About VFF
  Readings 2

Readings done on Skeptics as part of the Study

The best way to learn about the claim that I have which is the experience that when I look at people I feel health information about them, is to experience the claim by doing readings on people. But I only do readings on Skeptics as the volunteers. I do not claim to be a psychic, yet I do have this genuine visual and sensory experience of health information but all I do with it is I investigate it with Skeptics. Skeptics make perfect recipients of a paranormal claim which is under investigation, because a Skeptic is more reliable when the accuracy of my perceptions is to be established, and a Skeptic is not likely to be harmed by receiving health information which may be potentially inaccurate.

Here are the readings I have done on Skeptics who were members of the Forsyth Area Critical Thinkers FACT Skeptics group in Winston Salem, North Carolina. (Will be added later.)

Content below will soon be edited:

Skeptics Meeting March 2009
In this month's meeting I had the chance to present my planned study and to ask this month's attending Skeptics whether they would be willing to participate in the assignments that I need help with in the study. I started with a background of my investigation for those who were new to the group and had not heard about it before. I said that I am a paranormal claimant who experiences seeing visual and felt health information and images from the inside of people's bodies when I look at a person. I said that it could be the case of a form of synesthesia, such as some people who hear a sound and experience a taste because of association, in which the actual experience of one form of information triggers the perceived experience of another form of information. But I said that I have experienced correlation between what I perceive and with the actual health of persons, even in cases where I shouldn't have known that information. And that so far I haven't been incorrect once that I know of.

Dr. Carlson reminded us about the reading with Wayne, in which I did in fact write "Thyroid?" on my notes. I said that I did write that but before I concluded on that reading I had concluded that it was the adam's apple I was sensing and that is what I said when I presented my reading at the end to Wayne. In my conclusion there was nothing about the thyroid. I said that I must take better notes from now on, because what I wrote is not the same as what I actually said and concluded on. I said that I also sense information about the body that is not health problems. Such as the beating of the heart, or the movement of the lungs, and sensing the adam's apple I did not sense it as involving a disorder.

I passed out four copies of sample health questionnaires for the members to look at. I realized that there were not enough copies available so they had to share (because I only had time to print four before going for the meeting). After explaining the assignments that I needed help with I explained that even if I would like to I can not do all the assignments myself, since I am not to see the volunteers before the time that I do a reading with them and also that I am not allowed to handle the questionnaires. I said that I can't assign my friends since that would cause credibility issues, and that Skeptics would be the best participants I can think of, and that in another case I would involve university students. The assignmets are: 1) Someone who approaches the public and asks for volunteers, hands volunteers a questionnaire and after these are filled in holds on to the filled in volunteers' questionnaires. 2) One or preferrably two controls who alongside me also look at the volunteers and try to guess or predict their health information by any means besides cheating. 3) Someone who holds on to the claimant's (that's me!) and controls' questionnaires. 4) And, if possible, some who are present just to take notes and to make observations on what takes place during the study, and to verify that the rules of the study are not being broken, such as that no speaking is to take place between the claimant and controls with the volunteer.

Dr. Carlson suggested that assignments 3) and 4) could be combined and I fully agreed and have added that change in the protocol. I passed out a sign-up sheet for those who wish to volunteer for the study. I said that they don't have to decide right away and can also contact me later if they decide to participate, and that no one is of course obliged to participate if they don't want to. I said that the exact time will be decided on later and agreed to mutually with a time that best fits all. Five members signed up, one who wanted to do the 1st assignment, Dr. Carlson signed up for assignments 3) and 4) combined, and three persons who wanted to act as controls on the study. It worked out really well. I said that the controls are needed so that my results can be compared with other peoples' and because I wouldn't know what is a good result or what is a poor result and that this way we would have something to compare with.

