VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test

[Ashles]

Doesn't that imply attention to the Skeptics?

No. And you know it doesn't.

 

[Ashles]

Please post the protocol here as you've used some of our suggestions and we'd like to see it.

I'm sure it will somehow turn out that we have suggested a paying audience, the freedom to pass as many times as wanted, some form of Ermine robe for the claimant, television coverage and a post test interview with Oprah.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Please post the protocol here as you've used some of our suggestions and we'd like to see it.

Here,

August 18 2009
Re: VFF Test Protocol
Dear Jim Newman and the IIG,

I have been discussing the test protocol for the kidney detection test at VFF Preliminary Kidney Detection Test and based on some of their suggestions here is a new and improved version of the suggested test protocol:

The IIG needs to decide what will be the odds of passing the test by guessing. Some have suggested that it should be 1 in 1000 and I accept that.

Two different types of test setups were suggested:
1) Either the IIG does not tell me how many one-kidney volunteers are among a group of two-kidney volunteers and I am asked to identify the number of kidneys in all volunteers. If such a test would involve 10 volunteers, and a chance of 1 in 2 of guessing each correctly, then the total odds of such a test would be 1 in 1024 with only ten volunteers.
2) Or I am shown for instance 10 volunteers and I am told that one of them has one kidney. Or it could be 1 out of 5 persons has one kidney, or any other distribution. With 1 in 10 persons that have one kidney, it would require three trials with 10 people each, a total of 3 one-kidney persons and 27 two-kidney persons for a 1 in 1000 odds of guessing all three trials correctly.
It was also brought to my attention that about 1 in 700 people are born with one kidney so we have to deal with the issue that a two-kidney volunteer might without them knowing it have been born with one kidney. It was suggested that an ultrasound can be used to verify the number of kidneys in a person. And that is the reason I recommend that we try the setup outlined in 2) and not the one outlined in 1), because if we do 1), we would need to have 10 ultrasounds performed since I identify the number of kidneys in 10 people, whereas if we do 2) we only need to perform 3 ultrasounds, one for each of the three trials. But a benefit of 1) is that it involves a fewer number of volunteers, and that with 1) you can either,
a) Determine before-hand and randomly how many one-kidney volunteers and how many two-kidney volunteers to find. For instance, I tried a random generator and it gave me four one-kidney persons and six two-kidney persons. Then you try to find that number of each kind of volunteer.
b) Or, setup 1) also permits that you simply take what ever ten volunteers you were able to find and make a test out of it. Either way I would not know what volunteers you have found.
I leave it at your discretion to choose either of the methods 1) or 2) or to suggest something else in terms of how many volunteers are involved in the test and how many volunteers I need to describe.

I previously asked that the head and neck of the volunteers are screened off. I now add that not only the head and neck is screened off, but also shoulders, arms, and from hips and down including the legs. That will help me focus on the target area with fewer distractions and will also eliminate some of the unnecessary visual material. I still ask that I get to see the back of the volunteers with no kind of screen, but the volunteers are wearing a shirt, preferably cotton but if that can't be arranged other materials also work. Please let me know what the IIG thinks about me being allowed to see the clothed back of the volunteers. I fail to see what kind of external clues would be available from seeing a person's back as to the number of kidneys that a person has. My claim strictly requires that I get to see the person with eyesight for the medical perceptions to form. I have tested at home with opaque and partially opaque full-body screens and the perceptions fail. Let me know what the IIG suggests.

I would strongly prefer to see all volunteers at a time, but since that is impractical and requires complicated screens to be made and requires that all volunteers have to sit for a long time at the test, I allow that I see one volunteer at a time if the IIG prefers. That way we only need one screen, and that way a volunteer only needs to sit for a much shorter amount of time.

I would like to ask for up to 30 minutes of time to see each volunteer. I do not expect to need that much time, but I could finish early and then see the next volunteer. I do not want time to be a factor in determining whether I can accurately describe the number of kidneys in persons. Otherwise we can agree to a much shorter amount of time but I may ask for more time if I were to need an extension. Obviously with three 10 person trials the test would have to take place over two days. That is another reason why setup 1) has benefits over 2), so if we can overcome the issue of several ultrasounds, setup 1) would definitely have to be chosen. Not for my benefit, but for the benefit of test arrangements.

I use no speaking or touching, no prior knowledge or feedback, and no materials. I only require pen and paper to write down my impressions.

Please consider these improvements to the test protocol, and I look forward to hearing from you again. I have contacted three Skeptical organizations, the FACT Skeptics, Southern Skeptical Society and The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI formerly CSICOP) and even the not-so-skeptical Rhine Research Center about arranging a preliminary test as preparation for our official IIG test. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to verify or falsify my claim, I could not do this on my own.

Anita Ikonen
www.visionfromfeeling.com

And all prior communication between me and the IIG (regarding the kidney detection test) is available at www.visionfromfeeling.com/testprotocol.html
My investigation is an open documentary there are no secrets.

 

[Ashles]

GeeMack, I detected that a left kidney was missing. You calling it a lie doesn't change the fact that I detected it.

