Medium scores for readings: Beischel excerpt #11

The scores for target readings reflect the accuracy of the information; the comparison of target reading scores to decoy reading scores reflects its specificity. If the mediums are just making up the content or guessing, we would expect to see very low accuracy scores. If the information is overly general and could apply to any sitter, we would expect to see high accuracy scores with no differences between the target and decoy scores.

What we found was that, in general, the blinded sitters in this study scored readings— performed by blinded mediums—for the sitters’ own discarnates (targets) as more accurate than readings for other sitters’ discarnates (decoys).

The statistically significant scoring data collected under blinded conditions reflect the accuracy and specificity of the information the mediums reported and are in line with the original hypothesis. Stated more plainly: The mediums in this experiment reported accurate information about deceased people that they had no way of knowing.

The data collected during this study demonstrate the phenomenon we call anomalous information reception (AIR), that is, the reporting by mediums of accurate and specific information about discarnates without prior knowledge of the discarnates or sitters, in the absence of any sensory feedback, and without using deceptive or fraudulent means. “There’s no normal way the mediums could acquire the information they report so its reception can only be described as anomalous” (that is, not normal; inconsistent with what is standard or expected). This phenomenon is not possible within the currently prevailing scientific or medical paradigms. And we use the term “reception” rather than “retrieval” to reflect the lived experiences of the mediums who report receiving or perceiving rather than retrieving the information.

Anomalous or not, these are not fluke findings. A meta-analysis of 14 studies of mediums’ accuracy published since 2001 was recently conducted. The method of meta- analysis (MA) incorporates an effective array of tools for combining data across studies and addressing controversial research findings. This particular MA also included publication bias tests to examine biases resulting from questionable research practices. The authors confirmed the reliability of the results from the studies analyzed and concluded that “some mediums are able to acquire information about deceased persons through some unknown or anomalous means”. So, the current status of the field is that at least some mediums are capable of AIR.

 

Dr. Julie Beischel is the Director of Research at the Windbridge Research Center. She received her PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and uses her interdisciplinary training to apply the scientific method to controversial topics. For over 15 years, Dr. Beischel has worked full-time studying mediums: individuals who report experiencing communication with the deceased and who regularly, reliably, and on-demand report the specific resulting messages to the living. References cited in her paper are deleted from these excerpts but a full paper with references is available at the Bigelow website (https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php).