Natasha Demkina, a young girl living in Saransk, Russia, began to receive a lot of media attention around the middle of last month. It started with an article in Pravda, which hailed her as the 'Girl with X-ray vision'. You see, Natasha possesses the unusual ability to peer through human flesh and spot diseases and injuries that are lurking unseen within people's bodies. Or, at least, this is what Pravda claimed. It didn't take long for more newspapers to catch onto the story. The British Sun has been the most relentless about pursuing it. They've actually flown Natasha to London and are now parading her around like some kind of weird curiosity. Does Natasha really have x-ray eyes? Well, I doubt it. But I'm sure The Sun is going to milk this for all it's worth.
Comments
"In any case, the whole experiment was not designed to replicate what Natasha actually claims to do, which is diagnose people's current complaints."</font>
Natasha Demkina does not diagnose health problems. She looks at the person from top to bottom and describes the abnormalities she claims to "see." The people then try to match their medical diagnoses to Natasha's usually vague descriptions. Often, it requires highly liberal interpretations. For example, she told British TV doctor Christopher Steele that she "saw" something wrong with his gall bladder and that he had kidney stones and an enlarged liver and pancreas. The frightened nincompoop rushed off to have a battery of invasive and expensive medical tests done on himself -- which found that nothing Natasha told him was true. Yet he still calls Natasha's reading a success because the tests found some enlarged lymph nodes -- which are common at his age and not a health problem. Never mind that Natasha never said he had enlarged lymph nodes. Unfortunately, for many people, the will to believe is much stronger than the power of reason.
The CSMMH-CSICOP test was designed to replicate just what Natasha claims she does. She doesn't "diagnose." She describes what she claims to "see" inside of people. In a number of her more famous readings she described healthy organs or problems -- such as a broken wrist -- that had healed decades before. And that's what we had her try to do.
If there's any doubt about this, Natasha was asked if she could do what our test required, when she was still at home in Russia. She said yes.
Mr. "Guy Lyon Playfair" certainly doesn't live up to his name. His critique is sophistry based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Hyman has recently wrote again about this Natasha issue. His article, which appears in the Skeptical Inquirer Sep/Oct, is available at the link below:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949#continue
As usual, it is an esquisite blend of good things and bad things. I will soon be analyzing this one too.
Julio
_____________
If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.
People who lie about their credentials should not be trusted when they lie about others.
Part 1
FEEDBACKS ON SKOLNICK'S COMPLAINTS:
I took a careful look at the points raised by Mr. Skolnick. I want to inform this forum of my present view on them. To make this exposition clearer, all my present paragraphs will begin with $$$:
$$$ Complaint number 1 - Skolnick complained about my deceiving quotation marks when I reported what Wiseman said. According to Skolnick:
Another example is Siqueria's blatant rewriting of a statement made by Prof. Richard Wiseman. If you listen to the Discovery Channel program, you will hear Dr. Wiseman telling the Russian translator:
"So if she scored these two [conditions] wrong it wouldn't matter; if these five were correct [pointing to the remaining test cards], we would still consider that a success."
Which is obviously a truthful statement. To accuse Dr. Wiseman of deception in his "analysis," Siqueira rewrote the quote, trusting that his readers won't bother to check:
"'Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'.
$$$ Skolnick, consciously or unconsciounally, forgot to include my words RIGHT BEFORE my re-phrasing of Wiseman actual statement. He said that I trusted that my readers wouldn
$$$ Most important: this passage appears in my first critique of the CSICOP test (the one that I first posted in my site). This first critique was presented beforehand ONLY TO THE THREE CSICOP/CSMMH RESEARCHS. None of them bothered to correct this point before. Only three days after it, did I send this first critique to the three parties involved (that is, skeptics + Natasha people + Discovery Channel people). I will post below my emails concerning this.
$$$ First, on November 29, 2004, I sent this email below to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick, and to them only.
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:06:05 -0200
From: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
To: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
Cc: (Andrew Skolnick email, Richard Wiseman email, Ray Hyman email)
Subject: Critique of CSICOP/CSMMH Test with Natasha
Dear Sirs,
I am sending in an attached html file a critique that I will soon be posting on the internet about the tests that you made with Natasha Demkina.
This critique is being presented now (November 29, 2004) only to the designers of the test.
