About VFF
  Induced 1
  Induced 2
  First study
  Second study
  Results 1
  Results 2
  Results 3

The First Study

I do not practice my paranormal claim. I do not do "psychic readings", and so I rarely come across the opportunity to experience my claim of health perceptions. As part of the lengthy one-year study, I did arrange together with the FACT skeptics a larger-scale study involving readings done on five members of the public. This was not a test, rather the purpose was for me to learn more about my claim in order to use that knowledge in the design of a future test. This first larger-scale study took place on Saturday April 4 2009 with five members of the FACT skeptics of North Carolina.

Survey - Study - Test
A survey is when I record my perceptions but the persons from which I perceived were never contacted and so the accuracy of the perceptions can not be determined. A survey is still useful as it helps with experience of the claim and with definition of the claim.
A study involves readings where the accuracy of the perceptions are obtained. A study is also used for learning purposes.
A test is done once a test procedure has been determined and agreed upon. A test not only checks for the accuracy of the perceptions, but the outcome of a test will say something about the claim. A test takes place under sufficient testing conditions that prohibit most known normal sources of information. A test can verify or falsify the claim.

Objectives of this Study
1) To provide more experience with the health perceptions to improve on a list of ailments that I claim to be able to perceive, and from this list suitable ailments are selected for a test. (I have since chosen to involve the detection of which of persons is missing a kidney to be the basis of the test.)
2) To determine the correlation between my perceptions and the volunteers' own accounts of their health. In the past, most of my accuracy was determined when I told the person what I perceived, and in other cases the accuracy was determined in other ways for instance the person told me about their health condition and I had perceived it in the past. In the study the correlation can be determined in a more proper way that is not influenced by what I or the volunteers say after the fact.
3) Out of all the health conditions that are considered to be present among the volunteers, to determine the extent of how many I do not detect. For instance if the study reveals that I detect a certain condition 33% of the time, and a test requires me to identify the condition 10 times, then we would need at least 30 persons with the condition for the test.
4) To try out various test conditions so that I know whether I can claim that the perceptions work under those specific test conditions. I've already found out that not only do the perceptions perform just as well when I see a person from behind rather than front but that I actually prefer to see the person from behind! How about if the person is behind a screen? Trying out various test conditions will help me decide whether I can agree to specific suggested test conditions.
5) In case the perceptions do not involve extrasensory perception (ESP), the study will provide such a non-ability the opportunity to be revealed, if I make a clearly obvious amount of incorrect perceptions. The study is thus able to falsify the claim and to end this paranormal investigation.

The study is not a test
I emphasize that the study is not a test. The study does not implement test conditions that a real test would require. A paranormal test is done to try to find out whether there is a paranormal phenomenon taking place. A paranormal test must take place under special test conditions that eliminate the possibility that normal, ordinary and explainable causes are responsible for the phenomenon. A paranormal test also tests whether the claimed phenomenon takes place at all. In the case of psychic medical diagnose, there are several possible non-paranormal and explainable sources of the information, such as cold reading in which a person is nothing but skilled in for instance reading a person's body posture or movements and translating that into guesses about their health, whether the alleged psychic does so intentionally or is unaware that that is the source of their information. Well, such is a test, that it would not allow any normal causes for the phenomenon that is tested for, to see if the claimed paranormal event can still occur. The study is not a test, meaning that some cold reading will be available. I must say that I am not intentionally using cold reading, that is, "cheating" or "guessing", yet no matter what my intentions or experiences have been I too can not rule out cold reading until I perform on a real test. Since the study does not take place under test conditions, the study can not conclude in favor of ESP, nor can the study falsify the claim since testing conditions have not been agreed upon for this experience. Testing conditions are here being evaluated.

Based on the accuracy demonstrated in this study, this study could have concluded on the claim as falsified and terminated this paranormal investigation, or this study could have concluded that this claim was not falsified and that further studies and tests were allowed. However, no matter how accurate my perceptions would have been on this study, this study could not under any circumstances have provided evidence in favor of the claim because proper testing procedures were not in place.

Ensuring the safety and privacy of the volunteers
I worked a long time on designing this first study, although keep in mind it was never intended as a test so some of its obvious flaws were fully known. Even at that, after the study had been conducted I was then able to identify additional things that I could not have foreseen before actually conducting the study.

One of the more serious difficulties I came across during design of the study procedure was that those who volunteer to have a reading would have to provide their personal health information in order for the correlation to be checked. Not only might a person find that difficult to agree with, but it might also involve some legal and ethical concerns in asking them to do so. Jim Carr, aka UncaYimmy, who posts in the JREF Forum and is the author of the stopvisionfromfeeling.com website solved the problem. (This instance is notoriously the reason why I called him a Brilliant Skeptic, and he loves quoting that fact! He is entitled to the admiration, this was a significant problem and had it not been solved, the study could not have taken place.)

