Since Bookity declined my offer to start a new thread, I have taken it upon myself to do it. The purpose is to show the actual steps Anita Ikonen (aka Alenara the Breatharian, VisionFromFeeling) has taken as a practicing woo. We won't dive into the steps she has taken against skeptics because of her woo beliefs and practices unless the thread drifts that way. I want to discuss actual woo activity rather than woo-related activity.

I'm operating under the assumption that Bookitty wants to know what Anita has done beyond sitting behind her computer and writing hundreds of thousands of words about her beliefs, something most people would consider harmless ramblings.

Let's start with her time as Alenara the Breatharian. She created a website describing in great detail how a person can survive on light. In most circles this is called death. People need food and water, or they die. Not only did she create this website, but she toured Poland giving lectures as Alenara the Breatharian. I, for one, think it borders on criminal. I received an e-mail from someone researching Alenara because its significant other was harmed by this breatharian nonense.

She has obviously made enough "readings" in her life to believe all this stuff and claim "apparent accuracy" meaning she has "never" been wrong. We don't know how many people that involved, but obviously she solicited them in some manner. She claims they are only close friends and family, but she includes people she met the same day in the "close friends" category. She "confirmed" accuracy, so we know she told them what was going on. How many people this comprises I don't know, but I recall vaguely her claiming it was 50 to 100.

We know she conducted a "study" where she solicited strangers on the streets of Charlotte so she could do her "readings" with them. As I recall there were five readings that day.

On her Medical Perceptions page she has recorded at least seven different people for whom she has done readings. A few of them were skeptics.

She did the reading for Dr. Carlson, another skeptic.

She "treated" her boyfriend and the migraine sufferer.

I have had at least one of her classmates tell me she has done a reading on it.

She contacted a migraine sufferers Meetup group and despite the notice that said no practitioners should contact them, she did anyway, offering to "treat" their migraines with her Vibrational Algebra.

She was written to at least two paranormal groups asking to participate in or be studied by them.

She has written at least one M.D. about her abilities.

She has shared her beliefs with at least two professors, possibly more (I can't be bothered to research it).

She has written on her website a number of "cures" she has found in ordinary vegetables. In one case she recommended apricot stones for curing cancer. Only after I informed her that they can be poisonous did she amend her website.

She posted that black people have "different" chemistries than, well, I guess other people.

She told a story about advising people about ghosts in their home.

She told stories about detecting other ghosts and having other people confirm the history of the location.

At one point on her website she was offering to sketch babies in the womb for a fee. I would assume she has some experience in that regard.

At one point on her website you could contact her to request a "psychic demonstration" if you at least paid for her expenses.

Besided the IIG and FACT, she has contacted at least one other skeptics group local to her.

She contacted the owner of a mall to explain her abilities and request permission to perform her study there.

She did the same as above when she contacted the local park commission for permission to do the study in the park.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. To me Anita has gone far beyond the "typical" woo we run across on the JREF who prattles on about their alleged abilities before moving on after a month or two. Anybody else want to add some?

Bookitty, these are the "medical perceptions" that Anita previously listed on her website:

Medical perceptions made

On this page I record some of the specific medical perceptions I have. What I perceived, when it took place and under what conditions, what the apparent correlation was when I tried to check the perception against actual facts, and a brief discussion about it. I have medical perceptions daily but only list the ones where I've had the time to write them down. It is not possible for me to write down each and every case. I do not select which perceptions to list, I list every single one of them that were made when I had time to record and look into it, regardless of their outcome.

