Back to Comments

On October 19 2010 I attempted to post the following comment to Jim Carr's blog entry on his website Warning: Be Careful Dealing With Anita Ikonen, where he among listing other twisted lies to make his false notions of me as the next Sylvia Browne seem more plausible, he boasts of his accomplishments with preventing me from contacting migraine support groups to offer them a free-of-charge migraine healing session for the purpose of evaluating its effectivity, being quite proud of having sabotaged some of my work at finding suitable subjects for that work. Here is what I attempted to post to his blog, not expecting it to be posted since Jim Carr personally screens and censors the content of his website so to not break his one-sided view.

Jim Carr, with regard to the migraine healing claim and its investigation. That claim is based on the depiction of the one person that I have attempted to heal for migraines who is claiming that he underwent a dramatic improvement in his condition, coinciding with the time of the healing and with an effect persisting over the two months that I continued to do follow-up with him. Is it true that you were offered the opportunity to look up that claim by contacting the person whom I offered to heal, yet that when faced with the possibility of uncovering evidence supportive of this paranormal claim you declined to have anything to do with this investigative work which you yourself had at first embarked on? Quoting then to some comment I had made that you were "stalking me" as the appropriate excuse to not do your homework? What then gives you reasonable grounds for placing this particular migraine healing claim which is a claim made by the person I healed whilst I remain highly skeptical, among your personal agenda to stop any work that I do within the paranormal realm? What specific piece of evidence compels you to continue to trash my investigation or to have reason to believe that the evidence I have in the form of a person who actually experienced these benefits would be invalid to support my choice of investigating this claim? Please respond to this my criticism of your assertions and methodology, unless you intend for your website to be your personal shrine that supports your one-sided conviction that I be the next Sylvia Browne and you Robert Lancaster, which we both know by now is not true. Thank you. Expecting not to be published and therefore posting this also on my website http://www.visionfromfeeling.com/comments-migrainehealing.html. Thanks, Anita Ikonen / VisionFromFeeling

After a somewhat long period of tolerance I will now begin to look at his false claims about me and begin to work to dismantle them one by one. I will no longer tolerante his public slander campaign against me. His website lists several cases of libel against me and I will be taking legal action. Thankfully, law does not look at my work within the paranormal field and say that "well gee since Sylvia Browne is a monster and she does work in the paranormal that means you are as despicable as Sylvia is and therefore you, your work, and every aspect of your personal and professional life must be destroyed at any price!". Law is objective and doesn't get carried away in personal vendettas in the hopes of becoming the next great big Skeptic. It is no longer ok. Game over.