Jim Carr is a very intelligent, but regrettably too hot-headed, person. He is a rare combination of being both a brilliant skeptic who has put me through some very unyielding aggressive skeptical interrogations and put me in my place a few times, but at the same time being most polite, friendly, and just wonderful to work with throughout. (He has since changed and become rather unpleasant.) He used to have a rare talent of staying on-topic in the JREF discussions thread and great problem-solving skills in this tricky paranormal claim. He has dedicated a great deal of time, work, and thought into my investigation and has brought to it plenty of progress but recently also plenty of distractions. If we discover an ESP ability he will have to be remembered as one of the persons who made a great deal of invaluable contribution toward its discovery, unless his recent and future behavior negates that. The study procedure that I designed for the study was based in part on UncaYimmy's suggestions, although I have made significant changes to his suggestions to adapt the procedure to the specifics of this study.

Read about UncaYimmy's study protocol suggestion as it was written, on JREF posts #983 and #991. I have borrowed concepts from those posts in my study design.

UncaYimmy wanted me to emphasize that he does not support my claim and that he is not working with me. He does not want his name to be associated with the study procedure that I have designed. However I choose to continue giving him recognition for the contributions he was responsible for since it was his advice that allowed a study design that allows the volunteers to remain perfectly anonymous with regard to their health information as well as to ensure that the volunteers do not find out about what I saw in them, so I continue referring to him as "Brilliant" for this reason, even though he kindly declines the honor.

First Study Procedure
This first study takes place in a public area in a local city. I had checked with city officials to find out that the study as designed was permissible. The study would ask members of the public to volunteer for a reading. The study had been carefully designed to protect the privacy of the volunteers and the safety of the volunteers so that they do not find out what health perceptions were madeof them, so that they not be subject to potentially incorrect information, or information that could be distressing.

Five members of the FACT Skeptics worked as participants in the study. Their assignments were:
# 1 approaches the public and asks individuals to volunteer to take part in the study, handles the volunteers' questionnaires and keeps them after the study.
# 2 hands out the claimant's and the controls' questionnaires and keeps them after the study. Also takes notes on the study procedure and observations and comments.
# 3, # 4 and # 5, three participants work as controls, whose assignment is to look at the volunteer at the same time the claimant does and under the same conditions to also each fill in a control's questionnaire based on any impressions or predictions on the volunteer's health. This is to provide something to compare the claimant's results with.

Four of the five participants are Skeptics which is why I consider them to be most suitable to work with me on the study, and the fifth was a friend of one of the others. Even though I've spent some time with the four a few times in the past, I trust that they are reliable and objective as participants and observers.

The study makes use of the following documents:
1. A volunteer's health form: One front sheet with information about the study and also asks for the gender and age of the volunteer and to select how much time they can offer for the reading out of 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes. The second sheet contains the health questionnaire printed on both sides. These two sheets are stapled together.
2. Claimant's health form: A front sheet with empty space to take notes on if I want and a box where I can write any additional health information that I strongly sense in the volunteer and can ask participant # 2 to ask the volunteer about. And a second sheet with the exact same type of questionnaire that the volunteer has. These claimant's sheets are stapled together.
3. Control's health form: A front sheet entirely blank for notes if they need. And a second sheet with the same questionnaire. Three copies of controls' forms are prepared and they are numbered with 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Each control is assigned a number and always receives that number control's form. Each control's sheets are stapled together respectively.
4. One sheet for participant # 2. to take notes. There are also some questions on this sheet that the participant may answer, such as "other interruptions".
All these papers have the same identification number printed in their top margin. These numbers are four digit and were generated with a random number generator. These papers are piled in the above order with the volunteer's form on top, and then stapled all together in the top right margin into complete sets of papers that can be taken out and used in one round.
Twenty such sets of papers were prepared for the study and placed in a folder and this was handed to participant # 2.

For each round, participant # 2 takes out one set of papers and detaches from it the volunteer's form and hands this to participant # 1. A volunteer fills in their form and this form then stays with participant # 1. Participant # 2 brings the volunteer to the second location where the claimant and the three controls are waiting. Participant # 2 detaches and hands out the claimant's form and control's forms and tells them how many minutes the volunteer has selected.

The volunteer sits down and is seen from behind. There is no speaking during the time of the reading. Participant # 2 can take notes on how the study takes place and any comments. Participant # 2 collects the forms when time is up and keeps these. The process is repeated for additional rounds. The claimant and participants will mutually agree on when to end the study. After the study, participant # 1 holds on to the volunteer's questionnaires and participant # 2 holds on to all the other papers. Participant # 1 and # 2 are not allowed to compare the results before everyone is present to do that together. The papers can be matched together again based on their identification numbers. Participant # 1 and # 2 arrange for copies of the material and it can then be returned to the claimant who will publish the results. (Copies have been given to me long ago and I have yet to scan each of these and make them available here! I will do so I promise! Not earlier than December 2010 because I am out of the country and the papers are not with me at the moment!)