Score: 11 observations total since Nov 8 08
Verified correct and seemingly impossible to detect by ordinary means: 2
Verified correct partially seemingly impossible to detect by ordinary means and partially can not rule out subtle cues: 1
Verified correct but can not rule out subtle, subconscious cues: 4
Verified incorrect: 0
Unverified as neither correct or incorrect: 4

March 26 09: The readings made with two members of the local Skeptics group will be posted here shortly. Right after the reading I handed all four questionnaires (one each of the Skeptics, and two of mine relating to one person each) to Dr. Carlson who will provide me with photocopies later on. This way I was never left alone with the questionnaires and had no way of tampering with them. So the results of these particular readings will be more reliable than my previous experiences, even though I have been just as sincere at all times. Results will be posted here shortly.

Jan 22 09: At the 2nd meeting with the local skeptics group, one of the new members for this month volunteered to let me attempt medical perception with him. I had never met him before and only for a few hours of the meeting that day. This person was very eager to volunteer and he wrote down his health description on a piece of paper, folded it and handed it to another skeptic for keeping. I had us sit down at our own table and we were seated about two feet apart perhaps. I told him that all I do is look at him, and that there will be no speaking between us. Here are the notes that I took: I wrote that "cold air distracts", which I also observed at the survey which I had several weeks ago, however even though this was distractive I was fully able to make perceptions as before. I wrote that his "heart" is "nice and orange pink", which is my way of saying that I perceive the heart to be in perfect health. I wrote that the heart is "not red and inflamed". "Liver fine, slightly smaller" than average, "good chemistry" with which I mean no large traces of medical derivatives which would have indicated that a person is taking a large amount of medication whose derivatives are stored in the liver, no cirrhosis etc that could otherwise be wrong with the liver. I detected a very slight discomfort at the throat, but I clearly wrote down that it is very minor and it is not something I would describe as an "ailment". Besides I was fully convinced that what I was feeling was his adam's apple. I drew a picture of the exact size and location of this sensation, which correlates with the adam's apple so that's probably what it was. It was some bony structure in the front part of the throat. However this was not significant in any way. I write that his "elbows" are "fine", "intestines fine (tissue and color etc.)". I then ask him to turn around so that I am facing his left side, since I feel that him looking at me is distracting. This is progress and I will definitely ask that volunteers from now on are seen from behind and that is also beneficial for test purposes since it eliminates yet another form of cold reading, ie. eyecontact. I continue to look at him and I still find nothing wrong. I write, "brain fine", "left shoulder tired", but this again was very insignificant and not something I would ever mention, since I claim to be also able to detect the extent of ailments I knew that this was tremendously minor. (I was really trying to find something wrong with him!) I write that the location is a bit noisy and that that was bad, too many people in the background, but I was able to block that out as well and it did not disturb my perceptions once I was concentrating on the perceptions again. "Lungs fine, slightly smaller than average, not due to lack of exercise". I wrote that I was nervous, which I was at first. Of course I am nervous of being wrong, why wouldn't I be, even though I would embrace it equally well as results of this investigation, but you can't help feel that way sometimes. I write that he is wearing a thick jacket the thickness of which at first was obstructing for me, although I was able to work through that and it ended up having no reduction on my ability that I know of. I wrote that a volunteer wearing a jacket is probably alright in all cases, this still needs to be verified with more experiences during the study. At one point during my viewing I told him, since he was obviously curious about how I do this, to note that I do not look at the body part that I am reading but often look to the side or look away or close my eyes to form the images.
After checking again and again, logically expecting there to be a list of interesting and significant ailments, since, after all, he was so eager to volunteer then surely he would "have something" for me to find, and after all he had made a list! Yet I found nothing wrong, so yet again the results of my perceptions contradicted with what my expectations and beliefs were. Based on his age and external appearance you would expect there to be something, but according to my perceptions the man was in excellent health, beyond what I consider to be average of all ages based on my experience. So, I had to conclude that I found nothing wrong with him. Turns out, there was nothing wrong with him. He reports being in excellent health. This experience again shows that my perceptions do not come about from logical thinking but are based on information that is processed in an entirely different way. He did write one information on his paper, which was a severed diaphragm from an accident. Knowing what was there to find, I still couldn't find it and I said so. I then asked if there is any lasting sensation of discomfort, and he said no, he has healed perfectly. So there was nothing for me to feel, and probably not much for me to see either.
From this particular experience, I made no perceptions of health problems. So there is nothing to count points for or against from. The fact that I missed a piece of information that was considered to be there, does not count against me since I have never claimed to detect everything that is supposed to be there. Only when I do make a perception is that open for analysis of accuracy and only then can inaccuracy be revealed and counted for. Of course, if I am accurate it does not provide evidence toward any kind of ability since cold reading might have been available and also might have been responsible with many types of perceptions. What we are mostly interested in at this point, is revealing inaccuracy. Since we have, yet again, failed to dismiss the possibility of an ESP ability, I proceed toward a study and a test.
I might be able to provide documentation and verification regarding this particular "anecdote" from this volunteer, who at least considers himself a skeptic and also came across as an objective critical thinker, and part of this was also witnessed by the other members of the skeptics group.

