ESP -The Scientific Evidence
2. Intuitive perception arises out of the general relationship that we bear to all things in creation.. in the universe.
We have wide-ranging relationships with the many and varied things of creation, both animate and inanimate. But we have personal relationships with those important others in our lives, be they humans or pets, even plants.
Our insightful perception, as you will discover is strong, while the intuitive perception varies from person to person and in most people is very weak. Why? This is the price we pay for living in some level of comfort zone at any one time. The comfort zone is really a zone of fuzz that is brought about by seriously affects our attention level. So we avoid annoying thoughts at times but the price we pay is to lose our natural abilities and intuition being one of them. As a result we get very mixed results in the scientific experiments, with some people displaying more ability than others on intuitive perception, but even so the evidence is still plain enough to see.
Animals do not use comfort zones so are able to retain their intuitive abilities. In animals intuition is called instinct but this is just naming the ability differently so as to distance it from humans and hence from ESP. The reality is that animals display ESP and very strongly indeed, both intuitive and insightful perception and I will discuss those case too in the course of this book. I will also discuss some of the experiments on intuition that have been done in the laboratory so that you may see the results for yourself.
Insightful perception, unlike intuitive perception is very strong in all people owing to their relatedness. Relationship is an entanglement at the mental or non-physical level so there is the ability of two related people to share ideas and be highly perceptive of ideas that they present or uphold in mind. And the closer the relationship the stronger the insightful perception form of ESP. In a primary and long term relationship such as a sibling, spouse, parent and even long term best friend and long-term work mate, the ESP is at a premium. However an entanglement occurs even where there is a trivial form of relatedness, though here the level of insight is much, much lower. So the degree of entanglement is of extreme importance.
When we do the experiments properly and that is without denying relationship, the effects are obvious and indeed startling. You will be flabbergasted at the ESP ability you have and how much, at present you may be influenced by those around you. A person in close relationship with you can present ideas that you will take to be your own thinking, thanks to the medical misinformation and the doubt that skeptics help seed in people’s minds. The responses you give to presented ideas that you mistake as your own thinking are of course other ideas constitute a response to those others. What you are actually doing is responding to the presenter of the ideas so the ideas with which you respond , can be perceived by the other person. the presenter of the original ideas. Unknowingly you have entered into a dialogue with them, though all the while thinking it is all just your own thinking. This can be very dangerous as you will see.
There is propaganda out there claiming only “women’s intuition”. This is all about insightful perception and men are just as insightful as women. The men who have spread this propaganda are the very ones that use foul means to manipulate and control their wives and others around them. It is only throwing dust in other people’s eyes. They themselves claim that as men they don’t have any insightful perception or ESP but they sure do have it and privately they make a lot of use of it. As you will see later one person in a crowd can be uniquely and seriously, adversely affected under specific conditions that are relevant only to that one person. It can make others around that person feel that they are less insightful, which is not the case as you will soon see. They may see the person suffering even as mad. People who are not related to the presenter of a harmful idea are most often not aware of the presentation made because there is relational distance which is double blinding. However I have noticed that offenders do not engage iin foul game play when there are others around who are related to the person they want to victimize. This may be because those people may become perceptive and if they discuss their thoughts they would “smell a rat”.
When scientists talk about blinding they mean that something is being concealed. In a single blinded drug trial only the nature of the pills is concealed so that the patients do not know if they are taking a real drug or a dummy drug, which are usually pills of flour or sugar.
In a single blinded drug trial the research doctor administers the pills directly to his or her patients. As a result of the relationship that exists between the doctor and the patients insightful perception is not only possible but the reality; And as many as 30% or more of patient (some reports claim 50-70%) become aware of those thoughts of the doctor as are relevant to the patient. This situation is so problematic that the research doctors relationally distance the patients from themselves. It is done in an effort to eliminate this form of extrasensory perception or ESP. The relational distancing that is put into place is called double blinding.
In a drug trial there is a desire to eliminate ESP to stop the patients knowing what the doctor knows. It certainly eliminates ESP.. but it doesn’t help their experiments one iota because people who are desperate to get well will choose to believe that their issue is a real drug so they have made the problem worse not better but that’s another matter. In a single blinded drug trial it is a problem when a patient knows they have a drug they may believe it will make them well and thus a placebo effect is created. The placebo effect helps the patient get well so the doctors cannot properly determine the efficacy of the drugs. Thus they have used double blinding to get rid of the ESP but that makes things worse because now many will want to believe they have a drug and hence self-administer a placebo!
The placebo evidence.
In a double-blinded drug trial the blank is misleadingly called a placebo. The medical researchers know only too well that it is not a placebo because it is not given with any suggestion of the patient getting well if taken. If they gave the blank as a placebo they may find it to be as good as, if not better than, the drugs that they are testing and that does not help sell drugs. In a drug trial all doctors and patients are fully aware that the dummy drug which is referred to as a placebo is in fact a blank –“just sugar”.
