, back up to the part where you're willing to abandon your entire existing protocol because it stinks, and take it from here...

We'd need to start with two things. First, you'd need to specify your claim, definitively, and list all the factors that you believe might influence the outcome of your guesses. If that list of factors doesn't make the possibility of creating a test so cumbersome that the results would be ambiguous, then we can move along to the second requirement.

Claim: Detecting whether a person has one or two kidneys.

Conditions: All I do is look at the person with my eyes. The distance between me and the person is 3 feet. I only see the back of the person. The person's head, neck, arms, and body beneath pelvis are screened off. The person's back need not be bare and the person is wearing a shirt of their choice. The person is seated during the test and I am seated during the test.

I require normal room temperature and not heavily air conditioned. The test will take place indoors and with normal lighting. I require no speaking with the person or other interaction such as touching. I need no prior information about the person. I ask for 15 minutes of time to see each person. Pen and paper so that I can take notes on my perceptions.

There are no other conditions that would affect the performance of my claim. I have no additional requirements other than those given here.

When you've made up your mind...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Is it just me or does the test before a preliminary test for the MDC challenge
appear to be getting more elaborate?

Charging money? Good luck with that.

It's all part of her fantasy. On her website she described conducting a second "study" where she would rent a hall and have an "audience" there while she performed her readings. This is nothing new.

Someone on www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com asked if there was any kind of woo that Anita didn't believe in. I responded that she only believes in woo that brings attention to herself and makes her special. It's true. Just check out The Claims on my website to see what I mean.

She is following the same pattern with this protocol. Now she's talking about contacting the National Kidney Foundation, charging admission, and donating the excess proceeds. This protocol is about attention, not science.

 

[Audible Click]

Uncle Yimmy's protocol up-thread would be viable but Anita igonores or doesn't seem to understand it. How someone who used to be a 4.0 student can't understand protocol is beyond me. Now she wants her travel expenses to New York to be paid for by charging people to come see her, that is so far from anything scientific that all I can say is Barnum & Bailey much?

 

[Apology]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but the reason for the screen is only partially related to visual cues of the medical condition. There are other ways to work around that besides a screen.

Using a screen means you only need two subjects - one with the condition and one without. Since Anita never sees the person, you can reuse the same two people for each trial. Flip a coin to decide which person Anita reads behind the screen. She says "one kidney" or "two kidneys" and the trial is over. Repeat this 14 more times. If she gets all 15 correct, she has beaten one in 10,000 odds.

To do the equivalent without a screen you need 40 people, 4 of whom have the condition you're testing. Not only do you need 20X as many volunteers, but the test will take almost 3X as long.

With a screen she has all the resources she needs right now with her local F-A-C-T group.

Oh, I agree that if it simply must be kidneys, your protocol is the ultimate in efficiency, compared to gathering 40 subjects, four of which must be missing a kidney. I'm just wondering why it has to be kidneys, when it would be so much easier to find volunteers who are missing tonsils. After all, it's not like people with missing tonsils are rare, and there's no need for a serious medical test to determine whether the volunteers have them or not.

As a matter of fact, your protocol, using screens, would be just as efficient on tonsils as it would be on kidneys. Two volunteers, one with tonsils, one without, behind the screen, and VFF guesses determines which one is standing there, repeat 15 times. It's an excellent way of handling, it, Unca Jimmy, I applaud your reasoning. So much easier than scouring the streets for kidney donors.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Anita has already claimed to have excellent results with missing molars, which is even easier than missing tonsils.

I'd also like to point out that we're not limited to just two people. If we have one target and two controls (1/3), we can hit 1 in 10,000 with just 10 trials rather than 15. If we can get six controls (1/7) we can get it down to just 5 trials. See http://www.automeasure.com/chance.html for the table I am referencing.

Think about it. With just 7 volunteers and a screen she could do the test on a Sunday morning and still have time to buy everybody brunch with her $50,000! And she wouldn't have to buy her own meal because she could just taste what everyone else is eating using her super powers.

 

[Farencue]

Im a big fan of your site UncaYimmy, but Im firmly in the scam camp.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Im a big fan of your site UncaYimmy, but Im firmly in the scam camp.

I added this thread just for you (it includes a poll). Create an account and let's hear what you think. That goes for everyone including you, LongTabber!