In three days from now (on December 2, 2004 - thursday), I will send this text to all interested parties (that is: Natasha's agent, Discovery channel producer, and also to some psi researchers: Brazilian psi researcher Wellington Zangari, and Professor Brian Josephson).
In ten days from then (on December 12, 2004), this critique will be published in my site "Criticando o Ceticismo" ("Criticizing Skepticism").
Thank you very much beforehand for your kind attention, and I hope to hear from you soon. Factual mistakes that you might point out will be corrected. Differing opinions, if you wish, will be posted at the end of this text.
Sincerely,
Julio Siqueira
________________
$$$ After waiting for their answer, I sent on December 2, 2004, the following email:
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:54:09 -0200
From: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
To: Julio Siqueira <[email protected]>
Cc: (Andrew Skolnick emai, Richard Wiseman email, Ray Hyman email, Brazilian ex-friend skeptic email, Monica Garnsey Discovery Channel Producer email, Natasha friend and translator email, Professor Brian Josephson email, Will Stewert Natasha agent email, Wellington Zangari Brazilian psi researcher email, Vitor Moura Brazilian friend and psi researcher email)
Subject: Critique of CSICOP experiment on Natasha
Dear Sirs and Mams,
I am sending in an attached html file a critique that I did of the experiment designed and conducted by CSICOP/CSMMH to test Natasha Demkina last May.
It will be posted on the internet in ten days from now (i.e. on December 12, 2004).
My main conclusion is that the experiment was invalid, and that the researchers are misreporting the events, both on internet official sites (CSMMH) and in email exchanges (Skolnick to me).
I had already sent this file to the three researchers involved (Skolnick, Wiseman, Hyman) three days ago. This version of the critique now has some minor changes, that appear in this color.
Any feedbacks from you regarding factual mistakes will be used for correcting the text. And differing oppinions will be added at the end of this text if any of you want to (i.e. any of the parties involved: CSICOP/CSMMH - Discovery Channel - Natasha or representatives).
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerly,
Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros.
Biologist.
M.A. Clinical Bacteriologist
_________________________________________
$$$ So I hope this clarifies all the issue.
$$$ Complaint number 2 - There is a passage in the Discover Channel documentary where Natasha is saying that if she was allowed to do the test her way, she would probably guess all the conditions correctly. It is right after the passage where Wiseman deceived her into accepting the two alien clinical conditions (missing appendix and resected esophagus - these conditions were beyond what was declared in the protocols and beyond the attested claims from Natasha). I talk about it in my second article, the one entitled
My comments begining with $$$
Julio, I think your time -- and certainly ours -- would be better spent if you first correct all the false and misleading statements you've made.
$$$ I am working on it. But first I must really agree that there is something either misleading or false. I hope my analysis in the previous four-part message will be of help in that.
You can start by removing from all your self-published writings the claim that you are a "biologist," "microbiologist," "clinical microbiologist," etc. You've never worked a single day in any of these professions and you don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher. If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.
$$$ My intention is not to inflate my curriculum (and I am proud of being a teacher of English, and I am proud of my
<font color="red">"And as for you, you stop saying that I lie when I claimed it until YOU find any piece of law that discredits me on that."</font>
Nice dodge. There is no law against lying about your profession (accept on an application for a government job). I didn't accuse you of breaking any law. I accused you of being a phony and a liar.
You've never worked a single day as a biologist or in any scientific profession. You don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher. If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.
A barber cuts hair. A brick layer lays bricks. A carpenter builds with wood. A biologist works as a biological scientist. But you wipe the noses of children while trying to teach them the meaning of English words. It's about time you learned their meaning too and stop using the English language in false and misleading ways in order to build yourself up and tear others down.
<font color="red">"THE 'RAPE' OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD Debunking skeptics ambushed an innocent legally under-aged gifted psychic Natasha Demkina and 'raped' the objectivity of scientific method to attain their negative results. The experimenters blatantly violated the rules of scientific method and abused their position. They willfully bastardized scientific method to bring about negative results consistent with their entrenched negativity. A permanent MONUMENT OF SHAME will be built for these heinous debunkers as a permanent LEGACY of their entrenched negativism."</font>
And he's also added several ill-informed rants written by other "critics."
