Related pages: Third Test (was cancelled)
Tests with Paranormal Groups!

My experience of health perceptions still needs more tests before I have a good understanding of how it works. Many people tell me to see a psychiatrist about my perceptions, but that would only discuss the origin of the perceptions but could not tell about the correlation between my perceptions and real health information, so it would still not give me the answer. More tests are needed to test their accuracy, because so far my accuracy has been better than it should be. It remains a mystery.

September 2010 - Preparations are being made to arrange either or both of the following two types of tests. The tests, again, will provide yet another opportunity of assessment of the accuracy and precision of my claim of health perception. This time around, the test might not be arranged/conducted by skeptics, in which case I would do what I can to ensure that a skeptic/skeptics would be present to safeguard at least some part of the credibility and integrity of the test.

Next missing organ detection test
I want to have another test whose aim is the detection of which of persons is missing either a kidney or a uterus. Such a test can test for one or the other of missing kidney or missing uterus, or be a combination test involving the detection of either of missing kidney or uterus within the same test.

The test requires the participation of an independent group of individuals with some level of credibility, meaning that this test can not be organized or conducted by myself since I am also the claimant, nor can it be organized nor conducted by anyone associated with me such as a friend of mine. I have lowered my standards somewhat, formerly I would have insisted that these persons strictly be skeptics, but now I would allow anyone provided that they have the credibility, hence regardless of their affiliations otherwise.

The test requires that the participants find one or several persons who are missing either a kidney or a uterus, as well as any number of other individuals who are not missing either of these organs.

The statistics of the test can be any, obviously with a larger number of volunteers as well as a larger randomization being preferential and more meaningful. The statistics is of course determined by how many target persons (ie. persons missing a kidney or a uterus) there are, with how many non-target persons, and by the extent at which I the claimant am told about the distribution of targets among the non-targets.

For example if I am told that there is one target missing a kidney, among ten persons total, then the odds of passing such a test by guessing is 1 in 10. If I am not told how many persons among ten are missing a kidney, then the odds are 1 in 1024. If I am not told how many persons are missing a kidney or a uterus among ten persons total, the odds then are 1 in 59,04

Each volunteer sits with their back against me for 6 minutes. A screen is made that conceals their head, shoulders, arms, legs, and upper back. Only a small 20 x 20 cm cutout area of their back is visible, this is the area I am feeling into for kidneys or uterus. If it is a strictly kidney detection test, the cutout is higher up on the back at kidney height, if it is a strictly uterus detection test, the cutout is lower down on the back in the pelvic region, if it is a combination test kidney + uterus then the cutout is somewhere in between these two or possibly slightly larger to show both these areas of the back. The volunteers are dressed in their own clothing, OR they are all given the same type of t-shirt - depending on what the preferences are among the organizers of the test and of volunteers.

A kidney detection test can employ volunteers of either male or female gender and ages 18 and up. Due to possible false reading from persons who have had a recent stroke (reference to TAM test, where my first choice had had recent health problems including stroke which some said might have given me a false reading) or other significant health problems should not participate. Kidney donors are preferential over persons who have lost their kidney due to health reasons since there may be other visible symptoms as to their target status, but either group of person missing a kidney may be employed. No other restrictions apply to kidney test subjects.

For obvious reasons (Locknar*), a uterus detection test can only employ women. All women should be older than a minimum of 18, but the older the better since the older a woman is the more likely it is that she would have encountered some reasons for a hysterectomy. Or at the very least all ladies should be in the same age range as a target person.

A combination test with both missing kidney and uterus targets could have both men and women, but of course that has to be taken into consideration in the statistics.

No communication no touching. No prior contact between claimant and volunteers prior to test. The claimant remains at a minimum distance of five feet behind the subjects. The claimant writes down her perceptions. At the end of a trial the claimant transfers her final answer to an answer sheet. The answer sheet is submitted to a test participant. After all the trials have been completed the test participants produce the results of the test.

*Locknar is a member of the JREF Forum. When we were discussing the possibility of a vasectomy detection test, Locknar was making a big fuss about how both women and men could be employed in such a test simply because I had not emphasized that I can only detect vasectomies in men.

First general health information test
This is a test which has not been officially conducted in this investigation before, although something similar was done in the study. This involves a larger scale "in-person readings" type of exposure with modifications to enhance its qualities of ethics, documentation and credibility. As we all know, I do not do readings on people other than skeptics. I have made many in-person general readings on skeptics. A general reading is what I call a reading where I can list anything that I happen to see, rather than it being a search for a particular type of health information as present or not present. This test involves several general readings and on persons not necessarily skeptics.

These persons must be found by the participating individuals or organization who arranges and conducts the test with me, such that I have not met with these volunteers before. These volunteers can be ages 18 and up. They must have no obvious mental impairment that might put them at harm of participating in such a test.

One volunteer at a time sits with their back facing me. The volunteer is dressed in their own clothes, or in t-shirts provided for the test depending on the preference of volunteers and participants. The claimant sits at a distance of at least two feet behind the volunteer (possibly further away, must be decided on). No communication between claimant and volunteer during the test. The claimant does not touch the volunteers. The claimant writes down her general impressions of the health of the volunteer. No screen is used, OR partial screens not as extensive as with the missing organ detection test are used for instance covering head and shoulders. The time to see each volunteer needs to be determined, I would ask for up to an hour and the possibility to finish early.

