So...she did a preliminary study today to decide whether to conduct a second study, and the results will not be conclusive one way or the other, but subject to her interpretation-and the most we will likely see on her website are just more unsupported, unverified, rearranged anecdotes-but we can rest easy that her claim was "not falsified", and, it goes without saying, that the possibility of "ESP was not disproven".

It's like watching a hamster on a wheel. 

Well as she has revealed, the latest test was to sense which of a group of people needed the toilet and which had recently emptied their bladder.

We seem to have come a huge distance from "I can see medical information at a molecular level".

It is interesting how Anita ignores every single suggestion about how her other claims would be much easier to test and yieled unambiguous results.
Yet she clings tightly to "I am only interested in testing my medical perceptions".

Finally it strikes her that the 'needing the toilet' claim is actually even more open to interpretation than the medical claim.
So she ditches the medical claim and goes for this new claim (while pretending that this isn't a new claim).

So I predict the results will be something like this

Subject - Recently went to the toilet
Anita's 'Perception' - Subject recently went to the toilet
Anita's 'Analysis - A hit! A hit!

Subject - Recently went to the toilet
Anita's 'Perception' - Subject needs to go to the toliet
Anita's 'Analysis - I am sure they went to the toilet recently. I sense a small bladder so they probably have a high frequency of toilet visits. Inconclusive. I am learning new things all the time. This is a positive result. I would be interested in knowing how soon after this test the subject actually went again.
OR
I knew it! I sensed they had recently been to the toilet but didn't write that down because I listened to my logic not my instinct. I was worried about being wrong. I know it doesn't count but I was right anyway.

Subject - Needs to go to the toliet
Anita's 'Perception' - Subject needs to go to the toliet
Anita's 'Analysis - A hit! A hit!

Subject - Needs to go to the toliet
Anita's 'Perception' - Subject recently went to the toliet
Anita's 'Analysis - I am sure they went to the toilet recently. I sense a small bladder so they probably have a high frequency of toilet visits. Inconclusive. I am learning new things all the time. This is a positive result. I would be interested in knowing how soon before this test the subject last went.
OR
I knew it! I sensed they had recently been to the toilet but didn't write that down because I listened to my logic not my instinct. I was worried about being wrong. I know it doesn't count but I was right anyway.

Also there will be a lot of waffle about 'seeing' half full bladders, strange marking systems and debate over relative strength of sensations.
I also predict a couple of  'off topic' other perceptions thrown in for good measure. It can't hurt ("it wasn't the main study but I thought it worth mentioning that I sensed...") as it won't be marked as a miss and if it turns out to be a hit, she'll take it.

Finally if she errs on the side of "They need to go to the toilet" every time she will have more hits than misses.
Just talking abut the subject makes you want to go.

Can't wait to see the protocol of this one.

It's too bad we can't throw a colostomy patient into the mix, and really toy with her mind.

Posted By desertgal on 07 Apr 2009 01:53 PM
It's too bad we can't throw a colostomy patient into the mix,

You don't hear that said enough these days.

I wonder if the IIG is aware that their "paranormal claimant" is now actively arguing that her ability is the result of synesthesia?

Edited by UncaYimmy - The HTML was messing up the subsequent posts.

All i have to say is   http://www.berkeleyhunt.co.uk/

Well, that didn't seem to work, didit? And I still have this avatar sitting around waiting for me to plonk it here somewhere.
But I can't believe that FACT let her do all that. They have to know about controls for sensory leakage, feedback from cold reading, warm reading, the whole schtick.