For this study, I had prepared twenty sets of paperwork. Each set contained one volunteer's questionnaire, one claimant's questionnaire, three copies of controls' questionnaires numbered 1, 2 and 3 to distinguish them from another and to identify each to its author, and the sheet for notes. These papers were all stapled together in the top right margin into sets. One set of papers was taken out one at a time for each reading. So the paperwork was very organized. Participant # 2 detaches the volunteer's questionnaire and hands it to participant # 1 whose assignment is to approach the public to ask for volunteers. Once a volunteer's questionnaire is filled in it remains with participant # 1. Participant # 2 then gives the claimant and the three controls each of their questionnaires from that same set of papers: once these are filled in these remain with participant # 2. This way the volunteer's questionnaires remain aside from the questionnaires of the volunteer and controls, so that no one should know the results until the papers are brought together.

The Documents used
(Updated copies will be made available later that do not add an additional page.)
First Study Volunteer's Health Questionnaire April 4 2009 - the questionnaire that was actually used in the first study. I like this version of the study questionnaire because it allows the volunteers to decide on the amount of time they are able to offer for the second part of the study, which is when they are seen by the claimant and the control participants. The options are between 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, and 20 minutes. One volunteer selected 5 minutes, and most of the others selected 15 minutes. Some of the ailments listed on the questionnaire are vague and not very specific and if those are to be included in future studies they will be made more specific than that. Also other questions are of ailments that may come with external symptoms, yet I will be able to find out whether I detect any of those anyway, and whether the controls did! It is a study, not a test.
(Note: When I upload documents at scribd.com it tends to alter them. The actual questionnaire does not have a fourth page as it seems to have in this online version so I apologize for that.)

First Study Claimant's Health Questionnaire April 4 2009 - the claimant's health questionnaire format that was used by me, the claimant. It has the exact same health questionnaire as the volunteers have, and the same identification number printed in the top margin as had that volunteer's questionnaire so that these two can be matched together after the study as describing the same volunteer. Also on the claimant's form, the first page does not contain the information but instead free space for me to write down my impressions. If I strongly detect an additional ailment that is not listed in the questionnaire I can write it in the box on the bottom of the page and it is then up to one of the participants to decide whether to ask the volunteer about that health information. In this first study I detected something extra in three out of I think five readings and the volunteers were each asked about all three and all were confirmed. So that is the claimant's questionnaire. (Again, I apologize for the strange display of the document in this online version. The second page is of course not blank but has the first page of the health questions. I need to find a way to post links to Word documents instead.)

First Study Controls' Health Questionnaire April 4 2009 - the questionnaire format that was used by each of the three controls in the study. For each individual reading, their questionnaires also had the same identification number printed in the top margin, as had both the claimant and the volunteer. (Again I apologize for the strange formatting shown in the online version of the document.) I had not included a box for additional ailments for the controls as was in the claimant's questionnaire, *me thinking that they couldn't possibly be doing what I do*. But during the study I told the controls that they were welcome to make use of the same option if they wish, just that I had not expected them to detect additional things. The controls must have every same options as the claimant, since that is the whole point.

First Study Participant's Notes April 4 2009 - I also provided this sheet for each reading on which one of the participants in the study could take notes on how the study takes place and other observations that could be included in the data collected for the study. These also had the same identification number as the other documents that are used for one particular reading.

Changes made to the health form as a result of the March FACT meeting
*The "when" column is removed. Ailments must be experienced as current or they will not be included at all. This was suggested by FACT member Patrick, and I fully agree. The reason I wanted to include the "when" column (which asks whether the ailment is experienced as "current", "within a week ago", or "longer ago") was for the purpose of the study to find out whether I pick up on only current ailments or whether I detect ailments that were experienced recently or longer ago, and whether I would confuse these with one another. The "when" column would not have taken part in any of the point calculation or correlation calculation and would have been only for educational purposes. The "when" column would not have been part of future studies and not been part of an actual test. But I realize now that I can already let it go. This way I only need to search for currently experienced ailments and not have to worry with past ones, and I feel confident that I should be able to distinguish the two. So, "when" column is gone. This also brings us again one step closer toward an actual test protocol. :)

*The "descriptions" part at the very end is also removed. One of the two Skeptics I did a reading with at the March meeting filled in this part and I found that I did not even read it. My feeling was that I wanted to trust the checkbox format in their questionnaires and in mine and I did not want to be influenced in any way by the descriptions part, and that a description would not contribute to what is already learned in the checkbox questions above. I had intended the "descriptions" part for educational purposes again, just to see if my description would correlate with their description, but this is just unnecessary material, it does not contribute to the study in any way I feel. The "description" part would have been removed in later studies and would also not be part of the test, so its removal is also an additional step toward a real test protocol. Yay to that.

*The questionnaire will ask whether the volunteer can offer 5 minutes, 10 minutes, or 15 minutes for the reading. I couldn't possibly ask for more time than 15 minutes. I might like to, but I need to weigh in other people's needs besides just my own into the study.

