About VFF
  Why readings

Procedure for Medical Dowsing Reading

I am a medical dowser. When I look at a person I experience images that depict health problems in that person. I do not claim nor assume that this is a true extrasensory ability, the images could be merely subjective and inaccurate. But findings in this investigation seems to suggest that the information is more accurate than it should be and mandates for more investigation.

I welcome every opportunity to do a reading on a skeptic. A skeptic is a person who is not prone to falling for tricks or illusions, so a skeptic is less likely to get harmed in a psychic reading and is also more trustworthy if they report any cases of accuracy than is a non-skeptic person who is more gullible and likely to want to agree. I only do readings on skeptics, and only for the purpose of learning more about the medical dowsing experience.

How should a reading take place? Most persons who attempt a psychic reading would of course just go ahead and do a reading without thinking about elements of the procedure. But in order to determine whether the reading is the case of extrasensory perception or instead normal, as opposed to paranormal, processes, it is important to take care in the design of the procedure of the reading.

There are many normal sources of health information, which may make a psychic reading seem impressive and accurate, when in fact it employs the use of normal, not paranormal, means, in which case all it takes is someone posing to be a psychic, either by pretending to be or by really thinking that they are, people are being fooled and the whole reading is just nonsense.

Plain eyesight

Though I don't have a scar on my knee...
It is possible to sit and look at a person and make pretty good guesses about the person's health information. It is easy to look at a person and derive a lot of probable guesses about a person's health and mood. A lot of our health information is externally visible, not only in our direct appearance, but also in clues related to our body posture, body language, facial expressions, the way that a person moves, the way that they speak or act, even subtle and seemingly irrelevant details such as hairstyle or choice of clothing may offer some clues as to demographics, lifestyle, or associated health information.

We can tell if someone is tired, if they seem to be in pain, where that pain may be located. Or we can see the age and gender and demographics of a person and know to assume certain very prevalent health conditions. We can tell a lot about a person just by looking at them. And someone posing to be a psychic may be more open and attentive to these hunches that we all receive when we look at someone, or the psychic may be better skilled at this, yet it is not the case of a paranormal ability at all. Also, whereas most of us are able to keep distinction between hunches and knowing, the psychic is typically one who either does, or has chosen to, build on those hunches and to openly express them, and with confidence. Making it seem as if they know something, rather than just assume something. But this is nothing psychic at all, even though it may sometimes seem so.

So it becomes important in investigating medical dowsing, that the medical information given is such that could not be derived by looking at a person. The medical information should not be available by looking at a person, nor should it offer any visible clues. Medical information used to determine whether a person might have a medical dowsing ability, must be entirely internal, microscopic, or otherwise concealed, without any associated give-aways that are visibly accessible.


James Van Praagh illustrating guesses for us
It is possible to look at a person and make educated guesses about their health. For instance, most elderly people probably are tired sometimes, or have aches and pains. Most people have problems with their eyes and back. Heart conditions are common. People who smoke might have respiratory problems. One form of guessing which a psychic might do, is to look at the demographics and other clues of a person and match it with known likely conditions and give those. Otherwise a psychic might simply list common ailments even if demographics and clues aren't known. There is nothing psychic at all about doing this. For instance, doctors probably use some of these skills when they think about likely causes for a patient's symptoms and they go through a list while looking for other clues. Nothing psychic, just use of knowledge.

It is important in investigating medical dowsing that it is not possible to guess to the right answers, and that the statistical probability of guessing to those answers is considered. For instance say if a dowser were to say that a person is male and not female, even though this particular information is easy to guess or know just by looking at a person, then we would not consider it significant because it is about a 50% chance that such a guess would be correct. Or if it were that a medical condition occurs in 80% of all people, then stating that a person has that condition and being correct, is also not impressive. A medical dowser needs to produce accurate medical information which exceeds the probability of guessing. Otherwise anybody could attempt to guess, regardless of if they claim to be making their statements based on some skill or not.