The hilariousness of his attacks moved me to see if I could be as funny. So I created a spoof "Victor Dammit" web site. Close to a year ago, the retired attorney threatened me with legal action (and suggested that his friends in New Joisey might pay me a visit to tie my legs in a knot) if I didn't immediately take down my satirical web site. I'm still waiting for his law suit and for the horse head in my bed. 😉 And the Victor Dammit site is still getting close to 100 visitors a day.
You said:
Skolnick said:
"The hilariousness of his attacks moved me to see if I could be as funny. So I created a spoof 'Victor Dammit' web site."
I congratulated Andrew when he created this site, and indeed I highly recommend it. As a matter of fact, it is the only work of CSMMH that is totally devoid of serious flaws 😊
Best Regards,
Julio
____________
Hi Everybody,
All right. Being in this forum has been a positive experience for me. And despite disagreeing on Skolnick in many issues, I list below the changes that I have so far considered necessary either in my website or in the way I present myself, etc.
1- I will stop referring to myself as a
5- Also, in the link below:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/embarrassing_answers.htm
I will change the following items:
What the translator actually said was: "If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.". It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing. It was something that Natasha said before the test!
I will indicate the exact words from the translator, credit Skolnick for them, and indicate that despite that Natasha was referring to the future.
6- Also in this article:
From: "even if she got those two conditions wrong, she would still get five and pass".
To: "even if she got those two conditions wrong, she would still get five and pass". (this is my free rephrasing of Wiseman
A preview of my article. Feedbacks are highly welcome:
In the link below, Hyman tries to back up their sloppy test on Natasha once more. Did he succeed this time? Let
See this link for it: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/conditions.html
In no way are they saying in the protocols that they would or would not go further. Hyman is unnecessarily and strangely changing the meaning of things here.
I am surprised that anyone would still believe that this girl has X-ray vision in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence her supporters are able to produce.
I am also very surprised that askolnick hasn't given up in the face of such overwhelming closed-mindedness of "X-ray Girl's" supporters.
Since you have been away for sometime, just to bring you quickly up to date:
We are not talking actually about Natasha anymore, who, as you properly pointed out, may be only an illusory phenomenon (that is, illusory in her alleged x-ray like vision - YES, I agree with you in which there is lack of evidence, altogether, for her "powers"). We are now concentrating on another hoax that popped out of this case. The CSICOP hoax.
So far, we have been unable to either prove or disprove Natasha (we nevertheless have strong indications of serious problems in Natasha's alleged "abilities"; thanks to CSICOP). But we have indeed been able to prove here that the hoax of CSICOP and CSMMH really exists and is a menace to true scientific and rational thinking.
I am sure you will agree with me on that one too.
Best Regards,
Julio
___________
Thanks for your encouragement. You say:
Agreed to have a battle!
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel!
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.</center>
Guess that makes me the "montrous crow" 😊
Good postings, Archangel. We must also remember that Skolnick has not answered (and never will, as it seems...) the questions that I asked him, those ones where I pointed out the very many mistakes in their test and in their conducts.
Well, I am not going to be in this forum for much too long. I will present in my next posting the remainder of my critique of Hyman's latest "article" about their test on Natasha. Then I will post a message highlighting the issues that Skolnick and friends did not answer.
As a matter of fact, Natasha's supporters have been much too nice on CSICOP and appendixes... There is one violation of protocol from the part of the researchers that is particularly devastating: the subjects were to show proof of their clinical conditions, and they simply never did!
Now, if CSICOPers really think their work is a "scientific investigation", then I suggest that they send their article to a good scientific journal (either Nature, Science, or even old Jama itself) and precisely state in the "Material and Methods" that:
"We had agreed that the subjects would show proof of their alleged clinical conditions at the moment of the test; unfortunately, due to our sloppiness, they did not, and they never will. We, to be honest, do not really know for sure if they indeed had their alleged clinical conditions. As a matter of fact, while we recruited those guys and ladies, we only asked about the target condition, and we even failed to ask if they had any of the other conditions that would be looked for by Natasha. As a consequence, it is possible (even though not likely, we hope) that all the subjects have all the conditions, except of course for the seemingly healthy athletic afro-american lad, who, nonetheless, might have several additional ailments, including bullet woulds, piercings and tatoos all over the unseen parts of his body. Our colleague Skolnick was willing (even happy) to dig deeper into this issue particularly, but as he got closer to the lad's pelvis he remembered that old movie, "Hair" it seems, at the moment the army medical white officers were inspecting the black recruit, and poor Skolnick just fled in horror of, how can we put it, "getting stuck in the evidence"... 😊 😊 😊
By guys,
Julio
_______________
I have already posted the first part of this critique. Now comes the last part (in five pieces). It refers to the article by Hyman on the Skeptical Inquirer, Sep-Oct 2005, where he tries once more to save this swampy test of theirs on Natasha Demkina. The link to Hyman's article is the one below:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949#continue
My critique on the next postings...