I asked the members to look at the questionnaires and to hand me all the criticism that they could think of. Some of the suggestions for improvement I received, were
*To not include the "when" column in the questionnaires. If I may say so, this wonderful advice came from Patrick.
*Several members pointed out that several of the ailments that are asked for in the questionnaire are such that most everyone has experienced at least sometimes.
*Someone suggested that the "extent" column be removed, but I said that it is important for the sake of the study and that a test would not have it.
*One member said that I should have a more refined type of study and then if I passed such a study I could then do something like this one. I said that I am actually working the other way around, that I am actually starting from a "bad" or loosely defined study format and then working my way upward toward better quality of design. So I chose not to take that advice.
*I asked them to consider whether any of the listed ailments were of a personal nature and should be removed. One person said that 'pregnancy' might be such, but I think I choose to keep it.
*I asked them to consider whether the questionnaire was too long. They seemed to think that it would not be too long for most people, that it should only take a few minutes to fill in. Someone said that as long as we have somewhere for the volunteers to sit. I said that we do not have permit to bring tables or chairs (or a sign) but that the study would take place where seating area is available, and that I would bring clipboards.
*Someone said that Winston Salem might not be a good enough place to do the study, since there might not be enough people who are out and walking in the city. He suggested Asheville, which is two hours away, and then someone else suggested Charlotte as well. I am thinking we could try them all but to start with Winston Salem which is nearest and for which I have already obtained a permit.
*One said that I could promote the study on Craigslist. So I will. That way we might have some people show up rather than just rely on passers by who might not be interested.
*I had said that the study would not mention anything paranormal of any kind, and that it would be presented as a study into what external symptoms could be detected externally just by looking at a person. A member suggested that it be presented as a paranormal study, that lots of people would then want to volunteer. I said that I expect our best volunteers to be elderly citizens and that they might be conservative and so we should not mention anything paranormal. Since, it does not even need to be mentioned, it is in all fairness just a study into what external symptoms could be guessed or deduced from external means, since we haven't officially established anything paranormal yet.
*I specified that volunteers need to be 18 or older to participate in the study, in order to avoid certain unnecessary complications.
*One member said that some volunteers might be lying on purpose with the way they fill in their volunteer's questionnaires, I said that that can't be avoided and will just have to be included as a possible small percentage of error in the study and that this error would probably go away with respect to the larger quantity of honest answers, and Dr. Carlson added that this kind of error is the case in all sorts of medical surveys and even scientific tests.
*There is a local event coming up which I should go and have the study at, one member recommended. She said it would attract lots of people who would love to be part of a paranormal study. So I will plan that in.
*I asked whether the questionnaire would be too long for volunteers to fill in and nobody seemed to think so. I said that why don't four of them fill in the four available questionnaires and see how long it takes, and also to take notes on how they experience filling in the questionnaire, whether there are some complications or things that need to be changed with the questionnaires.
*Dr. Carlson suggested some form of matching format of the study, where several volunteers' questionnaires are filled in and then matched with filled in claimant's questionnaires, but I did not like the idea, at least not for the upcoming first studies. It might be an idea for a test, though.
*Two different persons suggested at two different occasions that I do the study at college, but I said that the students are too healthy and young for that.
*One member suggested that I could give free psychic readings to gain more experience with the claimed ability. I thought that was a wonderful idea, that would expose me to more experience with the claim and I could perform it in the study format that brings process to my investigation. It would not be done in a "psychic reading" format, where there is a discussion between the person and the psychic leading to the conclusions. I never do that! My medical perceptions are not influenced by, nor depending on, what the person says. I then turned to Dr. Carlson and asked whether offering free psychic readings would hurt my image as a "skeptic claimant". They had no answer to that, so I guess I could go ahead? I'll have to be tremendously careful though, I really don't intend to be some "psychic" and am trying to go about my "skill" in a scientific manner. It is a wonderful idea for more experience. But, you all know me by now, I will of course have to make some phonecalls and check with the law first. :)