Dec 6 08: I used this ability on a new person who I had just met that day and I had received absolutely no information about his health condition. From what I perceived he was in very healthy condition. I detected two highly unusual anatomical traits; the threshold from the stomach to the pyloric valve was set much higher than in most people, and I also saw that the kidneys were significantly larger than most people. He is half Native American and perhaps there are racial differences. I saw that the wall of his heart was very thick to a point of being a serious health concern. The wall of the heart had absorbed a particular type of oil which' source is his food, almost like a sponge designed to soak it in. If this were to continue the heart wall would become enlarged to the point of compressing the large artery through which blood enters the heart and leading to a heart failure. I told him about this and said that so far when it has been possible to check my information against facts I have not been incorrect yet and that therefore I need to share this information with him. I was concerned of expressing such a significant health problem and feel responsible to acknowledge that if I am incorrect it is serious having given false alarming information.
I then detected a very specific small region on his abdomen within which the small intestine has a tendency of becoming rigid. Normally intestines are soft and pliable and adjust to the movement we make so that we can not feel them. When this small and specific part of his intestine becomes rigid it temporarily loses all of its flexibility, at which it can be felt like a compression and is not painful though. I defined the very small and specific space in which this occurs: being immediately below the sternum, occupying a rectangle of one and a half centimeters vertical width and four centimeters horizontal width - very specific.
That was all I sensed, I sensed absolutely no pain or discomfort of any other kind, no problems with muscle, bone, cartilage, or other internal organs. I told him that the heart absorbs a specific type of oil, most likely peanut oil and if not peanut oil it is sesame oil, which has been used to deep-fry food for a long time.
He told me that he has on occasion felt pain in the heart but neither of us can check for accuracy whether the heart wall is in fact enlarged due to peanut oil. He told me that he does enjoy frying food in peanut oil. (Which is unusual and hard to guess because I would assume that most people use olive oil or other vegetable oils.) He told me that the description of the sensation in the abdomen is 100% accurate. I was shocked, so I had to ask many times and in many different ways to see if this could actually be so! He said that in the past he has felt that discomfort and that it is not pain. He said that it is right below the breastbone (sternum) and defined the exact same region as I had. Exactly the same region. Exact same width length and position. He told me that it was amazing that I could detect a problem that was not occurring currently, and I had told him that it was not occurring currently. I wanted to find out that he wasn't just filling in with my description and wanting to agree. I threw out random other issues that I did not detect, and told him to be honest. I said "You have shoulder pain." He thought about it, and said that no he doesn't. I said, "You have pain right here in your abdomen." and I pointed on his lower left side. He said no. I think this is one of my best examples of how my observations are very specific in detail. I asked him how accurate I had been in general. Had I missed any significant ailments that I should have included? He said that there was only one thing, that sometimes his right arm falls asleep if he throws something. I checked that but still didn't feel it even though I knew it was supposed to be there, which again indicates that I am not building my observations based on my expectations. He said that he is very healthy and has no pain and that it was correct that I had not detected any other health problems. I think this was an interesting experience with this person even though there were not many health conditions, I think I performed very well.
I will choose to rate the heart problem as "unverified as neither correct or incorrect" since I detected thick heart wall and that was not confirmed one way or the other. Him having had pain in the heart was not what I detected. The intestine locking up is definitely "verified correct without any known subtle clues". Having said that there are no other ailments was true, if you do not consider the arm falling asleep, but these non-observations will not be counted for in any way in my above summary. The threshold to the pyloric valve, and the size of the kidneys, I claim to be unusual to an extent that would be established through medical imaging, so I count each of these as a total of two cases of "unverified as neither correct or incorrect".