Here Hyman seems to be presenting a statistical analysis that indicates that their criterion of five hits would be appropriate for the claim that
Even though I will stick to my decision of calling myself from now on "Julio Siqueira, M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology", I would like to present to this forum some piece of information to explain further why I don't think I was so "terribly wrong" as Skolnick seems to believe.
At the link below (Biologists from Canada), I found the terms that I will present below:
http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/BNews02Feb.htm
Terms used:
professional biologist
non-practicing biologist
working biologist
Also one interesting line in this link from biologists in Canada (the link above):
"Consider that there is currently no requirement to work as a biologist in order to maintain one
Siqueira suffers from the same disordered thinking that many promoters of the paranormal share. They believe that deception, which serves a "higher truth," is not deception. By passing himself off as a scientist rather than as a grade school English teacher, he thinks he will further the "truth" as he sees it.
Why does he insist on practicing this deception? Because his arguments are almost entirely based on arguing from authority -- and he's the authority. Arguing as a grade school English teacher is hardly as persuasive as arguing as a "microbiologist." With this self-appointed title, he feels he can argue with even the highest authorities in science. One of the most ridiculous example is where he tried to correct the conclusion of one of the world's leading authorities on what sarcoidsoses look like -- even though the only thing Siqueira knows about sarcoidosis is how to spell it. The distinguished scientist didn't bother to answer the kook's email.
<font color="red">"At the link below (Biologists from Canada), I found the terms that I will present below: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/BNews02Feb.htm" </font>
Like many pseudoscientists, Siqueira is good at finding references to pass off as supportive of his arguments, because he thinks no one is going to bother checking the reference. So, what does the Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia's web site actually say is the meaning of "biologist"? See for yourselves:
http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/APB Constitution and Bylaws revised 2005.pdf
<font color="blue">
"<u>Biologist</u>" means any person whose <u>principle occupation</u> is concerned with Biology;"</font>
What chutzpah this guy has. The definition provided by the organization Sequiera cites shows that he is NOT a biologist. Obviously, he didn't think anyone would check.
Siqueira is an elementary school English teacher, who goes around deceiving people about his profession. Unfortunately, his falsehoods don't end there. His self-appointed mission is to attack skeptics and he is willing to mislead and lie to do so.
http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/APB Constitution and Bylaws revised 2005.pdf
(it seems the three of us are completely alone and lonely here...)
First, thank you, Skolnick, for sending the link to that document from the Biologists of Canada. Yes, I agree that according to that I cannot qualify as a biologist. I think I will send an email to them inquiring further about that, and about what they think of all this issue...
Anyway, as I had said in my email prior to your last postings... I have already changed my procedure, and I am writing "Julio Siqueira, M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology" (also adding "non-practicing biologist").
You said:
"The only credential he's ever earned (if we can even believe that) is an academic one -- he has a non-Ph.D. degree in clinical bacteriology."
I have other credentials. But they happen to be none of your business. As to the "only credential" (one credential!), it is actually two. No way to put you back on a straight line, huh?
The changes that I said I would be making in my pages in my site about this issue are already online. The links are:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/criticizingskepticism.htm
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/embarrassing_answers.htm
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/doubting-hyman-et-al.htm
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/doubting-hyman-once-more.htm
Best Regards,
Julio Siqueira
M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology (non-practicing biologist)
___________
Oh God, I thought that invitation would not come...!!! Please, send the plane ticket.
Julio 😊
I think, and I have always thought, that Mr. Yale Rosen had not lent his credentials for your manipulating with it the way you please. So, the same way that I sent him an email then, I am sending another one now (I have sent it already). I reproduce it below:
To: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Subject: Andrew Skolnick's Use of Your Feedbacks...
Dear Mr. Yale Rosen,
Sometime ago I sent you an email regarding an inquiry made to you by the "Comission of Scientific Medicine and Mental Health" (CSMMH) about the russian girl Natasha Demkina, who they have nicknamed "the girl with X-Ray eyes".