You restating it as fact doesn't change us not believing you at all.

If you took all the time you had spent typing the repeated claims that your kidney story is really true, added it up, and spent that time generating and carrying out a sensible protocol... you wouldn't need to keep typing those words that we don't believe.

You would have actually taken some action that might have had the ability to convince people.

As it stands we still don't believe the story, and still won't if you repeat it ten thousand times (which it feels like it is approaching).

I allow that I mentioned it after the fact and that therefore there is no evidence for it and I allow that you Skeptics have every reason to doubt my sincerety in this, meanwhile I do know that I did detect it before it was mentioned to me and that is why I am having the test. You can't convince me otherwise, and I won't try to convince you otherwise either.

I love how this bolded text is in the middle of a huge chunk of text attempting to convince us otherwise.

You weren't there, you don't know, and I am telling the truth. I never lie. You should see me on April Fool's Day when I try to call friends and family and make up some silly or even convincing lies, I just start giggling and can't do it. Or if I lie I feel so guilty about it I have nightmares and have to go and confess to the person. That's just the way I am.

So yet further words telling us you don't lie.

And this would be distinguishable from someone lying about not lying... how exactly?

Let's let the test decide whether I can see kidneys or not, GeeMack.

What test?

 

[Ashles]

So in that whole new test... not one mention of reading which side the single kidney subjects have their kidney!
Something that, if the ability were real, would be automatically known if you actually detected a single kidney.

Nicely reducing the odds from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 for every single subject.

(And due to the likely much greater distribution of 2 kidney versus one kidney people, this affects the odds even more favourably in your favour)

And back to the 30 minutes per person...

You didn't take anything away from this thread did you.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Ashles your suggestion that I describe which kidney is missing came after I had sent this e-mail to the IIG already. I've taken plenty away from this thread, but now if you all excuse me, I've got school on Monday, and more than 20 credits of some of the hardest undergraduate courses.

 

[Akhenaten]

So in that whole new test... not one mention of reading which side the single kidney subjects have their kidney!
Something that, if the ability were real, would be automatically known if you actually detected a single kidney.

Nicely reducing the odds from 1 in 3 to 1 in 2 for every single subject.

(And due to the likely much greater distribution of 2 kidney versus one kidney people, this affects the odds even more favourably in your favour)

And back to the 30 minutes per person...

You didn't take anything away from this thread did you.

It doesn't seem so, but I'll bet the IIG have.

 

[Uncayimmy]

LightinDarkness to UncaYimmy about him having a website that prevents me from going into the woo economy,
And meanwhile there is this.

Yes, stop the woo that is actually investigating and willing to falsify their woo rather than exploiting and potentially harming people! Stop VFF! Don't let any woo subject their claims to proper testing and - worst of all - possible falsification and - wait, it gets worse - setting a valuable example to woos everywhere!

1) Whether I do anything about any other crank is irrelevant to the validity of dealing with you.

2) As you well know, I contacted the NC Attorney General about Brent Atwater.

3) The time to stop any of these cranks is long before they ever attempt to get on TV or written up in magazines. Once that happens, it's like pissing into the wind.

4) You already explained that your definition of "falsify" is not the accepted definition. For example, you say that failing TTTWNH (The Test That Will Never Happen) will falsify your healing claims. When asked if you would withdraw your offer to the migraine group, you said no because you still think you have some healing power, even if it is just "creating a placebo effect."

5) Your example to other woos is a horrible one, but we won't get into that. Suffice it to say that you are even testing any of this is the problem in the first place. There is nothing to test. Dr. Carlson and the rest of us have told you this many times.

This is all about your personal gratification. Period.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles your suggestion that I describe which kidney is missing came after I had sent this e-mail to the IIG already.

How bizarre - you carried on discussing the test protocol and asking questions after you had already sent off a protocol?

I posted a list of details about your protocol as I understood it, and you didn't say "No that's not correct" or "I'm afraid I have just sent off the protocol to IIG" or anything like that... instead you said my list was "exactly correct".

And I'm pretty sure the individual kidney side was suggested a while back in the thread. I didn't create it - I only carried it forward into my list.

Don't worry I'll go check for you.

ETA: Yeah thought so - you were discussing it with Skeptical Greg back on the 14th

But obviously as you don't lie this must have been some form of... poor memory?

I've taken plenty away from this thread, but now if you all excuse me, I've got school on Monday, and more than 20 credits of some of the hardest undergraduate courses.

We'd be a little more impressed if we saw any evidence of you taking anything scientific away from any of those courses.
You do know that when it comes to real research and jobs, they don't really care about credits or grade averages quite as much as what you actually know and understand about your subjects?

 

[GeeMack]

Ashles your suggestion that I describe which kidney is missing came after I had sent this e-mail to the IIG already. I've taken plenty away from this thread, but now if you all excuse me, I've got school on Monday, and more than 20 credits of some of the hardest undergraduate courses.

I bet you hope none are as hard as any that you've failed before. Hate to wreck that grade point average you're so fond of lying about.