Turns out we ended up having two readings with two different members of the FACT Group! They kind of barged into it, which I'm glad they did. At first I objected by saying that the JREF Forum Skeptics had advised me against doing more readings with the FACT Skeptics since I had seen them for a few times now! One FACT member said that based on what's been taking place at the JREF Forums he doesn't see why I keep going there because it doesn't do me any good, and I said that well, I just go there lately to make fun of have fun with the Skeptics there. To have fun with them. Note: With this I refer to the funny and silly posts I've been making on the JREF lately, where I make fun of Skeptics, other claimants, and myself, all innocent harmless fun. After being formal for four months on the JREF Forums I've sort of extracted all the valuable things I can through its members' bickering and harassment so I decided to relax and have fun for a while knowing that there are no more results to post at the moment and no more progress to discuss for some time. So I was referring to fun posts I've already made. I don't make "fun of", I meant "fun with". It is a Swedish type-o. What I said was misunderstood and if anyone can find a post where I actually make fun of a Skeptic, please do send it to me. There are none. I don't make fun of Skeptics. I couldn't do my investigation without Skeptics.

So we had two readings. Dr. Carlson was the first to volunteer. I asked him to make note of how many minutes it takes him to fill in the questionnaire. It took him five minutes to fill in. Once he was done he was about to sit at the main longtable where we all had been but I said we need a separate area. I sat us down at the other end of the room but it was only three feet from the longtable and the others and in full sight and sound of them. I said to Dr. Carlson that I have already made progress in my investigation by having found out that I can do the reading without eyecontact with the volunteer and that I in fact preferred no eyecontact since it was distracting to me and also because it ensures a higher quality to the procedure. So he turned around, and I sat two feet from him. I made note of the time. I had said earlier to the group that I would be asking on future questionnaires whether the volunteer can offer five, ten, or fifteen minutes and they would check one of the time options, and that of course the volunteers could leave early if they wanted to. I said I would try to take fifteen minutes.

Dr. Carlson asked whether he should take his jacket off and at first I said he doesn't have to, but then I said that ok he could. The television was on and the others were watching a BullSh*t! episode with Penn and Teller, I think about psychic readings. At one point James Underdown of the IIG West of Hollywood was on the program so I interrupted by saying to everyone that he's the one who I've been corresponding with about my test. Well, I wrote down in my notes that the location was cold and noisy and that that was a distraction. I did the reading with Dr. Carlson. I will not disclose the details here until I have specific permission from him to do so. The specifics of this reading, with my answers compared with his, will be posted here most likely on the weekend of April 11 and 12. Will be posted probably the weekend of April 18 and 19. I handed both forms to him for keeping, I realized that it is best to do so. As the claimant I can not be trusted with any of the original versions of the documentation of the study. Of course I trust Dr. Carlson with the material. I have now received the originals back and he has kept copies for himself. In short, I marked several ailments to the lowest extent that he did not mark. There was a very significant ailment that I detected but I did not mark on my questionnaire because I was worried about being wrong. I will not receive any credit for it since I did not put it down on my questionnaire, but at least I know what my experience of it was so, evidence or not, I can learn from it as if it had happened as I claim that it had. This reading did in my opinion not falsify the claim. The details will be presented here shortly. It took me 18 minutes to do this reading.