*The questionnaire is compressed from four pages of questions to only two, although to do that the first page has two columns of questions. In order to have an even two pages some of the questions I had in mind are removed: stomach, lungs, digestive system, low oxygen uptake (and seriously, how would this be defined?), hands or feet get cold due to low blood circulation. "Numbness, loss of sensation" and "Which body part becomes numb:" are removed. They are too undefined and also to free space for other questions.

*"Phlegm in respiratory system or lungs" is changed to "Phlegm in lungs" to be more specific.

*"Do you smoke (when last)" with "current | within a week ago | longer ago" " is changed to "Do you smoke cigarettes,how often" with "every day | few times a week | more seldomly". I need to specify that I am asking for the use of nicotine products and not marijuana! These produce very different perception that I sense in the person. Nicotine feels among other things like dry mouth, dry eyes and contraction in blood vessels underneath eyes, contracted and cramped and somewhat painful blood vessels overall in the body whereas from marijuana I see the extra and different type of fat tissue that the body has made which, according to my perception, is placed to wrap around the nerves that are affected from the drug, and other symptoms that I detect. In my study, I am only asking for the use of nicotine and not other drugs, so that needs to be specified, just in case and to avoid error in the results of the study. (Ps. I don't use any drugs. In case anyone is wondering. And my perceptions are not drug induced.) By the way check this out too, at the bottom of that page. Note: Neither me or my website consents the use of drugs.

*"Upper back" muscle problems was mentioned twice in the previous version of the questionnaire, once together with "Shoulders/Shoulderblades/Upper back" and once again on its own. Oops. That is now corrected.

Other changes made to the health form during the study
*I added for the claimant's health questionnaires a front page with free space in which I can make notes. If I prefer to do my reading in a way where I write down freely what I detect and to then go from those notes and mark the appropriate checkboxes, then I can do so. This will of course also be available for the controls' health questionnaires since the controls are given exactly the same possibilities as the claimant.

*If I detect something that is not on the questionnaire, a new ailment, such as when I detected menstruation but that wasn't on the list, this will be accounted for on the claimant's health questionnaire and I would suggest that in such cases a participant (not the claimant and not any of the controls) asks the volunteer regarding that specific ailment. Of course, some volunteers might like to agree just to be nice, but at least it provides with some sort of feedback about those extra ailments. If the credibility of such material is inadequate, it can be disregarded entirely in the calculation of points and the calculation of correlation, but still I'd like to know, for learning purposes.

*I am adding more questions that relate to internal organs: stomach, and digestive system. Am also adding Menstruation/Period. It is perhaps personal, but the questionnaires are anonymous.

*The question about "exercise" is removed, even if reluctantly. It just wouldn't do much for the study or tests, because it is hard to define what exactly I am asking for that would lead to the significantly improved heart and lungs, and then how would we confirm this? Unless the test will end up involving screens then I might be able to detect who is an athlete, and what type of athlete! So I will keep this in mind, if a screen will be used.

*"Gall stones" is removed from the questionnaires also. Because I might sense that there are some, but a person hasn't sensed them. And how would we be confirming that a person has them? It would only work in severe cases, and it is already sounding too complicated. I am sure there are other ailments that can be used on the study and tests so this one can be let go of.

*"Cough" is removed. And add something asking about the health of the eyes.

*And a reminder for me to stop being hesitant, modest, and to stop letting logic and thoughts get in the way! I've ruined plenty readings in the past when I let my logic get in the way. My logic and the health perceptions are two entirely separate entities. And once again I confirm for myself that the health perceptions are not based on the same as what my thoughts or guesses would be. It is an entity all of its own. Logic and the perceptions reach to different answers (and the perceptions always do better too!)

Designing the Study Procedure
The study procedure underwent several incarnations. Here are some of the working drafts that were never put to use. The first, and then the second versions, and an adapted version that I sent to a local Park and Recreation Department in my inquiry to conduct the study there:
Study Procedure, Preliminary Draft - Version 1, January 20 2009
Study Procedure, Preliminary Draft - Version 2, January 27 2009
Study Procedure - Park and Recreation Version

Early drafts of the health questionnaire for the study, these versions were also not used:
Study Health Questionnaire - First Version, January 29 2009
Study Health Questionnaire - Second Version

The volunteers' questionnaire has an information page that explains the study and how they take part in it. Here is an old version, that was never used:
Study Information Page - Version 2

Sign - never used
I intended to use a sign for the study that announces that the study is taking place and asks people to volunteer. The benefit of using a sign would have been that the public would not have to be approached and could decide on their own. However when I contacted city officials about a permit for the study I found out that a sign would require special approval and that would require a longer time to obtain. So, no sign was used in the study.