Dec 3 08: I decided to confide in a person I recently met that I have an ability of perceiving and describing health information and asked if I could try this with him. He agreed. I detected and described a back problem in great detail. This was one of those ailments that I could not confirm by looking at the person with eyesight, it was not detectable from the outside and as always I felt absolutely confident in what I perceive with the ability. I described which vertebrae are involved and that the vertebrae above and below these are not involved at all. I described that these vertebrae are pushed backwards and would normally lie embedded deeper in the body, that these vertebrae do not slide freely from each other and are locked. That there is no pain, only a slight discomfort from the middle protruding part of the vertebrae that are pushing against muscle, and I described how he pushes his shoulders back to try to alleviate the discomfort although I can't recall having seen him do this. I was surprised to detect this since nothing about him or his posture could suggest this. Yet especially when what I detect is as specific and seemingly unlikely as this I am eager to find out whether I was accurate. I detected a significantly low stroke volume (the amount of blood the heart pushes out at a contraction) of up to 80% of the blood remaining in the ventricles. This could not be determined. I described many of the things that he does not have, such as problems with the teeth, head, digestive system etc. I had already been told that he has had bypass heart surgery but I perceived that I was able to see scar tissue, resembling cartilage tissue, embedded in the chest at where the incision was. I detected that he has had a vasectomy. I did not know prior what part is actually operated on in the procedure but was able to detect this. I also saw that it was not the case of a simple incision but that a section had been removed, something I could have not guessed or known prior to actually seeing it in this way. I asked him to rate my accuracy on a scale of 1 to 10 based on how correct my descriptions had been and also taking into account whether I had missed any significant health information and he gave me a high 9. My description of the back problem was 100% accurate. I already knew about the heart surgery but am glad that I at least was under the impression of perceiving the scar tissue at such a significant site of operation. Listing ailments that he did not have were all correct most or all of which are not detectable by ordinary means. Detecting vasectomy is verified correct without subtle cues, and describing two major aspects of the procedure will be verified correct but can not rule out subtle cues since I can not know that I have not learned this general information in the past. I have yet again failed to dismiss the possibility of having an extrasensory ability of detecting health information. I will count these as a total of 5 observations.
Back problem: Verified correct and partially can not be detected by ordinary means and partially can not rule out subconscious cues.
Low stroke volume: Can not check for accuracy.
The list of ailments not present such as problems with teeth or digestive system: Verified correct and can not be detected by ordinary means.
Scar tissue from heart bypass surgery: Verified correct but can not rule out subconscious cues (such as that I knew he had had this procedure).
Vasectomy done and two specific details of procedure: Verified correct can not rule out subconscious cues (prior knowledge of procedure).

