I contacted the Independent Investigations Group IIG in July two years ago about having a test of my paranormal claim with them. I then submitted the claim in its most general form, describing it as perception of health information and presented them with a broad list of various health information that I had correctly identified in the past and that should not be detectable by ordinary senses of perception. Ironically, that list did not include missing kidney, since I had not experienced that yet! The IIG actually suggested testing my claim on missing organs and missing kidney, and I then had to say no because I had not had that experience yet.

A lot has happened in the two years since that claim was first submitted. The IIG were asking for a more specific claim and to narrow it down to one or a few specific ailments, and I had limited experience with checking for the accuracy of the perceptions that I have, so I did not know what ailments to choose that the claim would work the best on. The claim also has to be conformed to test conditions, conditions that I have not experienced in everyday life, and I am reluctant to agree to test conditions that I have not experienced the claim working during and still make that claim. I met with a local Skeptics group and they recommended to me that I begin to study my claim, to find out what types of health information it detects, what the accuracy might be, and what test conditions it can work under. So the IIG test was put on hold while I embarked on the study of my claim.

During the study I had one particular experience of a medical perception that came to represent the entire claim. During an attempt at medical perception on a member of the local Skeptics group, I claim that I detected that he is missing a left kidney. What is compelling to me, is that I detected it even though it was not on my list of ailments in the questionnaire that I was working with and so I had no reason to search for that information. And at the time of the reading, kidney donors did not cross my mind, and logically I could not believe that he would have had a kidney problem that would have lead to a kidney removal. When the perception turned out to be correct, it was even more compelling that the claim of perceptions is something I can not explain. So the test came to be based on that particular health information of a missing kidney.

Update October 21 2009
The test protocol has been designed, and as far as I know it is final and complete now. The IIG and me have completed the protocol negotiations stage. Other details are still being arranged and the protocol should be made available very soon.

Test Protocol
The test protocol is the document that describes clearly and in writing how the paranormal test will be arranged and what conditions and rules will be applied. A test protocol should accommodate both some of the requirements of the claim but most importantly it has to be to scientific standard so that if the test is passed that result is reliable. During a test protocol negotiations stage the testing organization and the claimant together design the test. The test can not compromise too much, it is instead the claimant and their paranormal claim that has to make sure it can adapt to a proper test setting.

If I do have a paranormal ability, I expect to go through several preliminary tests before it could be concluded that I have one. You can not prove an unusual ability by one successful test alone, you should be able to pass all such consequent tests. I expect that if I pass the first preliminary test there will be discussions about what could have been the possible sources of error, and the procedure will be checked again and perhaps improved upon and then there is another test. To conclude on a paranormal ability is not something done on a whim. With the Study I was bringing my claim closer and closer toward the final test protocol, but have now decided on one specific type of health information on which to base the test.

Once a final test protocol is agreed to by both the organization and the claimant, the claimant should not be allowed to ask for any changes to be made to it. The test protocol has been designed and will be posted here soon. All I can say at this point is that I am absolutely happy with it!

Preliminary demonstration and test
The IIG asks me to travel to Hollywood to have a Preliminary test with them, and if I pass that test I am eligible for the formal test. If I fail the Preliminary test I announce my claim as falsified, but may re-apply for another test with the IIG after another year has passed, but I don't see why I would need to. The objective to me is to reach a reliable conclusion in my claim: the objective is not to pass a test and have the claim confirmed as paranormal or verified. If I pass the formal test the IIG awards me $50,000, some of which I would donate back to the IIG to further their beautiful work in skepticism and to ensure that they have a prize for the next claimant to keep their challenge going.

Health Information to be used in the test
The health information that I am asked to detect must be such that is considered not detectable to ordinary senses of perception during the test conditions that apply, ie. that is what makes this a paranormal claim. It should also be unambiguous, either clearly present or not present in a person, as opposed to occurring to varied extents in different people, and it should also be a permanent condition that does not vary with time and that may or may not be present at the time of the test. The missing kidney meets all of these and other requirements, and is the perfect choice for an ailment both from my perspective as the claimant and from the perspective of the test.

Ever since I first begun considering how to design the test I do admit that the biggest (or only) obstacle has been that I have not had enough experience with having the medical perceptions and especially with being able to check for their accuracy in order to know what ailments I am the best at, or to know for sure that I would pass a test with that ailment. I have wanted to have more experience so that when I take the test I feel confident that I have already investigated and convinced not only myself but others that I could be able to do what I claim. But that lead to a lengthy study process, I will now try to put together a Second Study but I have decided to simply give in and pick the one very best ailment that works best for test purposes and for my own purposes.

Test setting
Some of my thoughts that went into the initial test protocol draft that was submitted to the IIG long time ago. There is now a complete test protocol which may or may not include some of my thoughts below.

All I do as the claimant is to see the volunteer. I require no specific environment for my performance, I do not use any materials, and use no speaking with or other interaction with the volunteers to reach my conclusions on medical perception. The IIG (and me) consider that to involve doctors or medical testing in the test is too complicated and/or expensive and should not be required for a test to test my claim. A test with one type of health information only does not need to use any questionnaires. It will be a simple yes/no and left or right type of test for me, but that might mean that we need a larger number of volunteers than had we been testing with a larger number of different types of health information. However, we can have any number of persons who are not missing a kidney so it should not be a problem. The health information used in a test should be such that it can be verified on site "With a simple physical inspection" says the IIG, or, I would say, with medical documentation.

Heh, in the beginning I had asked for 100 people to diagnose. IIG says they can provide a minimum of 15 persons. The test will not include me presenting a description of health, but the use of unambiguous selected ailments from a list, ie. the missing kidney. I will not allow a test where I lose points for NOT detecting something that was considered to be present. I should only lose points when I give an incorrect answer, since I might not detect each case in which the ailment is considered to occur... will this still apply with the case of detecting missing kidneys? Which is why I had asked for a larger number of volunteers for the test. Passing on volunteers means that the test could be concluded as inconclusive, rather than just as a pass or fail, but now that the one health information to be used is fairly simple, I might actually change that into being a pass/fail test with no inconclusive as a possibility!

I proposed that if I do not diagnose the minimum required number of volunteers that the test would be considered inconclusive rather than failed, but I might change that now that we have such a straightforward test. That the test is failed only if I provide a significant number of incorrect answers. I would like to be able to transfer excess time to the total remaining time and to use it as I please yet remaining within the total viewing time.

In the beginning I had asked for most of the face to be visible and I no longer request that. I still think I need exposed skin in some part of the body in order to form my perception, and need to find out in the study. IIG suggests the use of a window designed to block out both scent and sound, this may eliminate the need to have music playing. They will have a test to see how effective the window is at blocking sound. I will have a clock to see how much time is remaining, I can see the clock at all times.

I asked how much of the person's body I will see, the IIG prefers this to be as little as possible. I do not know how much or what part of the body I need to see, yet, and I have to think about that and try it out. What part of the person and under what circumstances do I need to see in order to claim to see the kidney? The IIG would like to avoid ending up with an inconclusive test.

I will not take part in being compelled to guess. Guessing is not the same as me making a specific claim of having made an observation. I thus suggest that if I make the minimum required number of perceptions it opens the test toward being determined as either a failure or as a passed test. Fewer than that perceptions constitutes an inconclusive test.

The study taught me among other things that I prefer to see the persons from behind, and that is useful to implement into a test design, since it eliminates some of the possible clues there can be about a person's health.

Earlier I had some of the email correspondence between the IIG and me posted here. I have removed them for now, and plan to post them together with many more some time in the future, if the IIG permits me to share them.