I used to ask for suggestions
I used to have a text box here in which any of you could submit ailments that you would like to suggest to be included in the study, or any other suggestions that could make the study better. They wouldn't have had to be ailments that I have experienced detecting before. I asked for suggestions for ailments that would be good for a test, ie. ones that I should not be able to detect! Ailments that are considered undetectable by ordinary perception! Those would have been added to the health questionnaires for the study and I could have checked them out. I would have posted your best suggestions right here on this page, but, I received no suggestions. And I have now removed that now that I have decided on the one ailment to include in the Real Test (And that would be the missing kidney! Now, as of winter 2010, I am considering tests with either of missing kidney or missing uterus!)

The work that was involved in arranging the study
The study requires a location, participants who can help with the practical assignments of the study, volunteers who don't mind being read by me and controls (controls also do a reading but use any skills of guessing or cold reading that they can think of and my acchieved correlation is compared with theirs), another location nearby where I and the controls will be while a new volunteer is prepared for the study. The study can be held outdoors as long as weather permits. The first study is designed more like a public poll than any demonstration or practice of a psychic skill. For future studies I might advertise on the internet or in the city for volunteers a few days before the study. It took quite a while to actually find a location and participants for the study.

Attempt at arranging the study at a Mall
I thought that a Mall would be a good place to have the first study. I contacted the representative of a Mall to ask whether I could have the study there and they decided against it. It was what I had expected, since I had presented this as a paranormal study and that is controversial and perhaps provocative regardless of the careful, scientific and harmless manner in which I try to conduct it. Since then I have not tried to arrange the study at any commercial location at least for the time being.

Attempt at arranging the study in a park
After that I corresponded with the local Park and Recreation Department asking whether I could have the study in a public park. Their first but short reply seemed to say that the study is not permissible in a public park, but then a second reply seemed to say that the study in itself is ok but the problem is in reserving space. I thought about contacting them again to specify how little space we need, but I never did. This document contains the e-mail correspondence that took place between us,
Study Arranging Location Park and Recreation

The study takes place in the city
I had planned to have the first larger-scale study on Sunday February 8 2009 with the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers (FACT) Skeptics as the volunteers who I look at to form medical perceptions. That study ended up not taking place.

This is the study procedure that would have been used, but never was:
Study Procedure - FACT Skeptics as Volunteers, February 5 2009
And this is the health questionnaire that was going to be used, but wasn't:
Study Health Questionnaire - FACT Skeptics as Volunteers, February 5 2009

I had intended for the study to take place as soon as possible but came across several disappointing set-backs. I was unable to obtain a permit to conduct the study at a Mall or in a public park. I suspected that this was due to the controversial subject of the study so I changed into a different approach. Instead of referring to this as a paranormal investigation into possible extrasensory perception of health information I now call it a psychology investigation into what health information can be deduced from external symptoms and just looking at a person and how much of that information is accurate, and that is how it ended up being done in the first larger-scale study that was held in April 2009. The study procedure was very much the same and was carried out in the same way. Only the name and the way it was introduced were different. And I think it is perfectly fine to do so, because anything paranormal has not been formally established yet.

This new approach led me to contact a Psychology professor in February 2009, and introduce my ability and investigation to her. I asked her for two or more undergraduate or graduate Psychology students to assist me in my study of my experience of medical perception. I was told that my experience is very reminiscent of synesthesia, and that my next approach should be to look into synesthesia so that I can learn how such a study takes place. I have done some of this reading up on synesthesia and the research methods applied to it, but I must admit that I am at the same time very anxious to proceed with the study quickly whether I am fully qualified as a researcher yet or not while I do the reading at the same time. While I take her advice, I don't want to let it delay real progress and results in my investigation.

The reason the FACT Skeptics were reluctant to have the study with me last, was because a definite point scale system that would set a specific score at which the claim could be falsified, had not been designed. The problem is that the study is not a test. I am simply hoping that a non-ability would be "clear enough" on the study-stage and realize that a non-ability might pass through toward further studies or tests but would be caught eventually. The purpose of the first study was to learn more about the experience in order to form a more workable paranormal claim around which a real test can be designed. While I wait for the data from the first study to be returned to me I am already designing a second study and it might be the one that is able to verify, or verify or falsify, this paranormal claim. But to do so takes away from the educational value of the study.

The FACT Skeptics were reluctant to participate in my study, thinking that if there is apparent correlation between my medical perceptions and with actual health information of persons I could claim to have had a test with the FACT Skeptics and to have passed the test. Which is concerning since the study does not (yet) take place under proper test conditions and can not provide evidence in favor of the claim that is under investigation. I have consistently stated that since the study does not take place under proper test conditions it can not provide evidence in favor of the claim, but, regardless of my intentions, they express a valid concern.

I received permission and a location for the study to take place in the city of Winston Salem. I spoke with the city management and this time I presented it as a survey about what health problems can be identified externally by looking at a person, rather than as a paranormal investigation, because, at this point that is all it is. It took less than two hours to receive an answer. More about this on this JREF post.