A more glaring example of ESP is found in the placebo effect which is associated with the giving of placebos by doctors in a clinical situation to treat disease.
There is a third situation that shows up ESP as done by doctors. Some years ago they did the Great Prayer Experiment. They wanted to test the effects of prayer. It can be shown, when humane lay people repeat these experiments that not only is it an example of ESP but also of major sabotage as well. And it may or may not have been the research scientist in charge. Any number of other people would have been involved.
In the Great Prayer Experiment the patients were divided into two broad groups those that knew they were being prayed for and those that didn’t. Not knowing that someone is going to pray for you should get a nil result because without ESP there is no mental connection strong enough to yeild any result. Furthermore we can’t pray for someone else and get some positive result without that person’s permission first. Free will always stands in the way. They got either a nil result or a negative result, that is to say they either got no effect from the prayer or people got sicker. If they only got no result then not much could be said abot it, except perhaps that permission was not garnered first. However a negative result is a whole different kettle of fish. As I will show you soon, after we deal with the comfort zone, there is no way you can make the patient sicker than by foul game play!
The Great Prayer Experiment.
It is most important to take out all the dirty washing of atheist scientists out for public airing! In this case the way Prayer experiments have been conducted is nothing but an outrage. Prayer is supposedly “scientifically tested” for its healing effects and it appears, from the conclusions made, dishonesty was the order of the day. For the following two reasons!
1. Researchers claimed that for the experiments to be done “properly” it must comply with the “double blind standard”. NO EXPERIMENT MUST COMPLY WITH ANY SUCH STANDARDS WHATSOEVER! Experiments are freely devised and in a manner that allows the full exploration of whatever it is that we wish to observe. Standards only apply in the level of care taken and the comparisons used to test substances. Double blinding is a technique not a standard. To be scientific a control experiment is conducted, in which the object of observation is not included but everything else is kept the same, to verify that what is seen is real and not some spurious effect. True science is the unprejudiced seeking of knowledge. Double blinds here is not merely prejudice but sabotage.
2. The results that the scientists claimed, both the a nil and more particularly the negative result is cunningly fabricated and indeed indicates that there has to be evil people involved to do this sort of thing.
How are these results achieved?
To get a nil result even the placebo effect of prayer must be destroyed (which is the least case because prayer is much more than placebo). This of course is done by the use of double blinds. Double blinds are used to relationally distance the parties in a drug trial for the very reason that they want to disrupt the patient’s insightful perception, which comes with relationship. This is clearly seen in single blinded drug trials. The use of double blinds to destroy relationship in a prayer experiment is sabotage because insightfulness is necessary.
The loss of insightfulness is what the ‘double blind’ is all about. In a drug trial they want to render the patient ignorant of what they are given. In a prayer experiment this is totally inappropriate because here you do not want to have the patient ignorant of the prayer and the good will and beliefs for healing that it carries. In the giving of a prayer a “believer” (ie., truly good person, a humane person and also a theist) the patient will benefit and at the very least out of a placebo effect (even if the patient is an atheist) because they will gain the benefit of the believers confidence in healing.
In the concealing of the prayer, there is already a reduction in the prayer’s effectiveness, which is the first blind. AND of course the loss of consent, which needs to be given by the patient to the prayer giver.
However in creating relational distance, by the use of a second blind, the crucial factor of insightfulness is reduced to near zero, if not zero. Thus two crucial elements of prayer are removed. These elements are certainly not the whole of prayer but they are key ingredient. Thus double blinding renders the prayer and the prayer giving useless. And let me add here that the nil effect cannot be put down to the prayer-giver’s doubt because for that to affect the prayer giving there must of necessity be an existing relationship and not blinding; for the patient must have become insightful of the doubt in a prayer-giver.
The negative result.
For scientists to get a negative result for prayer, so that the patients get worse, a sinister scenario has got to be played out. Only a “prayer” that is really a nocebo can give a negative result.
A nocebo is a will to harm. And not anyone supposedly acting as a blind but who really know both sides will do to get a ‘negative result’. If these people were in no other way qualified then there ought to be some positive result as well. There was not. So the choice of a second blind, who is really related to both sides, is a deliberate choice and aimed to make the patient insightful of harm. The reason is as follows. Some of the people chosen as second blinds may be qualified to be gross materialists and people who are anti-religion and who additionally want to discredit prayer in favour of drugs. And these people must also be in positions of power over the patient to get a negative result. No amount of ill will is enough if there is no real avenue for that to be acted upon if they could betray the potential victim, the person that evil people call “the target”. Thus they are able not only to discredit prayer but to make it appear detrimental. These people may say the right words but the thoughts they entertain are not simply doubtful but harmful. However they must also have it in their power to potentially do harm, in order to get a negative result. The motive appears to try and promote materialism and atheism as being supported by science, and at the same time to discredit religion and cast prayer in the worst possible light. In fact if the truth be known science supports the existence of a non-physical or spiritual realm and they know that as they also know that a paradigm shift is just a matter of a short amount of time.
