Four Tests for a Remedy

Translator's note. In most systems of this kind, the evidence arrives after the fact — the client confirms it, the consultant interprets it, and nothing has been tested. This piece does something rarer: it states, in advance, four things that will happen within a fixed window if the adjustment has worked, and treats them as the standard the method should be judged by. One need not accept that the standard is met to see that it is a standard — specific, dated, and capable of failing. The last section, on what “scientific” should mean here, is the most quotable paragraph in the archive.

Any claim to change a person's fate has to answer one question: how would you know if you were wrong?

The answer offered here is unusually concrete. After an adjustment, four things are said to occur, and they occur within a fixed window: three days at the earliest, fifteen at the latest. Not eventually. Not within the year. Inside two weeks.

The four tests

1. The person themselves. Within that window, some event in the person's life occurs of the kind the consultant named beforehand — favourable or unfavourable, in the specific category predicted.

2. Their family. Within the same window, something occurs to a close relative, again of the category named in advance.

3. The body. A specific part of the body begins to react. The author's example: a woman who has never had a spot on her forehead develops spots there, one after another. Or a forehead that has never been struck gets struck repeatedly — she bumps it on a doorframe, and then a child she is holding knocks into it. The point is the location. An arbitrary symptom proves nothing; a symptom in the place the chart indicated, does.

4. The hands and the face. Lines appear, or lines disappear. Two kinds are distinguished:

• Colour lines — changes in complexion and tone along a region of the palm or face.
• Physical lines — creases and wrinkles, the kind you can see and feel.

The part that makes it a test

Anyone can explain a result after it happens. What makes this falsifiable is the requirement that the prediction be made before the adjustment, and in detail.

The consultant tells the client in advance: after this, a line will appear in this part of your palm, or a line will fade from this part of your face. Within two weeks, this will happen to you. Within two weeks, this will happen to your mother.

Then it either happens or it does not. Nothing in between, and no room to reinterpret afterwards.

The author's claim is consequently very strong — he calls it one hundred per cent — and it is worth being clear about what that claim rests on. It does not rest on the adjustment always producing a good outcome. It rests on the adjustment always producing a detectable one: some event, somewhere in the four channels, that was named in advance. A method that only produces results when they are flattering is not being tested. This one is being asked to produce a signature, and the signature can be unflattering.

The worked illustration

The case is small and specific, which is what makes it useful.

A woman was advised to wear a fish — the 子 element — for a fertility problem. (The case itself belongs elsewhere in this archive; what matters here is the verification.)

子 clashes 午. In her chart, 午 carries the seal star (印), and the seal star governs documents, papers — and clothing, since clothing is what covers the body. If 子 moves against 午, the seal star is displaced. Something in the category of documents or clothing must leave her.

So the prediction, made in advance: within two weeks, she would lose or misplace a document, or give clothing away.

What happened: she bought new clothes and gave them away. Not as a plan — the consultant had soiled his own shirt during the session, and she went out and bought him a replacement. The thought arrived in the moment. She had never done such a thing before.

The author's reading of this is worth noting, because it shows how the system handles an event that a sceptic would call ordinary. A client buying a shirt for a consultant is not common. It happened, it was in the predicted category, it was inside the window, and it required the seal star to move. The event was small, but the channel was the right channel.

On the word “scientific”

The closing argument is the one to keep, whether or not one accepts the four tests.

The author's claim is not that the method is validated by a laboratory. It is that the method has the shape of a science — a prediction made before the fact, a fixed window, a stated channel, and a result that can be checked by anyone present.

Science is not a single success. Science is a result that survives being tested over and over.

This is the right criterion, and it applies to the method itself as much as to its rivals. On that standard, the burden is not discharged by one good case, and the archive's own habit of recording cases is not the same as proving the rule. But it is the correct thing to ask for, and the piece is unusual in this literature for asking it.

What the standard costs

One consequence follows, and it is the reason this piece sits where it does in the layer.

If the claim is that a named event will occur in a named place within a fixed window, then the consultant must be able to derive the event in advance. That requires the feng shui theory and the chart theory both, working together. It is not available to someone who has learned a set of correspondences and applies them by association. Which is the author's answer to the obvious question — if this works, why doesn't everyone do it — and also the reason he insists that the verification is not a marketing device but a filter: whoever cannot make the prediction in advance cannot make the claim.