My written notes must be made into specific statements about health. The statements may not be such that can be interpreted one way or the other. An example of a statement that can be interpreted both ways such that it would always seem to agree with everyone is from the Chinese zodiac for the Dog, "You are generous but often selfish."

I suggest that after my sheet has been submitted to a participant, a participant produces a form which includes my statements along with similarly phrased statements of health that I have not seen. This way it is not just a sheet filled with my statements which would have given "leading questions" to the volunteers. This way, also, the volunteer is less likely to find out what health statements I made of them. The volunteer then sits on their own in private and fills in their sheet and places it into an envelope and seals it. The envelope nor the form are marked with any number or other identifying information. A participant takes the envelope, places it within a larger envelope and adds my sheet into the larger envelope and seals the large envelope - or my sheet is stapled to the small envelope with the form in it, such that they come together.

OR, small envelopes and my sheets are given the same number corresponding to each reading of a person so that they can be matched together at a later time.

Another participant who has never seen nor been in contact with the volunteers will open one of the envelopes at a time and see which of the statements given by me were also marked as true or known by the volunteer. This is how a general assessment of my accuracy is produced. This type of test does not allow a simple sort of "point scale" system, but does evaluate the perceptions and how well the volunteer would agree with what I saw.

The strengths of this test are that the claimant and volunteer have never met nor spoken or in other ways engaged before the test, this way the claimant has not received or been able to obtain any prior clues of the volunteer neither knowingly nor subconsciously - this way it is the perceptions that are being tested, not any health information that could be educated or intuitive guesses based on prior knowledge.

The claimant does not see the face of the volunteer, so there is no eyecontact or reading of facial expressions available. Also the volunteer does not see the claimant, so the volunteer is unable to respond with body language as to where, or how, the claimant is looking at them. There is no such subtle, non-verbal communication between claimant and volunteer.

The claimant asks no questions of the volunteer nor about the volunteer, and no interaction is possible during the test between claimant and volunteer.

The claimant writes down the perceptions and those perceptions are then handed in to a test participant. No further addition, subtraction, or edition of the perceptions are possible after that point. No discussion or dialogue is involved when the perceptions are displayed to the volunteer. Hence the volunteer can not be persuaded, "talked into" agreeing. The claimant and volunteer have no contact or interaction when the volunteer gets to assess by themselves how well the statements of health agree with their awareness of their health.

No money is involved! These are not "psychic readings", the volunteer does not pay to get a reading! And that needs to be emphasized. This is a test.

Non-statements (health information which I did not see) are added among my statements (health information which I saw) so that when the volunteer is faced with health statements they know that some or all of the ones listed were not made by me. This means that they are not leading questions. Because it is too easy for most people, especially to non-skeptics, to want to agree when something is asked. Persons who are gullible or friendly might be more likely to lean toward agreement than to disagreement. Statements mixed with non-statements ensures that this should not happen.

Also, the fact that non-statements are mixed in with statements, ensures that the volunteer does not know what I perceived of their health. If they were all a list of my perceptions the volunteer might be worried to find out about someone having sensed something wrong with their health, regardless of how they have been warned to not take any of the material seriously. In fact, some outright nonsense-sounding and obviously false health statements might need to be included so to give the volunteer a sense that these statements as a whole need not to be taken seriously.

The volunteer sits on their own when they mark which of the statements of health apply to them. They sit on their own so that they are not persuaded by anyone toward a particular answer, and so that they can be comfortable answering to possibly personal health information. The volunteer then places their form into a small envelope and seals it. This ensures the privacy of the volunteer. No one who has seen this person will see this form. The claimant and the participants on site will not see the filled-in form. The form does not ask for their name or other identifying information. The privacy and anonymity of the volunteer is ensured.

A test participant places the small envelope containing the form, and my original sheet, together into one larger envelope or staples them together so that they are together.

An additional test participant who has not seen the volunteers, and who preferably was not on site when the test took place, will compare each sheet made by the claimant with the filled-in form made by the volunteer and make an assessment of the accuracy of the perceptions.

So, in a sense, this test is like psychic readings except that it takes place under proper test standards that prohibit most if not hopefully all of the "normal" as opposed to "paranormal" sources of information that a psychic practitioner might have, such as dialogue, eyecontact, and feedback and persuasion during the time when the reading is presented to the volunteer. This test is also ethical in that no money is involved of course, as well as in that the privacy AND safety of the volunteers is ensured in that nobody who saw the volunteer will see their answer sheet and because the volunteer never finds out what information I saw of them.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jim Carr, author of the stopvisionfromfeeling.com website, for designing the element of the test that ensures the safety of the volunteers. It was his idea, long ago, of a test in which the volunteers do not find out what health information I would have seen of them by producing my version and then their version of papers that are only matched afterwards, and not letting the volunteers see my version of the papers at any time.

Thanks to Jesper Jerkert, member of the Swedish skeptical organization Vetenskap och Folkbildning VoF for the design of a screen with a partial cutout of an area of the back, to be built into a door opening (not detailed here, but will be implemented).

If it weren't for the active participation and ideas of skeptics, I could not get very far alone in test design.