Next I did a reading with another member of the group. I had her sit so that I had view of her back. At first I could not find anything that was listed on the questionnaire. I sensed no pain anywhere. I sensed a tense jaw and a heart issue that was related to a significant anxiety. I was worried that my detection of anxiety might be wrong (my logic was interfering again!) and therefore insulting so I crossed out 'anxiety' and wrote down 'excitement' instead, thinking that it was a nicer way to put it in case I'd be wrong even though I perceived it as anxiety and nothing else. (Nothing wrong with having anxiety. I've had it myself.) So I decided to do an "open reading" in which I scan through the entire body looking for what ever might show up rather than going through the list on the questionnaire. This way I found and wrote down that her internal female system was red or inflamed. I knew what it was, and said to her, that if I may ask, does she have her menstruation now? She said that she did! Turns out she also suffers from anxiety, but when I asked everyone at the meeting agreed that she shows no external symptoms of this. I asked the members whether anyone thinks that menstruation comes with external symptoms and no one really thought so, or no one really knew (besides the obvious mood problems or other things during PMS but that were not apparent at the time). I asked her whether I could post the results of the reading on my website and I have her permission to do so. In my reading with her, all of what I checked on my questionnaire were true for her. However she had checked four types of pain and I sensed none of those as well as I did not detect her swallowing problem. I presented the results to the group by sitting next to Dr. Carlson and having him follow with me and check with me on my questionnaire which was next to the volunteer's questionnaire as I read out loud from the questionnaires. Dr. Carlson had presented the results from my reading with him to the group earlier and on his own. I left also those questionnaires with Dr. Carlson and he has since returned them to me and kept copies for himself. It is better that I left them with a reliable person. As the claimant in this investigation by principle I can not be trusted to be alone with the original material. It had taken her 6-7 minutes to fill in her questionnaire. We didn't have a way to keep time and didn't want to bother the others who were watching tv so this time we could not check the time how long my reading took, but I expect it took somewhere near 15 minutes again. More or less.

Overall these two readings taught me a lot. I learned among other things that I was slightly overwhelmed by the amount of questions on the questionnaire but I noticed that I was quickly learning how to hasten it up. At first with Dr. Carlson I was starting from the first question pain (head, headaches, migraine) and going down the list one at a time but later I realized to check the whole body all at once for the "pain" column and to mark the appropriate questions that applied to what I've found. And later, with the second person, I was doing a full-body scan and freely and just writing down what I find and then filling these in in the appropriate check-boxes as I find them. That is how I detected the jaw problem. At first I wanted the jaw problem to involve muscle, but the "muscle" column had no row for jaw so I placed it in the JOINTS-section which had a row for "jaw". I thought it was the best fit at that time.

This was the first time I was using the health questionnaires! It was the very first time my answers were recorded in a checkbox format and in a manner where the volunteer also presents their health in the same format as the claimant! It was wonderful, I was not sure how it would go, but I find that the questionnaire format does not lower my performance in any way whatsoever. In fact it simplifies things. I like the idea of the questionnaire checkbox format since the volunteers' health description is prepared before I even begin to look at them and definitely before I present my perceptions so we don't have to worry about whether any correlation results from the volunteer simply being inclined to agreeing with me. It also provides with (more) unambiguous means of comparing my answers with their actual health.

I found that the questions on the questionnaire cover most of the perceptions I would have but I have since continued to add or remove various ailments from the list to improve on the questionnaire. After the experience with the second reading I have added menstruation/period to the questionnaire. And after trying out the questionnaires I also found out that I want to remove the question about "Do you exercise, how often?" because I don't think it is relevant. Also many people will probably think that something is exercise that I don't really think is, so it is too difficult to define what I am really asking for. Exercise was there because I often sense a very strong heart muscle or greatly strengthened lungs due to exercise, yet someone might say that they exercise a lot just because they do some gardening two times a week, or something like that. Whereas what I am really asking for, is whether they go weightlifting four times a week or did many years ago, what ever lead to a greatly strengthened heart and lungs, things that are invisible from the outside especially after many years of no longer exercising, but that still show (to me!) in the heart and lungs. But how would we even verify that? So, let's just (reluctantly) remove that question from the questionnaires.

After what some of the members pointed out, and what I realized, "Cough" will be also removed. Especially since if someone actually has current cough then wouldn't that be obvious? I've also removed "gall stones" since even if persons had them and I would see them, how on earth would we go and verify them? It would only be verifiable in the very severe cases.