In early March 2009 I had asked two of the three organizers of the FACT group again whether those members who had expressed interest in participating in the study with me could do so and they decided to allow it after all. I promised to write a waiver that clearly states that the study is not a test and that it can not provide evidence in favor of the claimed ability of medical perception, and that the study is entirely designed by me and is not endorsed by the FACT Skeptics Group. Here is the waiver posted for everyone to see. It should verify my honest intentions and avoid any concern of future issues regarding this. As you know, traditionally paranormal psychic claimants can be quite tricky, and luckily I'm not one of those! Here is another study procedure I had typed hoping to have the study in March:
1st Study Procedure
And here is the waiver I wrote, which announces how I deal with two important issues around the study:
1st Study Waiver

How the Study went
The study was held on Saturday April 4th 2009. The weather was good for the study and it was a beautiful day. It was nice to finally see the study take place. Even with all the planning done we still had to adjust some of the procedure as we went along in order to adapt to the circumstances at hand, and also because it is difficult to foresee the procedure beforehand. I thought the study went very well and I was very pleased. All of the participants did a wonderful job and they were all very professional with their assignments and great to work with. We had a total of five volunteers to read, during approximately a three hour period, and I must admit this was more than what I had expected. Still, I had prepared twenty sets of papers in case we would have up to twenty volunteers. There were not a lot of people out in the city this Saturday, but I had already been warned that the city of Winston Salem is not densely populated.

Before beginning the study we arrived at the location where it would be held and I decided to have a practice run for everybody in which I was the volunteer and the three controls could experience what it is like to work with the questionnaires, and the participant who would handle our questionnaires could act as the claimant in this round. And after this reading I let them see my filled in questionnaire so that they could see what kind of correlation they acchieved.

This study procedure included there being a blank first page for each of my questionnaires where I could take notes on my perceptions and it also had a box in which I could write any health information that is not listed in the questionnaire and that I strongly believed that the volunteer had so that it would then be up to a participant in the study to decide whether to ask the volunteer about this extra information. In three of the I think five volunteers I perceived something extra that the volunteer was then asked about, and after each I had asked the participant whether I was right or not, and all three had been verified.

I spoke with the three controls between the readings and occasionally we compared what each of us had just perceived or guessed about the volunteer's health, and some of what we had put down were the same. It would be very interesting if the controls' answers are very similar to mine and if our correlations are close, because I do acknowledge that a possible conclusion about my health perceptions is that I would be unintentionally detecting external clues that are translated into visual and felt images in my mind. It remains for this investigation to find out.

Some of the reasons why I liked this study were: All volunteers were people I had never seen or met before. We did our best to assure that the volunteers were seen from behind and without eyecontact or seeing their face. I found that I was very good at keeping the time limit that the volunteers had chosen, even if it meant not checking for all the questions that were listed on the questionnaires every time. Persons other than me handled the volunteers' questionnaires. My questionnaires were handed in to a participant of the study after each reading. There were three controls who were encouraged to do their best in cold reading, guessing and demographics to try to outdo me. These are just some of the things I appreciate about this first study. The second study if it takes place, will be even better.

Participants of the study have made photocopies of all the papers and I have a stack of more than 100 pages. I will provide scanned copies of all pages here as soon as I can manage such that the results of this study can be seen.

Me and two out of three controls ended up with almost identical total correlations in the study. It could suggest that my medical perceptions are based on automatic and unintentional cold reading, however only a future test can provide a final conclusion as to my medical perceptions. I emphasize again that I am not against reaching a final conclusion that my perceptions would be due to automatic cold reading and synesthesia, but we are not at the stage of final conclusions yet.

Note that unlike the misunderstanding spread at stopvisionfromfeeling.com, the study protocol was not breached during the first study. The first study followed all of the rules that had been set. There was no speaking taking place during the time of the readings. I spoke with the controls after some of the readings to learn more about their experience with the study and to add to the learning process of the study. There was no way for that to affect the data or results of the study since all questionnaires relating to the reading done prior had already been handed in. As much as some might like to argue against this first study, the truth of it is that all went well and there will be reliable data produced from it.

Also note, that unlike what is implied at stopvisionfromfeeling.com, the study was not a test and I did not fail a test. The study was for me to try out test procedures and was not designed to conclude on the claim. I identified unforeseen issues with the procedure, such as when I say "back of the head" and the volunteer says "neck", there are possibilities for receiving negative score although having correctly identified an ailment.
Also implied on stopvisionfromfeeling.com is that I did not publish the results of my study. It is incorrect, because the same results as what were reported by Dr. Carlson were posted here long before. Jim Carr who manages stopvisionfromfeeling.com simply hasn't been reading carefully enough on my website to make such statements.

Comments on the First Study
I have already met with the participants and we calculated the results based on the format that I had written out before the study, but all of this will be described once I post it along with the papers. I am glad I had the study, I learned a lot. I learned many things that I wasn't expecting, and there were a lot of surprises!

