Dr. Diane Powell

What I've thought about as a way to address that is to obtain the data and then de-identify the data before it gets handed over to somebody to look at who's a scientist. In other words, protect the names and locations and whatnot of the children, but allow the data to be seen. That's great.

What I've thought about as a way to address that is to obtain the data and then de-identify the data before it gets handed over to somebody to look at who's a scientist. In other words, protect the names and locations and whatnot of the children, but allow the data to be seen. That's great.

Well, they will stand up to those methods because I'm going to do them in a manner that is highly scientific. I mean, you know, one of the things that you

Well, they will stand up to those methods because I'm going to do them in a manner that is highly scientific. I mean, you know, one of the things that you

brought out in the podcast, and it's definitely my experience, is that people who have trained as parapsychologists, and I'm a full-blooded parapsychologist, I'm on the board of the Parapsychological Association for the third time, we're people that are considered true scientists in our approach to this. And the parapsychologists are far more rigorous in terms of what they would ask for as proof

brought out in the podcast, and it's definitely my experience, is that people who have trained as parapsychologists, and I'm a full-blooded parapsychologist, I'm on the board of the Parapsychological Association for the third time, we're people that are considered true scientists in our approach to this. And the parapsychologists are far more rigorous in terms of what they would ask for as proof

than a lot of other classically trained scientists. And the reason for that is that we know what kind of evidence already exists out there, and we know what the criticism has been around it. And so we want to try to be proactive in terms of trying to, if we can avoid that criticism, then setting up the experiment so that we don't have that as a side issue. Great.

than a lot of other classically trained scientists. And the reason for that is that we know what kind of evidence already exists out there, and we know what the criticism has been around it. And so we want to try to be proactive in terms of trying to, if we can avoid that criticism, then setting up the experiment so that we don't have that as a side issue. Great.

Yeah, well, see, I think what's happened is that the term double-blind has taken on this sort of gravitas. Like, you know, the double-blind is, you know, the standard of science. And where that comes from is where you have clinical trials that are double-blind. And what does that mean? It means that it's usually... for example, pharmaceutical trials.

Yeah, well, see, I think what's happened is that the term double-blind has taken on this sort of gravitas. Like, you know, the double-blind is, you know, the standard of science. And where that comes from is where you have clinical trials that are double-blind. And what does that mean? It means that it's usually... for example, pharmaceutical trials.

So what it means is that neither I as the doctor nor the patient know whether or not they're getting an active pill or a placebo until after you've done the experiments and then you crack the code and see, oh, you know, compare this person's symptoms with this other person's symptoms and you figure out who got what.

So what it means is that neither I as the doctor nor the patient know whether or not they're getting an active pill or a placebo until after you've done the experiments and then you crack the code and see, oh, you know, compare this person's symptoms with this other person's symptoms and you figure out who got what.

Well, the thing is, is that when it comes to the kind of research that we're doing, there really isn't, you can't really blind anybody to anything. And so I think that people are throwing the term double blind out there without really being someone who really thinks it through enough to realize what you're exactly asking of people here. And so these trials will be controlled.

Well, the thing is, is that when it comes to the kind of research that we're doing, there really isn't, you can't really blind anybody to anything. And so I think that people are throwing the term double blind out there without really being someone who really thinks it through enough to realize what you're exactly asking of people here. And so these trials will be controlled.

You know, we're using randomization as a type of control, trying to have the greatest amount of separation, ideally in separate rooms. That's a control. And so you need the appropriate control. controls for the type of research that you're trying to engage in. And I can guarantee that we're going to be doing the experiments with that aim.

You know, we're using randomization as a type of control, trying to have the greatest amount of separation, ideally in separate rooms. That's a control. And so you need the appropriate control. controls for the type of research that you're trying to engage in. And I can guarantee that we're going to be doing the experiments with that aim.

Well, if you think about our experience is really a created experience, a simulation. And our physical body is like our avatar. We don't even realize that the reality that we're experiencing isn't the full reality.

Well, if you think about our experience is really a created experience, a simulation. And our physical body is like our avatar. We don't even realize that the reality that we're experiencing isn't the full reality.

Whereas these autistic children, they don't feel that they are their body. So it's like they're not as immersed in the simulation. And if you're not as immersed in the simulation, then you have access to the greater reality.

Whereas these autistic children, they don't feel that they are their body. So it's like they're not as immersed in the simulation. And if you're not as immersed in the simulation, then you have access to the greater reality.