Oh, and you neglected to mention whether you've had your problem properly assessed by a mental health professional. Being the self declared science student that you are, I'm sure you'd agree that eliminating the obvious explanations would be a good first step when trying to find out if there's some kind of unknown cause for a phenomenon, like your supposed ability to see people's innards. And you certainly can't deny that mental illness is known to exist and could explain everything about the symptoms you describe. Get that checked out yet, Anita?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I DETECTED THAT A LEFT KIDNEY WAS MISSING AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A PERCEPTION AS CLEAR AS THAT AND THAT IS WHY I WILL HAVE THIS TEST AND NONE OF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME AWAY FROM IT

THE TEST WILL DECIDE WHETHER I CAN DO WHAT I CLAIM OR NOT AND I WILL NOT BE CALLED A LIAR WHEN I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH

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

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I bet you hope none are as hard as any that you've failed before. Hate to wreck that grade point average you're so fond of lying about.

Other than one F which I have because I refused to attend a class where the professor hits students and calls them names and tells them he hates them, I have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hmm

 

[Ashles]

I DETECTED THAT A LEFT KIDNEY WAS MISSING AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A PERCEPTION AS CLEAR AS THAT AND THAT IS WHY I WILL HAVE THIS TEST AND NONE OF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME AWAY FROM IT

THE TEST WILL DECIDE WHETHER I CAN DO WHAT I CLAIM OR NOT AND I WILL NOT BE CALLED A LIAR WHEN I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH

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

Anyone ever hear the phrase "Overelaboration of a bad liar"?

 

[Ashles]

Other than one F which I have because I refused to attend a class where the professor hits students and calls them names and tells them he hates them, I have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

Oh I see that story has evolved again. He hits multiple students now?

Yup that certainly sounds like the kind of thing that would go on unreported in a North American University

 

[Uncayimmy]

Regarding the mannequins suggested by GeeMack,
I was only playing along with that because UncaYimmy wanted to design such a (silly) test in the first place.

Again with the repetition. Again with the repetition. Again with the repetition.

You have not outlined any flaws in the test. We know from your survey that you can easily do readings in under 4 seconds. So, if we give you 15X as long, that requires the subject to lie there for one minute. All you have to do is just start to form a perception to know a person is there.

If you don't like the strapping down of heads to ensure there is no movement, then we can use three mercury switches placed on the forehead. If they set off an alarm, that run is a failure and discarded.

Advantages of this test:

* No need to see the person at all - you just see a head pushing against an opaque screen.
* No orientation problems.
* Only one test subject is needed.
* Kidney count is irrelevant.
* Whole test can be done in 30 minutes or less.

Again, what are your specific objections to support an accusation of this test being silly? You don't like it because it could be arranged quickly and easily.

BTW, please read my post in the Crushed Pill thread. There's an important note about the next F-A-C-T meeting.

 

[GeeMack]

Other than one F which I have because I refused to attend a class where the professor hits students and calls them names and tells them he hates them, I have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

Other than the fact that you couldn't even make it through a class that obviously many other people were able to complete, you have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

Other than the fact that you don't have a perfect 4.0 GPA, you have a perfect 4.0 GPA.

You're a real piece of work, Anita. Lying with no compunction. I bet your parents are proud.

And there's still the issue of determining whether your alleged sense of super secret x-ray vision isn't caused by something mundane, well known to exist, and relatively common. Before you take your kidney counting guessing game, don't you think it would be a good idea to get a professional assessment of your mental health, since we all know that a problem in that area could cause the symptoms you're having? Then if you ever play that guessing game, you will have eliminated the most obvious explanation beforehand. Science at its finest, Anita! Someday you might be a real science student, as opposed to the grade school kid pretend science student you are now, and you'll be glad to know these things.

 

[desertgal]

I DETECTED THAT A LEFT KIDNEY WAS MISSING AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A PERCEPTION AS CLEAR AS THAT AND THAT IS WHY I WILL HAVE THIS TEST AND NONE OF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME AWAY FROM IT

THE TEST WILL DECIDE WHETHER I CAN DO WHAT I CLAIM OR NOT AND I WILL NOT BE CALLED A LIAR WHEN I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH

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

Feel free to apply skepticism and call me a liar and a fraud.

Okay. You're a liar and a fraud. Your objections to the contrary are just more lies.

 

[Akhenaten]

I DETECTED THAT A LEFT KIDNEY WAS MISSING AND I HAVE NEVER HAD A PERCEPTION AS CLEAR AS THAT AND THAT IS WHY I WILL HAVE THIS TEST AND NONE OF YOU CAN CONVINCE ME AWAY FROM IT

THE TEST WILL DECIDE WHETHER I CAN DO WHAT I CLAIM OR NOT AND I WILL NOT BE CALLED A LIAR WHEN I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH

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

It says something, but not what you think it does.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I WILL NOT BE CALLED A LIAR WHEN I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH

You have discovered the secret: Just tell the truth, and people won't call you a liar.