Medical dowsing
Sunday, October 23, 2011 10:38 PM
[email protected]
North Texas Skeptics,
I'm Anita Ikonen and my paranormal claim is medical dowsing. For four years now I have been investigating the claim together with the skeptical community.
I have already had two larger-scale tests. One with the Independent Investigations Group IIG in November 2009. The test had three trials. Each trial had six people. One of six people in each trial was missing a kidney. I was to say in each trial which of persons is missing a kidney and whether it was the right or left side kidney that was missing.
In the first trial I was unable to form a confident answer. This was not ad hoc and I complained about my lack of confidence after I had submitted the answer, for the whole 10 minute break before the second trial. The results were only revealed later at the very end of the test. My answer in trial 1 was incorrect.
In trial 2 I was very confident in the answer. Again not ad hoc, and I expressed great confidence in the answer during the entire 10 minute break after trial 2 and before trial 3. My answer in trial 2 was correct, correct person and correct side.
In trial 3 I was confident of the person but unable to decide on the side because I was fatigued by now after almost one and a half hours of testing. My person was correct but the side was wrong.
I did not get 100% on the test as was required to "pass" the test. But 100% of my test segments in which I was confident, were correct. To get two people out of three correct is (1/6)*(1/6)*(5/6)=(5/216)=(1/43.5)=2.3% chance of guessing. Compared to 11.6% chance of guessing only one person of three, or 57.9% to guess no person correct.
In July 2010 I had a small test with the JREF at their TAM8 convention in Las Vegas. This time there were five people and one of them is missing a kidney. Out of ten kidney spaces total, I saw a kidney in all but two spaces. My choice for the answer was NOT the target, so I failed this test. I declared my claim falsified and over. But then audience members asked to see my notes, and that is when I found out that I the only other space where I had not seen a kidney, was the person and side where it was in fact missing. So I had to pick up the claim again.
I have done several readings on skeptics, with interesting results. In undocumented cases I have detected that a kidney or uterus were missing, and other information. In a documented case I detected and described the Hepatitis C virus in Michael Shermer. I also described his personal life and emotions in great detail, and he says only a very close friend could have known him so well. Shermer fails to find a normal explanation to the results of the reading and encourages me to investigate further.
Overall my investigation has not confidently falsified the claim, even though I have tried.
In July 2011 I had a test with a biologist, in which I was asked to try to dowse which of batches of seeds were infected with an internal fungi. The test had 30 batches of seeds. I only submitted 15 answers. And with a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer (infected versus not infected), I had half of mine correct: 7 were correct and 8 were incorrect.
The seed and fungi test showed that statistics does work. When I was attempting something which was not my paranormal claim of medical dowsing, results fell perfectly within what random chance predicts. Meanwhile, testing of the medical dowsing claim is not revealing perfectly statistically predicted results?
My results in the past have not been perfect, but they have certainly been good. If all it has been in the past is lucky guesses that happen to place me in the upper bound of what random chance allows, then future testing should begin to place me in the lower bound of random statistics.
Previous results certainly indicate the need for further testing. So that is why I was hopeful that you could set up something for me. It could be either informal in-person readings, like what I had with Michael Shermer, or following a test format.
I would be happy to hear from you. And I assure you I would not wish to take your time. This is a well-researched claim and it does seem to mandate further testing!
Would love to discuss this with you further.
Thank you,
Anita Ikonen
www.visionfromfeeling.com
Monday, October 24, 2011 6:21 PM
John and the North Texas Skeptics,
Thank you for your offer to test claims of the paranormal. Considering
that my claim has already been tested on two earlier occasions, I have
given careful consideration before soliciting your time and labor into
this project.
Prior tests seem to indicate the need for further tests, which for my
purposes I can add to the total from previous results. I am however
confident that I may be able to pass a paranormal challenge.
I can draw from previous experience with testing this claim and would
expect protocol negotiations between me and you to be swift this time. A
lot of the labor that would face you at this time, has already been done
by members of the Independent Investigations Group with whom I worked out
a testing protocol in the past.
I am here submitting my interest in applying to take the Paranormal
Challenge with the North Texas Skeptics.
I acknowledge that arrangements lead to a preliminary demonstration which
precedes a formal paranormal challenge. I also acknowledge that I, as the
applicant, will assume any and all costs associated with the demonstration
(provided that each is subject to my prior approval). I also acknowledge
my understanding that successful completion of this preliminary
demonstration does not award a prize.
I consent that you may publish our correspondence in any place of your
choosing.
Proposed protocol sent in a separate email.
Anita Ikonen
North Texas Skeptics,
PARANORMAL CLAIM
The paranormal claim which I submit to your testing is that of medical
dowsing. I claim that when I look at a person I can detect medical
information which is otherwise undetectable to ordinary senses of
perception and to obtain a result for this preliminary demonstration which
meets or surpasses a 2% probability of guessing to that accuracy. I
propose to test this claim on the detection of which of persons among a
group of people is missing either a kidney or a uterus.
