In conclusion, for me, simpler is better.  I know of no cardiologist
who would have the slightest interest in spending the time necessary
for this test, and I believe there are too many unnecessary
ambiguities, BUT if you (your community of claimants of said
abilities) have the ability and connections to put together such a
test, do trial runs and are successful, I would be happy to
participate in a "final" run as an independent observer.  I would be
glad to consult with you as to what I would consider as appropriate
controls and blinding.  I am hoping that you can understand my
objections/remarks as originating in a desire for testing that
eliminates as many shortcomings and weaknesses as possible.  There is
no point, for me, in doing testing that, like most of it in the past,
has methodological or protocol weaknesses that a priori diminish the
value of any purported finding.

Enjoy your day!
george pace

Message: 2
   Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:42 -0400 (EDT)
   From: seske001@mc.duke.edu
Subject: heart patient study

I like Melinda's study a great deal for a number of reasons... It is was a
quick, beautiful, collation of scientific method and alternative medicine
research. IT IS NOT AN EASY FIELD TO RESEARCH. Look at George's comments.

But it is not a quick study.
One would need an internal review board to assure it was patient friendly.
It looks like to me a 9 month or a year project to do right while people
maintain the FUN component while working and going to school.
Emily's study was a good fourth grade science fair project, but the science
sucks. I'm not sure she is a good mentor or hero. But she is heroic in the sense
of the child in the emporers new clothes phenonmenon.
Cardiologists can have a natural interest in mind/body medicine. Energy medicine
is a big step though.
Maybe grant support can be obtained to pay $100 per patient.

Feeling the hef off the body is one component of TT. What healer's and patients
are concerned with is "does it work?"

What would be statistically significant hit rate in Melinda's study?
14/20 for the pilot portions?

I will be signing off the list early next week. Will be traveling on a spiritual
pilgrimage to India for a month. Also will be speaking to buddhist monks, and
nuns involved with distant prayer research with cardiology patients at the
durham VA..
The results have been interesting in the study. It is not about TT. But it is a
quality pilot study. I will post an abstact to the list if that would be ok? The
AHA has accepted it for presentation at a research meeting. Sorry I can't share
the actual data yet. But I can explain a couple trends.
Jon

Message: 3
   Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:44:44 -0400
   From: Melinda Connor <mconnor@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Testing
 

George,  et al,
I think I have about 20 people around the country who would be willing to be
tested.   What about a control group?  Average folks not healers? Or should it
be a mix.   Also, I still have not gotten any TT folks willing to
volunteer...... come on guys, give it a try.  At worst we have a fun and
interesting time.

Also Patricia McCarthy has volunteered to hold the space of the test with you
George.  She is an MA in Special Ed and an MBA.  Works for HP.  Call me and I
will hook the two of you up.  You two can work out how to do the order lists in
a way that is blind to you both.

Let's Play, Lets Play.........

Melinda

Lotus Notes Address: Melinda Connor/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
VM Address : IBMUSM50mconnor
Internet Address : mconnor@us.ibm.com
Phone : (408)463-2444  Pager : (408)322-1948

_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
   Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
   From: george pace <surfgeorge@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Testing

Greetings Melinda,

I've been trying to get some feedback on your testing proposal from
some other people before I responded, but since they have not gotten
back to me yet, I will simply state my initial impressions.

1. As for it being a test to distinguish between a mannequin arm and a
living human arm via energy field detection/discrimination, that was
simply my "spur of the moment" suggestion as to something that would
clearly be a "hit" or a "miss," something that would be unambiguously
measurable, and that all parties could agree which was which.  I would
prefer that whoever is to be tested state clearly, exactly, and
specifically what they are able to do, and then create mutually agreed
upon controlled conditions in which those claims could be tested.  So
I would prefer that you, or whoever is going to be the test subject,
come up with exactly what type of discrimination will be tested, just
so we can avoid the possibility, that has happened in the past, of the
testee claiming after the fact that "I never said I could do something
like that, have never done it before, and it has no relationship to
what I actually do when healing/reading�etc."

2. As for the suggested test conditions and protocols themselves,
doing this over the phone and thus requiring both audio taping and
video taping, and synchronising that data for evaluation seems more
elaborate, and potentially problematic, than necessary.  It would also
require several more people to be involved if it were to be double
blinded, which I would prefer.  There would need to be one person on
the phone with you, announcing and recording your "calls" once you
were informed that a particular "set up" was in place in the "space."
That person would not know which test object was present, and would
only record your "calls".  There would need to be the holder of the
pre-arranged sequences, which could be determined by coin toss,
perhaps six (numbered one through six) randomly generated sets, and
then the two runs of twenty would be selected by tossing a die to
select which lists of twenty would be selected immediately prior to
each run.  That person could select whether the mannequin arm or human
being and arm were to be placed in the "space," and announce "ready"
to the person on the phone with you.  Having the person on the phone
with you, and the test area BOTH be videotaped seems a bit problematic.

3. When you write that you need to "warn" me that you are dyslexic and
have gotten results in which you "switched every single one" I believe
that we need to agree ahead of time that there will be no "data
mining."  You may be familiar with the history of paranormal claim
testing in which "esp" and "precognitive" test results showing no
phenomena (other than chance) have been "mined" by various
manipulations such as taking the opposite answer, shifting answers
forward or backward various numbers, etc. until some pattern showed up
that might look as if more hits happened.  Of course the particular
mining technique always changed from test to test even with the same
subject� sometimes they were guessing two ahead, sometimes three
behind, sometimes opposite, etc.  We need to rule out any such
manipulations and agree that the announced call by you for set 1, #4
IS the call for set 1, #4 and no other set or number, etc.  Which
brings me to...

4. When you state that you need "to practice" to "get the hang of" the
conditions, I'm not sure exactly how you would want to do this.  Just
place one and then the other in the "space" and let you "sense" it, or
some other more involved technique? I'm not sure it would be a good
idea to do that immediately prior to the test, though I suppose it
might not compromise things.

5. In sum, I'd prefer that the testee (you?) determine precisely what
you want to have tested, exactly how to test it, that you practice and
refine your ability and the test conditions to your own satisfaction,
and THEN do it under double blinded controlled conditions with
independent observers.  Since you reveal that you have in the past
gotten things wrong, when you believe you were really right ("the
opposite") I would like to avoid any such post facto assertions by
having you practice until you have your claimed ability fully
functional and testable to your satisfaction, then we can go to the
double blinding and video recording techniques to assure accuracy of
reported conditions, blinding, and results.  That's my preference.
And I'm only a few hours from San Jose, if, after however much
practice, it looks like you are able to do what you say, I'd gladly
come up there for a weekend to assist in conducting on site testing.
But I would like some assurance that you have successfully completed
prior testing under similar conditions before spending the time and
energy to participate.

6. I doubt that any strict tters would participate in such a test, as
it really is not in their official repertoire, though I have seen
claims by some tters of having like abilities ("remote sensing" and
"healing at a distance.")

7.  Having a control group might be useful, but the statistics are
pretty solid about randomness and probability when dealing with simple
numbers like we would have (x out of 20).

cordially,

George Pace