Some of the things I learned after the study and which I could not have foreseen in the initial stages of study design, were for instance, in one volunteer I very strongly sensed a pain or a very serious discomfort in the back of his head. This volunteer had not marked head problem but had marked neck problem, both are in the same region. In another case I wrote that a volunteer had severe sadness, and I did not mark any anxiety. The questionnaire does not ask for depression, and the volunteer had marked severe anxiety. Two people can be looking at the same painting and will describe it differently. One can say "green" and another will say "chartreuse", observing the same thing but using different words for it. This kind of ambiguity does exist in the first study and needs to be eliminated entirely for the second study. Purely objectively speaking, I might have higher correlation than what the study shows. This is something that a second study can better answer.

Calculated correlation
Based on the format of calculating the total correlation for each the claimant and controls, my total correlation was almost identical to that of two of the three controls, and the third control had much poorer correlation (he was trying a different technique than the others). My hypothesis in this investigation is not extrasensory perception. I think so far I have no hypothesis, but I have been leaning more on the perceptions being an automatic synesthetic association from reading subtle external clues about a person's health without knowing it and it translates into corresponding images and other forms of perception, with a sometimes interesting correlation or accuracy because the perceptions are more correct than my otherwise ordinary logic is. There are two questions that need to be answered: 1. Do I acchieve higher correlation/accuracy than would other persons or even skilled cold readers, ie. am I better than others and is it really as accurate as it had seemed to be? 2. And could I perceive information that others can't, ie. by other sources than ordinary?

Automatic cold reading?
For the controls and me to acchieve identical total correlation is definitely significant. This could mean any number of things. Perhaps my perceptions come about due to automatic and involuntary cold reading and association? Perhaps since most of the health information accounted for in the questionnaires do come with external symptoms in many cases, strictly cold readers would do fairly good in this study? I am definitely considering these results. I remain objective and emphasize that I am not "trying to prove that I am psychic". However there are still reasons to arrange a second study. The data and a more thorough discussion of this first study will be made available once I post the papers here.

Someone asked me whether I am disappointed in these results. My answer is no, I don't take research results personally. I am a chemistry student and even when a laboratory procedure fails (ie. didn't go according to planned procedure) or returns unexpected results (which is not a failure) you just try again, or value the results that you did achieve because that is what is leading toward the final goal of increased insight, and that is what research is all about. I do not favor one final outcome over another!

This first larger-scale study taught me this
*Although the test will take place indoors, I found that my perceptions work outdoors just as well.

*It was the first time I had controls involved. Controls are participants who look at the volunteers at the same time I do and they also fill in a health questionnaire based on their impressions or guesses about the volunteer's health, and my answers and correlation can be compared with theirs to have at least some way of interpreting the data. I found that having controls present did not reduce my performance in any way.

*I found that I actually prefer to work with volunteers whom I have never met before rather than telling my closest friends what I sense about them, which had been the only way I had available to try to check for my accuracy before since I do not offer "psychic readings" or tell people in any other situations what I had perceived in them. I need to keep logical assumptions or prior knowledge about the person at a minimum to avoid logic and thoughts from interfering with the perceptions, since my thinking and my perceptions are two separate things and would lead to very different health perceptions.

*There will be a change made to my test protocol. Being from northern Europe I had not seen many black people and consequently not had many medical perceptions of black people, but from what I had experienced, their internal made very different medical perceptions and I had decided to ask that all volunteers in the actual test be Caucasian just in case less experience would affect my results. Some of the volunteers in the first study were black and not only did I confirm what differences I've even before perceived between black and Caucasian medical perceptions but I was able to find out that there is no difference in difficulty in forming perceptions from either. So black people can also be volunteers in the formal test.

*I was not affected by stress during the readings and I found that I felt that I was much more experienced thanks to just the three earlier readings with the local Skeptics and from what I had learned from those, and I found myself being less modest in my answers and doing my best not to let logic get in the way this time. So I've learned that practice and experience and identifying my shortcomings and learning how to work my way around them actually does improve my performance. And that was also one of the purposes of the study.

*The ambiguity in the questionnaires worked against me! When describing the same region, a volunteer could say neck and I would say back of the head! This ambiguity needs to be removed for the second study.

*The claim is not falsified, the study was not designed to be able to prove or falsify the claim. The study was designed to teach me more about the medical perceptions, and it has.

*More will be learned once I publish the study papers and present the results of the study.

Progress made with this study toward the test
I was gradually taking my medical perceptions from taking place under the everyday conditions that they previously had, toward conforming the claim to a proper test setting. I was going to apply one change at a time and if I still could claim to perform just as good I'd keep that change onward and then apply another change on top of it again. Rather than whisking my claim away from where it started from and putting it in a situation where I do not know whether it will still manifest or not, without trying it out.

