How do believers in present-day miraculous healings respond to skeptics requesting thorough scientific medical documentation accessible worldwide?

In my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87081/50422 , a user posted this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/87082/50422) . And in response, about some claimed healings, a skeptical third user posted the following comments (emphasis mine): > Are there any witnesses (other than the one claiming the event) to the raising of one from the dead ? What of the 'seven doctors' who proclaimed the death (an unusually large number of doctors to pronounce a decease). Are they available to testify to the 'resurrection' on the morning afterwards ? **Surely this notable event is catalogued in The Lancet ?** **Do you have the reference ?** > **Any sign from heaven, that is to testify to the glory of the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ, will have providences surrounding it** **(as we see in the gospels and in Acts)** **such that witnesses will be present and proper documentation will ensue in order that the event may be, properly and reliably, testified to across the whole world**. **Any event lacking such providences immediately becomes invalid. These momentous events are not done in a corner**. Similar ideas were shared by another user in [response](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/87470/50422) to my related question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87434/50422 : > ### What criteria do Cessationists use to inspect a modern miracle claim and decide whether it is believable or not? > > Cessationists would use the same criteria that a general critical > thinking Christian uses: a supernatural event that is not explainable > by natural or scientific laws. (see *Wikipedia* article on > [Miracle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle)) . Although different > than atheists who may *a priori* eliminate even the *possibility* of a > miracle (i.e., they exclude any kind of supernatural causes), > Cessationists (who because they are Christians *allow* the possibility > of God performing miracles) ask for roughly the same rigor of evidence > an atheist would ask. > > For example, if the claim is resurrection from the dead, Cessationists > would ask for the following medical evidence: > 1. Doctor's report on the cause of death > 2. A period of time when the patient is confirmed to be dead > 3. A period of time when the patient is confirmed to be alive > > To be more precise, let's use Aquinas's scheme of 3 degrees of > miracles described in *Summa Contra Gentiles* (quoted > [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle#Catholic_Church)) . I > believe Cessationists / general Christian would allow the first two > degrees as miracles, and possibly the third one as well (case by > case): > > 1. **Highest rank: nature can never do**. Examples: [an amputated leg was restored](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda) , sea > open up and offer a way through which people may pass. > > 2. **Nature can do, but not in this order**. Examples: a patient who has been [brain-dead longer than 10 > minutes](https://www.verywellhealth.com/brain-activity-after-cardiac-arrest-1298429) > came back to life without permanent brain damage, a blind person from > birth can see (and his vision stays for the rest of his life). > Jesus's resurrection would most likely be in this category. > > 3. **God does what is usually done by the working of nature** (thus beats statistical probability). Examples: a person may be cured by > divine power from a fever which could be cured naturally, rain > suddenly poured down when all weather scientists say it's extremely > unlikely, etc. About the sudden reversal of Joy's bone cancer in Nov > 1957 C.S. Lewis [wrote in a > letter](https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=mythlore) : > "the cancerous bones have rebuilt themselves in a way quite unusual > and Joy can now walk" and regarded it as a miracle, even though the > cancer came back about 2 years later. > > In all 3 degrees above, there is an **empirical evidence**, which can > enlist an instrument to aid regular human perception, such as a > microscope, genetic analysis, multi-spectral video to allow infrared / > radio signal, etc. Obviously, the first two degrees are easier to > prove, and help exclude the usual objections: lack of proper > verification, psychosomatic, temporary healing, etc. ____ **Question**: How do believers in concrete present-day cases of miraculous healings respond to objections by skeptics requesting thorough and indisputable scientific medical verification, that anyone on any part of the world should be able to have access to, based on the assumption that God will always ensure providentially that such level of evidence will be available to validate each and every one of the miracles He ordains, so that belief in such reports will be epistemologically justified? ___ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86098/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86934/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82583/50422