Nov 9 08: When I see a friend of mine, I look at him and tell him that the back of his head feels very unlike him. I describe it as a feeling of strain in the muscles at the back of the head on either side of the spine, but only on the upper half of those muscles and not the lower half. As well as strain in the center region on part of the uppermost spine just below the cranium. I tell him that it feels as if he's been holding his head up too much. Well this friend had just got back from an airshow. I did know that he had been at an airshow. He did not show any signs of neck problems unless those signs had been subtle and subconsciously detected by me. I did perceive myself feeling the actual feeling that he felt in his neck. I did not expect neck pain and at the very beginning when I described to him what I felt I was hesitant since it was unlike him to feel this way. He confirmed that he feels the way that I had described. I asked him if he had been looking up a lot, he said that he had. I asked him to be fully honest and to tell me if my description matched how he was actually feeling, he said it was a perfect match. I asked him if he thinks he is showing any external signs of it or if how he feels should be detectable from the outside, he didn't think so. I asked him if it seems to him that I made an observation with a special ability, he said that it did. I am compelled by the fact that I was perceiving his sensation of the neck, yet I am not allowed to rule out reading of subtle or subconscious cues even though I did not detect any visually that I am aware of, plus the fact that my logic was hesitant of my observation until it was confirmed.

Nov 8 08: When we arrive at a restaurant, I sense that a friend of mine really needs to go to the bathroom. There are no external cues that I can think of. Could there have been subtle ones? I sensed the feeling exactly as he would have. I was nervous to mention it in case I'd be wrong and embarrass myself, but I just said "I'll just wait here." and I was right. The significant thing is that I really experienced feeling what he feels, that I am not aware of any external cues that may have triggered my perception, that I was correct, and that it was not the case of guessing. This is not evidence of anything since we can not rule out subtle and subconscious signals, yet I am describing one of the things that I perceived with this ability.

So, I'm guessing that Bookitty's statements in "The Beat Goes On" thread...

Simultaneously, I am looking for things she has done that have or can cause actual harm.   These things should be addressed if an opportunity presents itself.

 My own personal experience shows that discussing the issue and not the person leads to a more satisfying conversation.   Perhaps at some point we will be able to discuss the dangers of making a non-medical diagnosis.
 

...weren't actually true.

Posted By desertgal on 03 Apr 2010 07:31 AM

So, I'm guessing that Bookitty's statements in "The Beat Goes On" thread...

Simultaneously, I am looking for things she has done that have or can cause actual harm.   These things should be addressed if an opportunity presents itself.

 My own personal experience shows that discussing the issue and not the person leads to a more satisfying conversation.   Perhaps at some point we will be able to discuss the dangers of making a non-medical diagnosis.
 

...weren't actually true.

Or maybe the embarrassment of being so completely wrong makes it difficult for her to muster a reply.

Posted By GeeMack on 03 Apr 2010 10:13 AM

Or maybe the embarrassment of being so completely wrong makes it difficult for her to muster a reply.

Except on the JREF forum, where Bookitty has made several unfounded statements and accusations without backing them up. When she is corrected, she simply ignores the correction.

And, yet, StopVfF gets labeled as "not playing fair" by Bookitty and other VfF supporters.

Go figure.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Apr 2010 05:42 PM


And you wonder why people are frustrated with you? Really? Look, if all you have to offer is, "I don't see the problem" to a group of people who expect evidence or at least sound arguments explaining why you disagree with their assessment, expect to be viewed accordingly.

See, and again you completely miss the point in order to have something to argue.  I will spell it out.

There is no possibility of discussion.  I already know what you will say.  You are completely predictable. 

So why should I bother?

Posted By bookitty on 06 Apr 2010 05:03 PM


I asked what Anita had actually done. UY provided a list. I don't see anything on that list that is particularly bad. To be perfectly clear, that is my opinion.

This is site has a purpose - to expose Anita and offer an outlet for the animosity towards her. It is my opinion that the latter has become most prevalent and that StopVFF is no longer a "skeptical inquiry."

Bookitty has done a 180 degree turn in her opinion of Anita as evidenced by saying she does not see anything particularly bad on UY's list.

She believes this site is no longer a skeptical inquiry but has become an outlet for animosity toward Anita.

Understood Bookitty.