TESTING PROTOCOL
The North Texas Skeptics (NTS) find subjects for the test. Subjects are
the persons that the claimant looks at.
Each trial has seven subjects. One of the seven subjects in each trial is
missing either a kidney or a uterus. If the trial involves a subject who
is missing a uterus then all seven subjects in that trial are women. If
the trial involves one subject who is missing a kidney then the subjects
of that trial may be both or either men and women. Subjects are 18 years
or older. No other restrictions apply to who may be a subject for the
test.
The test has three trials. NTS finds three subjects total who are missing
kidney or uterus and eighteen subjects total who are missing neither of
these organs. Each trial involves a different set of seven subjects. For
each trial the claimant is told whether she is searching for a target who
is missing a kidney or a uterus.
One trial takes up to one hour. There is a fifteen minute break after the
first half hour of a trial after which the second half hour commences. The
claimant may finish a trial early.
The subjects are each seated on a chair along a line one beside the other.
If the chairs have backrests the backrests are turned to the front so that
these do not cover the back of the subject. The subjects are seated with
their backs facing toward the claimant.
All subjects wear a short sleeve shirt of the same make and may otherwise
wear what they want.
An opaque screen is constructed which stretches across the row of subjects
so that it conceals the subjects from their shoulders and up.
Behind each subject is a chair for the claimant facing toward the row of
the subjects. The claimant is allowed to switch seats at any time during
the trial and to look at the subjects in any order.
There is no speaking, touching, or other interaction between subjects and
claimant during the test. The claimant uses no materials such as a dowsing
rod. The claimant receives no prior information about subjects, such as
their ages. The claimant has no prior contact with or knowledge of the
subjects prior to the test.
The claimant has a pen and paper to make notes during a trial.
The test takes place indoors and has normal ambient room temperature and
lighting during the test.
At any time during the course of a trial the claimant may ask to have a
subject of her choice dismissed from the row when she feels confident in
her answer for that subject. This initiates a short break during which the
claimant turns away from the row of subjects and the dismissed subject
leaves and the remaining subjects hop in to close the gap while keeping
the same order. Once the subjects are settled again the trial resumes.
Time spent during dismissal is taken from the total trial time. The
claimant is not allowed to call back a dismissed subject.
A trial has ended either once the trial hour is up or if the claimant
decides to end the trial early.
At the end of a trial the claimant turns away from the row of subjects and
the subjects are now free to leave. The claimant now has up to ten minutes
of time to transfer answers to an answer sheet. There is one answer sheet
for each of three trials. The answer sheet has seven spaces, in each the
claimant clearly either marks the answer "Suspected Target" or "Not
Suspected Target".
The claimant is allowed to scratch up to one out of three trials. At the
end of all three trials the claimant is given the opportunity to consider
whether she chooses to scratch one trial. If the claimant scratches one
trial then both of two submitted trials must have marked only one
suspected target in both trials. If the claimant submits three trials then
up to all three trials may have up to two suspected targets marked.
The claimant has the option to at her own expense ask all or chosen
subjects to undergo ultrasound examination to verify their status.
Subjects who enter into the test have agreed beforehand to subject to an
ultrasound examination if asked.
The claimant can only have one one-hour trial per day.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS
The claimant proposes that she needs total test results which meet or
exceed 2% probability of guessing.
This allows the claimant to either submit all three trials or to scratch
one trial and submit any two of three trials. If all three trials are
submitted, the claimant is able to submit up to two suspected targets in
up to all three trials. If two trials are submitted, the claimant needs to
submit no more than one suspected target in both of two trials.
If the true target is among the submitted suspected targets in all
submitted trials then the probability of achieving all correct are:
1) Three trials are submitted
A) One suspected target in three trials --- 0.3%
B) One suspected target in two trials and two suspected targets in one
trial --- 0.6%
C) One suspected target in one trial and two suspected targets in two
trials --- 1%
D) Two suspected targets in three trials --- 2%
2) Two trials are submitted
A) One suspected target in two trials --- 2%
B) One suspected target in one trial and two suspected targets in one
trial --- 4% (inacceptable)
3) One trial is submitted
A) One suspected target in the trial --- 14% (inacceptable)
B) Two suspected targets in the trial --- 29% (inacceptable)
COMMENTS
At the test with the Independent Investigations Group IIG, the claimant
paid $250 for an ultrasound technician who was hired to be on site to
determine the kidney status of the chosen subjects and the target
subjects. An ultrasound examination is noninvasive, discrete, harmless and
quick.
If time permits, the claimant would also wish to perform individual
general readings on NTS members or associates. The findings from those
readings would prove valuable to her investigation of the claim, but would
not count for or against the preliminary demonstration or formal test of
her claim with NTS.
Signed,
Anita Ikonen