The "Descriptions *Optional part!" was removed. The second person filled it in and I realized that I didn't even read it after the study. I was mostly interested in what was already in the checkboxes and felt that what ever was described should have already been accounted for in the questions above and that a description would not be helpful one way or the other. So that was removed. It would have also been a bit invasive toward the volunteers. This shortened the questionnaire and made it a bit easier. I might add some lines for description for some of the other questions so that more detailed questions and checking for correlation can be made. Oh, and I might need to add more questions about the eyes!

Three independent readings that have been made part of the study learning process and a first larger-scale study have been made, and most likely the study continues. It remains to receive the data from the first larger-scale study, but so far the claim has not been falsified. In these two readings there were some things that I described as present even if to the slightest extents that the persons did not account for, and there were things that were present that I did not detect in persons, and all of these details will be posted here. I will carefully post both the hits and the misses. I correctly detected and described anxiety (as well as the related heart disturbance), and anxiety is something I would never just "guess" on to try to get some points, and there were no external symptoms, I really felt it from inside her and could not see it on the outside. She does not show it, and everyone at the meeting also agreed that she does not show it externally. And detecting menstruation that wasn't even on the list, this is very specific and I was sure. But also... I did detect something very interesting in Dr. Carlson, that I did not put down on the questionnaire because I could not believe it. Why would Dr. Carlson have this, I wondered? It did not match with what my logical assumptions would allow me to believe. Yet I perceived it. Turns out it would have been right. I can not receive any credit or any points for this whatsoever, and it is perfectly understandable if someone were to suspect me of lying, but I know that I did detect it. So I know to continue and to not cross that particular thing out of my list yet, since I might detect it again next time or on the actual paranormal test. I did not tell Dr. Carlson that I did in fact detect it, because he won't believe me. So I'll just leave it at that. But let's just say, that since I've detected three pretty significant things, even if I've done some small errors with other things that are "definition questions", I detected three conditions that are either "yes/no". The things that I said a person has but they didn't say that they have, or that they say they have but I didn't say they have, were mostly things like pain or joint discomforts, things that are on a scale of extent. But the things that I did get correct on and did not get any incorrect on were the significant yes/no questions. So, that is still good, and I can continue with this investigation. I am not twisting the results, all of the results in full will be posted here soon and you can judge for yourselves.

It was a wonderfully productive Skeptics meeting. I am so grateful to have this valuable resource nearby. This is all very exciting. Note: These two readings as well as the study are not tests. They are not designed to be able to conclude in favor of the paranormal claim or to provide evidence in favor of the claim. Also note that my study is designed by me and not by FACT Skeptics. Me, the study, and what I've written here do not represent the FACT Skeptics or their opinions. We also need the Skeptics' version of these readings. *Never trust the claimant without hearing out the Skeptics who were present, too.* That's just how it's done.

I have made several drafts of the study health questionnaire and provided links to these on this page but here is the actual health questionnaire that was used in the March meeting with the two members of the group (note that some of the table lines do not show in this online version of the document but do exist in the actual word document):
March26 2009 Health Questionnaire

Any individual readings I have in between larger-scale studies contribute with experience and gained insight into the claim and are also part of the study process. I was grateful to have had the discussion and also two readings at the March meeting because they gave plenty more improvements on the study procedure and health questionnaire before the actual first study and finding out then, and this made the first study more productive than it would have been otherwise.

Winston Salem local skeptics group in North Carolina
Winstom Salem Skeptics Meetup Group http://skeptics.meetup.com/182/