Here is another classic Psychic Sally *EPIC FAIL*

Confirmation bias

Skeptic James Randi pointing out Confirmation Bias
If a psychic throws out ten statements to a person, the person might agree that two of the ten statements are correct and eight of them were not. The psychic might then claim to have produced impressive accuracy since they made two accurate statements of health! And often the psychic can also impress the person as well, by emphasizing on the accurate answers, or diminishing the importance of the inaccurate answers. A psychic will often downplay the inaccuracies, by saying things like "Well it could be something from your past, or future.", or "I still think it's true, only that you are not aware of it yet.", or simply by not mentioning those again, yet reiterating the ones that were accurate. This is called confirmation bias. When you focus on positive results and attempt to ignore negative results.

Confirmation bias is seriously forbidden in science. Sometimes a scientist collects data around a phenomenon under study, and a few of the data sets do not seem to be what was expected and seem to ruin the other, corroborating, data. But all data has to be included, because the goal is not to prove a hypothesis, the goal is to investigate a hypothesis. A good scientist is not one who proves a hypothesis, a good scientist is one who makes the true, accurate conclusion, whether that confirms or rejects the hypothesis. Many psychics are guilty of confirmation bias, and that is often how they make themselves seem psychic, or even how they manage to fool themselves that they are psychic.

In an investigation, all data are equally important. All data must be listed. And it becomes important to make careful documentation of all readings and results, rather than trying to remember the readings from memory. Because if you ask a psychic about their overall accuracy, even if they try to recall all accounts, it is easy for the impressive hits to stand out among the others, even if attempts are made at remembering all readings accurately. A psychic can't simply say that "Once I accurate described something I couldn't have known, and everybody was impressed and nobody knew how I could have done it." What if it was one random lucky guess among several other, similar attempts, which had not been accurate? It is very important to list all readings and all results, without any bias. Otherwise you will seem better than you are, and that is just cheating, not psychic.

Feedback and Interaction

When a psychic uses discussions, interaction and feedback with the person, under such circumstances it becomes very difficult to investigate whether or not there is actually anything psychic or extrasensory going on at all. A person is very well aware of their health condition, they know where they feel pain or what medical diagnoses they have been given, what medications they are on or what organs have been removed. If a psychic throws out a statement of health to the person, the person hears it and they respond first in their mind by thinking "yes that is true", or "no that is absolutely incorrect", and then the person will respond, perhaps in their body language, in their eyes, or by speaking something which by the tone of the voice or choice of words all indicates clues as to whether the psychic was right or not. This is like fishing, the psychic can then adjust their reading, steering away from inaccuracies and moving in closer toward accurate conclusions. But there is nothing psychic going on at all.

Another form of interaction which offers very non-psychic information, is if a psychic looks at a person's shoulder for instance, and the person knows they are undergoing a psychic reading and they know that they do have shoulder pain, the person might twitch or respond in a manner that offers the psychic clues that they are closing in on something which they should talk about. Nothing psychic at all, just clever observation, whether done deliberately or subconsciously, it is not psychic at all.

There is NO reason why a psychic would need to TALK TO a person during the reading. NO REASON AT ALL. If you are psychic, you are claiming to be able to sense medical information about a person. Medical information that is sensed does not come about by anything that the person says. There is no valid reason for a psychic to request that during a reading they are allowed to speak TO or speak WITH or LISTEN to the person. A person who claims to have an ability of medical dowsing may not speak to, listen to, or speak with the person who is being read.

It should also be fair to ask that the psychic does not have eyecontact with the person. People speak with their eyes and facial expressions and this is a normal, not paranormal, source of information. A psychic would have to work hard to provide with a compelling argument as to why they need to have eyecontact with the person. And even if the psychic were allowed to see the eyes and face of the person being read, the person being read must not see the psychic, because the person would respond in their eyes and body language whether they intend to or not, and that can offer many clues about their health and their thought processes.

Persuasive psychic and gullible customers

We are all able to read assumptions about people that we see, it is just that a psychic dares to mention those hunches, whereas most people would not feel confident enough to mention something which to them seems only to be a hunch. Psychics may, as people, also be very good at convincing and persuasion skills, and the persons being read might be very gullible toward believing. This is politics, not psychic skills.