After this first study, other questions I still needed to have answered by continuing with further studies
*More about what ailments can I detect?
*Will I perform better than controls? (Controls are persons who will be looking at the volunteers, and filling in questionnaires alongside me, trying guessing, cold reading, statistics, or any other trick they can think of to try to acchieve great correlation to what the volunteers answered.)
*What distance can we use between me and the volunteers without lowering my performance? Maximum distance will probably of course be implemented to a test protocol.
*What kind of screens can be used between me and the volunteers? Full-body screens? Half of the body? And what materials? What part of the body would I have to see? If I only see a part of the body that is covered by clothing does it work? Do I need to see some exposed skin in order to *access the vibrational information*?
*And more answers that will come up without me expecting them. The study teaches me unexpected things.
*Will the claim be falsified?
*What I learn from the study is continuously added to the draft of the IIG test protocol to work toward forming a final test protocol with the IIG.

The sequence of progress made within this first study
January 1 2009 - I've been active in discussions with skeptics at the JREF Forum and met with local skeptics and have made some progress in my understanding of what my next steps should be. I must say, and do believe me, arranging a test of possible psychic medical diagnose is not as straightforward as it should be. I am now arranging a study in which I will gain more experience with the medical perceptions to better learn how to take what my everyday experiences are with the perceptions and adapt them to a laboratory setting, as well as to become better able to make a much more specific claim.
January 23 2009 - I am now planning to have the study on the weekend of January 31, February 1, unless something unexpected comes up. Arrangements of location still need to be made. According to my preliminary study procedure (version 1), four skeptics are required to participate in the study, and so far more than four have expressed interest in participating, so that is nice. I still have some more paperwork to do before then, the questionnaires need some more work and need to be printed, and other minor arrangements. Hopefully it will finally take place. The study would be great progress toward an actual test, unless the claim is actually falsified by the study.
January 27 2009 - I had asked the representative of a mall whether I could have the study there and the answer was negative, which is somewhat what I expected since the subject of my study is controversial. I am now asking the City of Charlotte Parks and Recreation about whether my planned study is in accordance with law and whether to obtain a permit to have the study in a public area of Charlotte. I do not expect any shop- or restaurant owner to allow a paranormal study at their premises. In the way that it is designed the study more resembles a survey than a psychic reading. My study is more like asking people off the street, "Are you a Republican or a Democrat?", than seating them by a table and reading their palm and telling their fortune. There is no speaking between me and the volunteers, the answers in the health questionnaires by the volunteers remains entirely anonymous and not linked to their person, and the volunteers never find out what my perceptions of them were. And no money is involved of course (and never will be). So, how I see it, the volunteers are at no risk of harm by volunteering for the study. It is not a display or a practice of paranormal abilities. It is a study, designed to falsify a paranormal claim if one does not exist, and, if the results of the study allow, a more elaborate test can later be done and under even more controlled and even more careful circumstances.
March 2 2009 - I have obtained permission to conduct the study on the sidewalk in the city of Winston Salem. The study can now take place, very, very, soon.
March 27 2009 - We now have participants for the study, at least six persons for three different assignments, all assignments can be assigned. Everything is now prepared, all that remains is to mutually decide on a date for the study to be held.
March 31 2009 - I am now contacting organizations in my area who might be able to set up a study with me. The study is a process and will involve several independent studies until my claim is falsified or until I have learned what I need to know in order to finalize the IIG testing protocol. My primary goal is still to have the study with the local Skeptics as the participants, but meanwhile while I wait for a day when everyones' schedules are coordinated so that a day can be chosen, I might be able to have other studies with other people as I wait.
April 2 2009 - The first larger-scale study is finally scheduled and all set. The results of the study will be posted here as soon as they become available.
April 4 2009 - The first larger-scale study took place and all went wonderfully. The results, data, and conclusions will be presented on the study page soon.
May 17 2009 - I am now studying the medical perceptions on Induced information, and this brings several benefits to the investigation. I no longer have a shortage of volunteers for the study, and the same volunteers can be used repeatedly! Progress should come fast now.
July 18 2009 - I have decided to end the study and am happy to proceed with the one good ailment that will be used in the upcoming test, the detection of which of persons is missing a kidney.

Conclusions after the Study
If a questionnaire is used again in a second study, they would need to be improved on. The regions of the body need to be more clearly marked on the questionnaire. And similar ailments need to be combined so that they only occur once in the questionnaire.

After this first study I also tested out some testing conditions with friends, by setting up various testing conditions such as screens, or trying to have health perceptions while in the dark. This kind of testing did not require the participation of volunteers, and was able to go swiftly. I was able to say whether I could claim to sense kidneys under what conditions. This kind of work helped me determine the test conditions I could add to the testing protocol.

The study as a whole was later completed and now it is all tests from here until a final conclusion!

This first study was part of a longer study process which lasted for about a year, in which I arranged readings with skeptics and this one larger-scale study involving members of the public. I was conducting the study while working on the design of the test protocol for my IIG test. The study gathered more insight into the experience of health perceptions and aided in the design of a test protocol. The IIG test was held in November 21 2009, and its design built in part on what was learned in this study.
IIG test