December 10 2008 - I've found a local skeptics group and joined them. I attend my first meeting with them on December 29th. Although I am a paranormal claimant I can't wait to enter a room full of skeptics! I look forward to skepticism and critique and expect to learn a lot from it, also I will be giving off free demonstrations of what I can do! (It is always free.) Perhaps I can arrange to have a test with them locally and soon. Depending on the standards of a test, a passed result might not be able to prove an ability, but failing a test even if a test has flaws could at the very least determine if it is the case of no ability. I can't wait.
December 18 2008 - I attended a meeting with the local skeptics group. Although some of us were interested in a preliminary demonstration or test of my claim there was no time available for that this time. Dr. Eric Carlson gave a very informative and also interesting lecture on how to test paranormal claimants. From today's meeting and the brief discussion I had with the group members I've come to realize that I need to gain more experience with the medical perceptions in order to state a much clearer and more specific claim, and that is why I am now planning a study. I also learned that unlike what I had been assuming, it is I as the claimant who has to do most of the work. It is mostly a good thing because I can now take more initiative of my own and stop waiting for others to do my work.
January 22 2009 - Had my second meeting with the local skeptics group. We had some time to briefly describe the plans of having the study, but no time to make arrangements with them. I was given the opportunity to attempt my perceptions with one of the members, the results of which are found at the observations page.

February 26 2009 - Attended this month's FACT Skeptics meeting.
March 26 2009 - Had a chance to present my study and to ask for members of the FACT Skeptics Group to participate. All of the assignments were assigned with at least one willing participant so the study is all set now and can take place as soon as everyone is available on a mutually agreed on date. I did readings with two different members of the group, the results of which can be read here and here.

Content soon to be edited:

Reading with Wayne taught me this:
Wayne is a member of the local Skeptics group and was my first step of the study-process. No questionnaire was used.
*That I prefer to have the volunteer seen from behind rather than front, eyecontact distracts me and eyecontact is also not necessary for me. I do not need to see the face, not even to sense information about teeth. I prefer to see a person from behind.
*Cold air distracts me.
*Noise can distract me to some extent. I would prefer quiet during the time of the test.
*I learnt that my perceptions are not based on logic or thinking. My logic and thinking is an entirely different "entity" than is what concludes on the visual and felt health information. My logic was expecting there to be plenty of health problems in Wayne, since he had prepared a list. The perceptions did not match my expectations. My expectations/logic/thinking was incorrect, my perceptions were correct.
*I did not detect a scar, at least this scar, was not significant in "vibrational feeling" to catch my attention on its own. I was not expecting a scar either and was not choosing to form perceptions of his skin either. So it is too soon for me to conclude whether to eliminate "scar" from the list of ailments.
*This was the first time ever when I write down my perceptions rather than to speak it. And I did like doing that.
*This was the first time I gave my perceptions to the volunteer in full at the end of the reading and said nothing about the perceptions during the reading. I liked that too.
*I confirmed again for myself that I do perceive healthy tissue as well. I felt his adam's apple and shoulder. I sensed no health problem with the adam's apple, all it was, was that I felt it. The shoulder felt tired. I wrote both of these as occurring to an insignificant extent, which is below the extent of 1 that I now use on my health questionnaire, I would have marked neither on a questionnaire.
*After the reading Wayne told me that he does have something for me to find. I asked him not to tell me right away but to include it in a list of a couple of different ailments so that I would have a chance to search for it. I did not detect it then either. I asked him to tell me which it was, and he did, and I confirmed that I did not detect it then either. So this again confirms to me that my perceptions are not based on logical thinking, since, even when I know what to look for I do not see it just because. Something else besides my prior knowledge and expectation must be the basis for the medical perceptions.
*I learned to regret that I did not take proper notes. I wrote down keywords about my perceptions as I was reading Wayne, but I did not write down the conclusions that I was about to present, word by word. Instead I just told him the conclusion. So my notes were done in a sloppy manner. However, my spoken conclusion to him took place of course without dialogue or producing clues that would have changed my story, and Wayne said that my conclusion that he was fully healthy all over was fully accurate but that I did not detect his scar.
*The claim was not falsified.