However there is also another sinister reason. Toxic individuals are well acquainted with the effects of relational entanglement (which I will explain in a coming blog) and the resulting insightfulness that ensures. Relational entanglement and insightfulness are publicly discredited through science, and deliberately exploited privately to gain power and influence over other people. It is the exact opposite to prayer. It is done by someone who is not only in relationship with “the target” but who, further to that relationship is either in a position of authority over that other person or through foul play obtains a position of authority. If blinding is used in all cases then no negative effect ought to be seen. Accepting a prayer for the sake of research does not contain any dangerous element or any dangerous situation to a patient. If anxiety is to be claimed as an explanation then to be scientific they need to inquire of the patient in a general sounding questionnaire (that is questioning without leading the patient) whether the patient felt any anxiety or had any negative ideas about accepting a prayer made on their behalf and for their benefit and only as a part of an experiment on prayer. Furthermore anxiety is a mix of emotions, fear and worry or anger and worry. These can be tested by monitoring the vital signs but they did not do that. None of this was reported as having been done so any conclusion made with respect to anxiety is only speculation.
So how can a negative result be obtained?
The creation of a nocebo effect, necessarily requires 3 basic elements:
1. The first element, that of relationship, in both a trusted relationship and relational entanglement can be achieved by a medical person who knows the patients and is trusted by the patient, have the patient sight the prayer-giver at a distance, as a stranger (I will explain this further in a coming blog on the basic foul play). In this way the double blinding is cunningly removed and the patients becomes sighted again.
2. The second element is the potential to do harm. This means that the medico and /or the prayer-giver (and the medico may be a prayer giver as well) or someone associated with them has the potential to harm the patient, which means they have access to some aspect of the patient’s person, treatment or personal life AND is in a close or trusted relationship with the patient.
3. Once the two elements above are in place the third element, the ill intent can be made to have a potent negative effect. So no actual harm needs be done. It is simply the patient’s reaction that becomes harmful to them.
The ill intent depends on what is upheld in the mind of the “prayer-giver” and not the wording of the prayer. Words convey meaning but they can be used deceitfully. It is the meaning level that matters because the selection of meaning either creates an issue of danger or the necessary moral support for the patient. Wording that sounds benign must create a nocebo effect. So even if the prayer is verbal and even said in the presence of the patient and made to sound good, it can still have a negative effect because as I said above all of the three elements are not visible, nor obvious of themselves. Let me give you some examples of the wording of a prayer that aids the ill intent (mentally made) as to make the prayer a nocebo.
The prayer words of:
“Let’s pray for you” does not say to what end. Are they praying for you to live or die?
“We’ll fix you” does not say in what way. When an evil person says "we'll fix them!" they mean kill or do harm to. So to ‘fix’ someone can just as easily mean to harm or kill them as to make them well again!
“May your progress go well” again does not give sufficient meaning. The words “your progress” may refer to the progress of your disease and not your progress towards health.
ALL OF WHAT IS SPOKEN therefore depends on the mental meaning attributed to those words by the prayer-giver as to whether progress means getting well or leading to death! There are many ways a prayer can be worded but it is the intent that is not visible and which is held in mind that gives the words meaning. Words are only the vehicles of meaning. And the mind is NOT in the brain. It is non-physical otherwise there would be no ESP. If the prayer-giver is relationally entangled with the patient and is the agent of someone who is in position of trust such as a toxic doctor or an atheistic scientist, who could potentially do harm, then the ill will gains not only meaning but also grounding, sufficient to really do harm. Then yes indeed a negative result… is guaranteed! The proof of the pudding, as it is said, is in the eating! If a patient gets worse as a result of a prayer given in an experiment, then no matter what is visible or not visible, right there in the negative result is the evidence. The only way to get a negative result is for the “prayer” to be the vehicle for administrating a nocebo. The nocebo can lead to the manifestation of disease in an unsuspecting person and with serious consequences. In dramatic colors it can be shown that cancer can be the order of the day owing to the person’s mental reactions and subsequent associated somatic reactions.
Even a well person can be made to display a fear reaction relevant to the danger that is posed, but danger that is not apparent. How much less is needed to produce a negative effect in a patient who is already suffering from some serious illness. Likewise the prayer-giver in the Great Prayer Experiment who gets a negative result is someone who has a real potential to do harm and who is in addition someone who carries a deliberate harmful intent and far from being a real double blind is instead relationally entangled with the patient! These are then the reasons why I say that while a nil result is the only outcome owing to double blinding, a negative result requires deceit and foul play, and it can be shown when experiments are repeated in the light of this knowledge. But ironically enough this experiment even with its negative result is clear evidence of ESP, the very condition they want to deny!