The Girl with "X-ray" eyes?

[Immortal4life]

Here is a video about a 17 year old russian girl who claims to be able to see the energy, vitality, and health level inside the human body. She was tested by the most skeptical organization in the United States. Even they admitted that if under their test conditions, if she could correctly identify 5 out of 7 diseases in people she had never met before just by looking, even they would admit she had a real ability. The odds of getting 5 out of 7 correct illnesses by chance, are 1 in 250. The odds of getting 4 out of 7 by chance, are 1 in 50.

The Girl with X-ray_Eyes

 

Articles

The Girl With X-Ray Eyes (Comments)

Ananova - X-ray vision girl amazes scientist

Edited March 13, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Ya Mu]

Indeed.

This is one o the talents that can manifest. Usually not unless cultivation is added but occasionally just a natural thing that happens.

 

At the hospital in China where I trained there were two "x-ray vision" girls. The work was kind of like at western hospital doing x-rays before any treatment. The patient came in, was scanned by the girls, then the qigong doctor projected qi as directed by the girls until they were satisfied there was no longer any sick qi in the body, then on to the next patient. These girls came into their talent after one year of practicing Stillness-Movement neigong.

[Immortal4life]

At the end of the day I guess it comes down to whether you will accept 5 out of 7, or 4 out of 7....well, if you accept either one.

 

It's interesting though, whenever anyone steps up to confront adversaries.

[Trunk]

At the end of the day I guess it comes down to whether you will accept 5 out of 7, or 4 out of 7....well, if you accept either one.

 

I saw bias on the part of the scientists.

1. 1 test of each format is a *very* small sampling.

2. I think they mentioned the odds 4 out of 7 is 1 in 50... and that's not significant? That's the "totally nothing to it" / "absolutely something" break-point??? Again, seems they should've just done more tests, geez, at least three (per format).

 

What about saying that there's cancer in the upper third of someone's left lung? That's a pretty specific diagnosis.

 

What about the drawing she made of a disease that she didn't know the name of, which corresponded to what is seen in a microscope?

 

Somehow all that kind of stuff just vanished from consideration after a single 4/7 test?

 

And then the scientists comments:

- they assumed that a metal plate would be easy for her to detect... huh?!? That's quite an assumption, that they know how her ability works - if in fact she does have an ability at all.

- also they explained everything away as psychological at the end. Well, that didn't sound like a proven hypothesis to me -- not even a hypothesis proposed for testing. It was purely an assumption taken as fact. Rather unscientific.

[Ya Mu]

I saw bias on the part of the scientists.

1. 1 test of each format is a *very* small sampling.

2. I think they mentioned the odds 4 out of 7 is 1 in 50... and that's not significant? That's the "totally nothing to it" / "absolutely something" break-point??? Again, seems they should've just done more tests, geez, at least three (per format).

 

What about saying that there's cancer in the upper third of someone's left lung? That's a pretty specific diagnosis.

 

What about the drawing she made of a disease that she didn't know the name of, which corresponded to what is seen in a microscope?

 

Somehow all that kind of stuff just vanished from consideration after a single 4/7 test?

 

And then the scientists comments:

- they assumed that a metal plate would be easy for her to detect... huh?!? That's quite an assumption, that they know how her ability works - if in fact she does have an ability at all.

- also they explained everything away as psychological at the end. Well, that didn't sound like a proven hypothesis to me -- not even a hypothesis proposed for testing. It was purely an assumption taken as fact. Rather unscientific.

Scientific verification is always biased. For one, anecdotal history, no matter how much or how long, is immediately thrown out with no bearing on the conclusion.

 

Of what I describe above I don't have science to verify - oh wait I do - science as in comparison science. When I was with the two "x-ray vision girls" they "saw" me and told me of the 17 places in my jaws where my bones didn't grow back properly. There is no way they had access to my medical records which indeed showed I broke my jaws in 17 places. In all they were right about nearly 10 different things that I had medical science to say the same exact thing. These girls were not 4 out of 7 but 100% on everything. I have seen similar with students here in USA.

 

When is everyone going to wake up and realize that these things are simply a natural part of ourselves, natural talents that usually (but not always) require cultivation for a person to come into their own with. What I see with Stillness-Movement neigong is that these natural talents usually manifest within somewhere between 1 to 3 years of practice.