I'd require some strong evidence before buying into the results, but I haven't seen the work.

I did like Dave Jackson's AGU abstract:

S23C-0175

The 1985 Parkfield Prediction: What Went Wrong?
Jackson, D D, Kagan, Y Y

The 1985 prediction of a magnitude 6 quake at Parkfield was too vague in several important respects to meet the accepted definition of an earthquake prediction. Even so, it failed because no significant event occurred in the 95 percent time window (1985-1993) anywhere near Parkfield. The magnitude 6 earthquake near Parkfield in 2004 failed to satisfy the prediction not just because it was late; it also differed in character from the event predicted. Furthermore the 2004 event was expectable according to a simple null hypothesis assuming a Gutenberg-Richter magnitude distribution with Poissonian recurrence. The 2004 event is commonly interpreted as confirming the characteristic earthquake hypothesis. Not so. The characteristic model as applied at Parkfield rests largely on selected data not appropriate for hypothesis testing. The most comprehensive expression of the original characteristic earthquake model failed rigorous tests. Even had the recent Parkfield event occurred earlier, it would not outweigh the other data. Modified versions of the hypothesis, allowing for data errors and inter-segment interaction, have not failed but they could not be falsified within our lifetimes in any experiment yet underway. Nevertheless the characteristic model is widely used in official hazard analysis; a more rigorous approach would be appropriate.