AkashicNET · Selected public-source notebook · 21 September 2026
IONS research
IONS researchStatistics with their sources. Possibilities with their limits.
A collection of figures and research leads gathered for AkashicPSI, with source access and denominators kept visible. This is not a census of all IONS research or an institutional impact report.
SOURCE UPDATE · 13 OCTOBER 2026
Focused Intention: Reports, Predictions & Replication
IONS has reported attention-related optical anomalies. Its 2025 primary abstract says the three preregistered hypotheses were unsupported across all data, while reporting an outward-versus-inward attention group difference and an exploratory trend. These are research leads, not established control of external quantum events.
2025 primary abstract ↗ · Exploratory variance reanalysis ↗
Independent checks raised statistical and replication concerns. IONS disputed parts of a replication critique; the critics replied. Tremblay’s independent reanalysis also required correction, with its main conclusions upheld after review. This is a disputed evidence base, not an uncontested demonstration or refutation of every intention hypothesis.
IONS reply ↗ · Critics’ response ↗ · Correction notice ↗
Compare intention research with anesthetic isotope effects and quantum consciousness proposals →
CORRECTION · 22 OCTOBER 2026
Telephone Study: Counts Reconciled, Review Open
Current completer accuracy is 48.1% pre-selected and 32.5% post-selected. Dr Helané Wahbeh confirmed Table 3 and a completion-status labelling error in Figshare v1. The first-six-trials restriction was already applied; all-status totals are unchanged. The completer randomization test requires correction. No corrected p-value is available.
Read the exact counts, provenance, pending questions and history →
The magazine PDFs retain their historical figures and must be read with this correction. The clarification does not establish or refute telepathy; independent scientific review remains pending.
The research notebook
| Research lead | Statistic or report | Source status | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Telephone study participants ↗ | 177 completed at least one trial; 105 completed all 12 trials. | Published abstract checked 21 September 2026. | Participants and trials are different denominators. |
| Telephone accuracy: corrected descriptive counts ↗ | Pre-selected: 101/210 completer responses (48.1%). Post-selected: 205/630 responses (32.5%). All-status totals unchanged. | 22 October 2026: author-confirmed Table 3; conditional two-reader v1 recount. | Original completer randomization test requires correction. No corrected p-value or significance conclusion supplied. Independent review pending. |
| Telephone associations: historical reporting ↗ | Communication frequency: p = .03. Emotional closeness: p = .06. | Exploratory analyses in the published abstract; not reanalysed or revalidated by the 22 October correction. | Association is not a demonstrated causal mechanism; emotional closeness did not meet .05. |
| Prospective channeling design ↗ | 3 channelers, 10 purported groups; 30 sessions in the presentation, with a 28-question protocol. | Publication summary and presentation-level reporting. | 30 sessions are not 30 independent people. Companion analyses are not independent replications. |
| Prospective semantic similarity ↗ | 0.65–0.79 across channelers for the same purported group; 0.75–0.88 within a channeler across groups after residualization. | Published abstract-level reporting. | Different comparisons and processing. Neither range is a factual-accuracy rate or proof of source identity. |
| Retrospective archive comparison ↗ | Reported semantic similarity: 0.66–0.88 on selected questions. | Carried forward from the linked magazine source review. | UFODex is a mixed ufological archive, not collectively verified military evidence. Cultural overlap remains an alternative. |
| External verification ↗ | Independently checkable details were reported as consistently declined. | IONS explanatory article. | This leaves external verification unmet; it does not establish fabrication. |
| Bonded-pairs Zoom task ↗ | 100 pairs and an above-chance claim in the supplied episode notes. | Episode-reported; primary methods not matched here. | Effect size, blinding and leakage controls remain unverified. Separate from the telephone study. |
| Broad prevalence claim ↗ | Approximately 8 in 10 in the supplied episode summary. | Exact survey and denominator remain unmatched. | Not a general-population demonstration of channeling ability. |
| Energy medicine / Reiki ↗ | Reported well-being changes and experiences of guides; no pooled effect estimate assigned here. | Exact pilot trials remain to be matched. | No established clinical efficacy, mechanism or independent replication inferred. |
Missing primary-source matches stay visible. Similarity, statistical significance, reported experience and clinical benefit are not interchangeable.
Collaboration proposal · No partnership agreed
A catalyst for inquiry, not a cure
AkashicNET could help make public research easier to find, compare and discuss. A useful collaboration would join clear provenance, reproducible methods and compassionate engagement with experiencers.
- Accessible research atlas: trace claims to publications, methods, samples and open questions. Benefit: less time searching for context.
- A small replication and interpretation pilot: select a few publicly documented claims and compare assessments. Benefit: identify where disagreement comes from.
- Researcher–experiencer dialogue: respectful listening with clear evidence categories and consent. Benefit: preserve dignity without requiring agreement about causes.
- Art-led public learning: visual explainers and reflective reading experiences. Benefit: broaden participation without turning metaphor into proof.
A global paradigm shift?
That can be an aspiration. It is not a promised outcome or an established consequence of these studies. The first useful milestone is a bounded public pilot that improves understanding, welcomes contrary evidence and can be independently reviewed.
This proposal is not a treatment or a promise of healing. No collaboration with IONS, TSC or named researchers has been agreed. BQ001 and other open questions remain unresolved.
Continue the inquiry
AkashicPSI Part 2 · 49-slide IONS presentation review · IONS publications · TSC2026 journal
Independent, AI-assisted AkashicNET editorial work. No institutional endorsement implied.