Reading with Dr. Carlson taught me this:
At the March 2009 local Skeptics meeting I did a reading with Dr. Carlson as the volunteer.
*This was the first time ever I used the questionnaires that I had prepared. I learned that I enjoy using the questionnaire format of performing my claim. The volunteer fills in theirs before they see me, this is placed in safe keeping and therefore we get a trustworthy accounts of the volunteer's own health description without worrying about them simply agreeing with me or changing their description to fit what I say. Obviously I value that aspect. I do not use dialogue to reach my conclusions and I do not like the idea of a volunteer changing their story based on what I say, so this is finally eliminated. I also liked to be able to report my perceptions in a questionnaire format, it is quicker than to write a description. I like the fact that I can report my answers in a way that can be trusted to not be influenced by what the volunteer says.
*I learned plenty about what it is like for me to work with a questionnaire. At first I was overwhelmed by the number of ailments listed on the questionnaire for me to search for but I found ways to work with that.
*For the first time ever I forced a time limit on myself to try to keep it within 15 minutes. If I recall it took me 18 minutes. I think the time limit might affect my results such that I don't have time to find all the information that I can find but I know that a test will probably be restricted to only a few ailments, giving me plenty of time. I still wanted to try out the time limit.
*I noted things that Dr. Carlson did not. I suspect that this was the same problem as with "Wayne's adam's apple", that I am noting things that are not health problems. My experience of the I think four joint or bone ailments that I listed was not pain nor a muscle problem, but simply that I "sensed" them, so I had assumed that Dr. Carlson would sense them too. I still need to learn a way to stop doing this, because if I am unable to learn to distinguish between ailment and simply feeling a part of the body the study will need to eliminate such information from the questionnaires. *Or it will mess me up.*
*When I arrived at the question of removed kidneys, my medical perception saw and felt his right kidney, but not the left one. However logic and thinking took over and I worried about being wrong. I spent a long while considering whether to mark it or not, and decided against it. Turns out I would have gotten "a point". What I learn from this is to keep "removed kidney" on the questionnaire. I have no evidence to back up that I detected a missing kidney, I ruined that opportunity for myself, however this experience will still contribute to my claim, ie. what I claim to be able to do and what I will agree to on a test. This would in fact be perfect to base a test on. So, perhaps this experience is bringing me much closer to a workable test protocol! Note: It is the first perception I have ever had of a missing kidney. This particular ailment was recommended to me by the IIG with whom I begun negotiating a test protocol, but I said that I don't know whether I can detect it or not yet, I need experience. Maybe one more such experience will give me the courage and a test can be made. Maybe we are getting very close to a test protocol.
*I learned that I have to stop worrying about whether my answers are right or wrong. To not allow logic or thinking to get in my way. To report the medical perceptions as they are. No matter what. Because my perceptions are good at describing health information, whereas my logic is not.
*The claim was not falsified.
(The details of the questionnaires will be made available here shortly.)

Reading with a female member of the Skeptics group taught me this:
*A second experience with the questionnaires confirmed with me what I learned previously. That I like the questionnaires.
*That noise distracts my performance.
*Cold air distracts my performance.
*Time limit was stressful at this reading. I would have wanted more time to read closer on many of the ailments. Perhaps the study can allow more time with the volunteers if I need it. These questionnaires list tens of ailments, whereas a test will have only a few, so perhaps I am going about trying out the time limit the wrong way.
*I learned that I can detect menstruation very confidently. This health information has been added to the study and questionnaire.
*I learned again that modesty "kills me". I was modest about reporting anxiety, marked it as a 1 instead of the 2 or 2.5 that I felt it as, not wanting to offend the person. And, again, losing points. That's ok, the main thing is what I learn so that I can identify my difficulties in the procedure so that I can work my way around them and optimize my skill. And then we can see how it works on a real test. A real test will not allow any excuses or explanations.
*I confirmed for myself that I do not want discussion with the volunteer about whether I was "perhaps correct after all" with some of my marked answers. I really do want honest results. I also note that I do report the misses as well as the hits with equal importance. I learned that I am not ashamed of having non-correlation and that I do not take it personally.
*The claim was not falsified.
(The details of the questionnaires will be made available here shortly.)