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Apr 2010 07:41 PM
To be clear, Farencue, even after I started this site I worked with her on a private level. As The Meanies will attest, I learned many private things that I did not share publicly and still have not. I still made many attempts to get through to her long after the site was started.

This is absolutely true. There is quite a lot fhat Bookitty and others are not aware of...UY gave a tremendous amount of help to Anita for a very long time, and there is also a great deal that UY has remained mum about out of consideration for Anita.

Sigh. I wish that Bookitty and the others who so readily dismiss UY as vindictive and cruel would take the time to consider the whole picture. (I don't mean you, Farencue.)

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Apr 2010 07:41 PM
To be clear, Farencue, even after I started this site I worked with her on a private level. As The Meanies will attest, I learned many private things that I did not share publicly and still have not. I still made many attempts to get through to her long after the site was started.

I'm a Meanie and I can verify that UY tried to help Anita even after this site was up and running.  There are things that have never been made public out of respect for Anita.  Frankly, UY and others showed much more patience than I possess. I've simply, for the most part, quit posting in VfF threads.

 

I note with great interest that bookitty didn't acknowledge UncaYimmy's comment that a suspicious person (say, for example, me) might wonder about whether or not she sent clues to Anita before or during the now-infamous IIG kidneyfest. I've been wondering that for weeks.

UY's comment, even though he's quick to say he's speculating and has absolutely no evidence, could be taken as an insult, or at least as an aspersion. If someone said something like that about me, I'd quickly and heatedly deny it. So, bookitty...? Or maybe you're a different kind of person from me (I'm actually sure you are) and feel you should turn the other cheek and ignore speculation that you're dishonest? Okay.

As I remember, the fact that a friend of bookitty's participated in kidneyfest did not come out until after the test. At the time, most posters gave bookitty a break-- just an oversight, no big deal, Anita failed the test anyway, so it doesn't matter. Hmmm.

I agree with UY pretty much across the board about Anita, except I feel he treats her too gently and has been far too patient.  Look at what his tolerance has led to-- threats of lawsuits and police action, harassment, and comments about his family that I interpret as threats to their safety.

Even if Anita were perfectly harmless, and she's very far from that, how can anyone defend, or wish to befriend, someone who has acted toward UY as Anita has? I imagine bookitty either is, or believes, she's exempt from this behavior, but if you aren't bookitty, I hope you have the sense to be forewarned.

Anita is a bad person who has done bad things, does bad things, and, if not stopped, will do bad things. Anyone who says the evidence isn't there to support my statement is willfully blind

Posted By Christa on 07 Apr 2010 04:29 AM

Anita is a bad person who has done bad things, does bad things, and, if not stopped, will do bad things. Anyone who says the evidence isn't there to support my statement is willfully blind

I would have said you could colour me eyes-wide open, Christa, but apparently we are the deluded ones.

It seems that little Miss Sweetness and Light is either a dedicated sceptic, fighting the forces of evil (us) that would prevent her from continuing her scientific investigations,  or is in fact the real deal, possessed of powers far beyond the ken of we mere mortals.

There's no way that she can be running a tawdry scam for her own nefarious ends.  There's no way she can be completely whacko.

The mighty JREF, world's greatest sceptical organisation, has said so, and we who dare to question this are clearly running our own evil and horrid agendas at this poor innocent girl's expense.  

Who knew?

 

Posted By UncaYimmy on 06 Apr 2010 07:41 PM

To be clear, Farencue, even after I started this site I worked with her on a private level. As The Meanies will attest, I learned many private things that I did not share publicly and still have not. I still made many attempts to get through to her long after the site was started.

I will most certainly attest to this.

One day Jim, the truth will be known about ALL that has transpired, and a huge. collective hanging of heads in shame will occur.  If I didn't think it would take Anita doing something genuinely harmful to precipitate this event, I'd be quite looking forward to it.

As it is, regrettable though future events may turn out to be, I personally will still gain considerable satisfaction from being able to say "He told you so!"