This has gone on long enough. I've experienced my claim for thirteen years now, and been investigating it for nearly three. The
IIG test did not provide a sufficiently conclusive ending for me. It being a two-stage process, of first identifying the person in which I sense an imbalance due to a missing kidney, and to then determine the side in which a kidney is missing, the results I had (
also available here) are comparable to a 3.8% chance of guessing. Well below the 5% mark traditionally used in science to signify something that is entitled to further consideration.
Another interesting factor is, that had I discarded the portions of my answers during the test, that I felt beforehand and before the results were established, would be wrong, and only submitted the answers that I was tremendously confident in before the results were established,
I would have acchieved 100% accuracy. This is not post-rationalization, ad hoc, or statements made after the fact. I clearly expressed what was either my utter disbelief or tremendous confidence in each of the answers, during the test and before the results were in. Further allowing for more testing.
Certainly, the IIG test
does not support this claim being headed toward verification, and I do expect to falsify this claim. It just hasn't happened yet to my satisfaction as the primary,
and hopefully not biased or blind from the lack of distance from self, skeptical investigator of this claim.
All that is needed, is for me to have a medical perception that does represent what the claim tries to do, and to find that this perception is incorrect. Simple as that. Make a statement based on the attempted performance of this claim. And be wrong. Why are we not there yet?
I have not made an incorrect statement of a health perception that I would state represents the claim. This naturally excludes for instance my inaccuracy in trial 3 of the IIG test, in which I was exhausted and had to guess on the side in which the kidney was missing, and was wrong. Fortunately I wrote down this excuse clearly and many times in my draft papers at the test, and handing them in with my answer sheet, making this a perfectly valid excuse to make. We are testing the accuracy of the perceptions when they do occur, not the endurance of the claimant in producing perceptions trial after trial to the point of exhaustion. Weighing in to my own decision to continue with investigation, are also my own personal anecdotal experiences with interesting cases of accuracy with the claim. Being anecdotal and undocumented, they can not be held as formal evidence, but they do compel me to continue.
So I am now arranging another test. Parts of this test will only be revealed after the test has taken place and once its results have been established and documented.