It is very important that the data retrieved from a reading, ie. the accuracy of health statements made, is not based on the psychic's abilities to persuade or to "sell" an argument, nor on the person being read being gullible or easy to impress. Data must be seen from an entirely unemotional basis. That is why neither psychic nor customer may describe their personal impression with the reading, rather statements of health and their accuracy must be recorded and stated in writing and in a very formal, factual, and boring way.

Data mining and prior information

The psychic must not read someone whom they already are acquainted with, or they will already have found out many things about that person. Even if the psychic has just spent some time together with the person in the same room and had the opportunity of observing that person, they have been downloading many clues and information which may provide clues about their health or emotional status. Sometimes psychics perform a simple Google search on a person and find out a lot of information about a person, whether direct health information or indirect clues that suggest the best guesses to make.

It is very important that for investigation purposes, a psychic does not know whom they are reading ahead of time. It should also seem questionable if a psychic asks for the name, age, or other information about the person being read, as why should that influence their ability to sense medical information?

Vague and ambiguous statements

Most psychics make statements that are ambiguous. Such as, "You are often a happy person, but sometimes you are sad about things too". Statements that apply to everyone. Then if the person thinks it seems true, then there is nothing psychic going on at all. Statements can also be made vague, such as "I sense some pain", rather than "I sense pain centered around your right shoulder" which would be less vague. Vague statements are more likely to be accurate.

A psychic should make statements that are never ambiguous, and that are as specific as possible.

Here's James Van Praagh again to illustrate yet another important issue with psychic readings to avoid. Namely the danger of dispensing "psychic" medical information because it might just be wrong and cause a person harm or distress. Take it away, Van Praagh Barbara Walters exposes James Van Praagh

How I do a reading

I have carefully studied every element and angle involved in a reading to find out what conditions that are a source of possible normal, not paranormal, information which I can omit, and whether there are any other conditions which are required. I found out that I do not need eyecontact with the person, and that is why it is obvious that for a reading procedure the person needs to turn around so that eyecontact is disabled. That takes care of one normal source of information.

I do not need any prior information about the person nor to have met or spent time with the person in advance, and that is why for a reading procedure I should not know who I am reading ahead of time. I also do not need to touch the person nor to use any materials such as dowsing rods (which some psychics insist on using) and I do not need to speak to or with or hear the person, so speaking is also disallowed.

The impressions that I have are written down rather than spoken. There is no interaction or feedback with the person. I actually make surprisingly unambiguous and specific statements. And importantly, after a reading there is no discussion with the person in which I would be able to adjust the reading. Statements are written down and I also have someone else check them for accuracy.

To check health statements for accuracy I can have done in either of two ways. I either list specific health statements and the person is allowed to state whether each applies to them or not. Or, additional health statements can be placed randomly among mine, so that the person who is checking them for accuracy has no suggestion as to which ones were made by me.

I do however require to see the person. The person can wear clothes. But there can not be a screen of any material or make between me and the person. A complete reading takes between 30 minutes to an hour. And I only read skeptics, since they are less likely to be injured from a psychic reading and are more reliable when they report cases of accuracy.

Since I do require to look at the person I am reading, I must of course disregard any cases of accuracy involving health information that could have been available from normal means - disregarded in terms of those not being evidence in favor of a claim of medical dowsing. That is why cases of accuracy involving internal and hidden information, such as missing kidney, missing uterus, or having a specific viral infection, are the interesting ones.

Note that contrary to the belief of most psychics, the "negativity" or "disbelief" found in skeptics does not disable a psychic reading. If reading a skeptic makes it not work it is because the person was not psychic after all. I've found that skeptics are among the most honest people to read, there has never been a case where a skeptic might deny any accuracy that I've had. Skeptics are the best people to read, and in my opinion the only people to read.

This one is a gem. Skeptic and magician James Randi goes undercover in the 80's to receive a Tarot card reading. He is putting on a great act. The best part is where the Tarot reader reads that Randi is searching for that right woman. Randy is gay! James Randi receives a Tarot card reading