About VFF
  IIG Test
  TAM Demo
  Seed Test

Seed Test

This test took place on Friday, July 15 2011, between 1:10 PM and 4:22 PM
The results are 7 correct and 8 incorrect out of 15 submitted answers out of a total of 30 samples. The results align perfectly with what random chance predicts and this hypothesis was falsified.

Hypothesis (Claim)

I can determine by extrasensory means ESP whether a batch of seeds is infected or not infected with a specific fungi, by looking toward the seeds.

Hypothesis Implies

The use of extrasensory means implies that the sought after information (infection versus no infection) cannot be determined by the use of normal sensory means during the test. The samples of seeds are visually and otherwise indistinguishable from one another during the test. Also implied the use of no instruments or material as aid in detection.

Testing Protocol
30 samples of seeds. Larger image

The test uses a particular species of plant seed. Some batches of seed are infected with a particular species of fungi, other batches of seed are not infected with the fungi. The fungi exists in its early stages of lifecycle on the inside of a seed, and the infected versus the uninfected seeds are visually indistinguishable from one another on the outside.

Thirty samples of seed are prepared in petri dishes. The total count of infected samples versus uninfected samples is not given beforehand so the number of either could be any up to thirty. Each dish contains either infected seeds or uninfected seeds. Each dish contains roughly the same amount of seeds.

The samples are prepared and arranged across a counter by an assistant, who is not present during the time that the test takes place. Another assistant is present during the time that the test takes place. This way the test follows a double-blind format; nobody in the room during the test knows beforehand which type of seeds are contained in which dishes.

The test may take up to three hours. For each sample, I determine whether I think the seed is infected or not infected with the fungi. I am allowed to pass on any number of samples from which I have no perception, if that occurs. Statistics at a 95% confidence level determines the total number of correct versus incorrect answers required to pass or fail the test.

Failing to meet the criteria set for this test indicates that the hypothesis is falsified, pertaining specifically to the samples and testing conditions used in this test. Meeting or exceeding the criteria for this test suggests the need for further testing but is not sufficient to conclude on extrasensory perception.


Out of a total of 30 samples available to me, I submit an answer on only 15 of the samples, with a 50% rejection of samples.
Out of 15 submitted answers, 7 are correct answers and 8 are incorrect answers.
Since there are two options for each sample (infected or uninfected), random chance predicts that half of the answers will be correct and half of the answers will be incorrect. My results fall perfectly into what random chance predicts, with 47% correct and 53% incorrect.
The book that was available for statistics said that to pass with a 95% confidence level, 18 out of 25 samples would have to be correct. How many would have had to been correct with the maximum of 30 answers or with my submitted 15 answers is something to look up.


The results of this test clearly and indisputably indicate no ability of any sort in detecting the fungal endophyte contained in this plant seed and results are purely and perfectly within random chance. The hypothesis as stated is falsified.


It is delightful when statistics "works" and the results of this test are beautiful in their agreement with predicted statistical outcome. I am left with absolutely no hesitation and with perfect confidence to know that I absolutely cannot detect this fungal endophyte in these seeds. There is no need this time for me to defend or support a hunch that what if maybe I still could do it, also no need for further tests of this kind. And the results here are entirely conclusive and no interpretation need be applied, in which in past cases claimants defend their biases of the need for further consideration and opponents defend their biases of closure - and I am of course talking about past work dealing with missing kidney detection, whose results seem now even more than before statistically and otherwise curious. Why don't the kidney tests produce results this beautifully falsified?

What does this mean to my claims in general. Obviously, I cannot generalize the entire claim to be based on the specifics of fungal endophyte detection in a particular species of plant seed. The claim as a whole rests largely on the detection of medical information in live human subjects, and most of the microscopic detections I have made throughout the years, whether documented and verified or anecdotal, have also occurred with things in the human body. As stated before this test took place, and now reiterated, the medical dowsing claim must stand alone, and I continue studying it, it remains separate and also would have had I passed this test.

What bothers me, though, is my experience where I walked past a cereal aisle and detected the presence of Lactobacillus in cereal boxes. I also occasionally experience perceiving bacteria on surfaces. Should that not extend to being able to detect fungi within seeds? But one must be very careful with generalization, one thing is rarely the same as another. But, alas, this type of testing would have been perfect in its simplicity and ease of arrangement for continued work, but now we must resort back to the very tedious and cumbersome testing with human subjects, possibly.

I will explore other options within microscopic testing before I can give up on them, and next up is Lactobacillus.

Why was I testing on fungal endophyte in seeds? Obviously I had never had such an everyday experience where I had come across a plant seed and seen that it contained a fungal endophyte. This test was designed in collaboration with a biologist, who presented to me a variety of bacterial and fungal samples so that we could find a suitable type of sample for a test. I was given two batches of seeds to look at, one that was infected and another that was not, to see whether I might be able to tell the difference. After a minute or two I concluded on an answer which was correct. At a 50% chance of guessing correctly, it was not impressive, but the test came to be based on the discrimination of these seeds.

I was not convinced that I was able to perceive the endophyte in the seeds. A few days before the test would take place, I asked if I could do a preliminary test with a smaller number of samples, so that a non-ability could be detected at an earlier stage and at less expense. There was no preliminary test, and the 30-sample test produced statistically beautiful results that show that my correct answer with the two samples previously, had just been a lucky guess.

Another thing that made me suspect that I would not be able to detect the fungi on the test, was that I had also been shown two plants grown from these seeds and asked which if any were infected with the internal fungal endophyte. I said that one was infected and not the other, but the correct answer was that they were both infected.

I can't say I ever formed the "claim" that I could detect the fungal endophyte in seeds because having been correct with two samples and with a 50% chance of guessing it right, and also having been unable of describing the plants correctly, it takes more than that to impress me.

So why have I in past cases been impressed with what has seemed to be the detection of Helicobacter pylori, uterine cysts, that a left kidney was missing, Lactobacillus in a cereal box and ingested Lactobacillus, the Hepatitis C virus, and many more? Why am I pursuing those as claims? Because in each of those cases, there was no prior indication that these would be the targets to look for, and the chances of guessing a specific health condition from the possibility of hundreds or thousands of different ones, is a lot more interesting than a 50% guess.

I am very grateful to the biologist and assistant for their work and contribution to my investigation, and have chosen to keep them and their institution anonymous. They are of course aware of this website and in position to review how the test was presented here.

Test Details

I may return with added test details, things from my notes etc.