You did not answer.
Despite that, CSMMH, via Andrew Skolnick, is now using your "non-answer" as a way to discredit the very question that I adressed you. So again I direct the same question to you (I reproduce below the email that I sent before) and let you know the kind of thing that is being said by CSMMH's members regarding that, despite the fact that I was very polite in my request to you (and also very precise in my technical doubts). Skolnick's words: "Julio Siqueira feels he can argue with even the highest authorities in science. One of the most ridiculous example is where he tried to correct the conclusion of one of the world's leading authorities on what sarcoidsoses look like -- even though the only thing Siqueira knows about sarcoidosis is how to spell it. The distinguished scientist didn't bother to answer the kook's email.". Link for this quote:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/483/P400/
My previous email to you:
Dear Mr. Yale Rosen,
I am a Brazilian clinical microbiologist (I don't work as such) and I have some interest in possible "paranormal" issues, both for the possible benefits that it might bring if it happens to be true, but also for the very many hazards that it can surely bring whenever it is untrue.
I came across a statement from you that has been published on the CSMMH site (Comission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health). They are using your opinion to discredit the 17-year-old Russian girl Natasha Demkina, the alleged "girl with x-ray eyes". So far, so good, for I agree with CSMMH that Natasha may not be what is claimed about her, and topmost, she may issue many false positives and false negatives in her "diagnoses", that may lead thousands of people into danger.
But as to her drawing that they asked you to comment on (it is presented at this link, together with your opinion about it), I have a technical question. I did find it to resemble sarcoidosis. I have absolutely no expertice in this. But I did find it very much to resemble the macroscopic appearence of a whole lung with sarcoidosis. And the photo of a lung with sarcoidosis that I found similar to Natasha's drawing is a photo that is at your site! (Atlas of Granulomatous Disease, especially this link, where a Honeycomb Lung with Emphysema in the upper part of it is shown).
It so happens that, contrary to what CSMMH says, this girl is absolutely nowhere to be shown claiming to be able to see either at the molecular level or at the cellular level. She is also nowhere to be shown claiming to be able to see at the microscopic multicellular tissue level either. The smallest scale that either me or the CSMMH people have proof of her claiming to be able to see at is at things as small as 2 centimeters from a distance of three meters at most.
So, most likely, that drawing refers to a big macroscopic structure. Anyway, CSMMH people never bothered to ask her about it. And the Discovery Channel program clearly indicates that the doctor did not use that drawing to identify sarcoidosis. The guy from Russia, allegedly with sarcoidosis, never said that. He clearly stated that he only showed the drawing to the doctor after she looked into the microscope, and after she herself said it was sarcoidosis. And from his report, it seemed quite possible that the doctor didn't even care about the drawing that much.
So my question is: do you think that drawing migh somehow look any similar macroscopically to a lung with sarcoidisis (honeycomb lung with emphysema in the upper part of it). Natasha's drawing is at this link. The photo at your site is at this link.
Thank you very much beforehand for any feedback.
Sincerely,
Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros.
MA Clinical Bacteriologist.
_____________________________
Thank you very much for your kind attention, I apologize for any inconvenience, and, nevertheless, hope that this time you will answer my email.
Julio Siqueira
M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology (non-practicing biologist)
_______________________
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/sarcoidosis.htm
So, the implication here is that skolnick would answer Julio if he came to your Toronto event, but you won't answer him here? Yeah, right.
I hope your critics had more of a notice on this event, so they could make their travel arrangements. 10 days isn
We all know what Skolnick is going to do there.
Unfortunately he is not going to talk about, or even admit, any of the so very many flaws in their test, or his unethical procedures thereafter. What can we expect from a man that was able to say publically here that I "tried to correct the conclusion of one of the world's leading authorities on what sarcoidosis look like". ?
Skolnick's many flaws and his compulsion for lying speak for themselves.
My email to Mr. Yale Rosen, which I now posted here, was sent on December 2, 2004. I sent it then with copies to Professor Brian Josephson and to... Andrew Skolnick.
So, despite the fact that Skolnick was a hundred percent aware that I had been most respectful to Mr. Rosen, that I had been most honest (I clearly stated to Mr. Rosen that I do not work as a biologist), and that I had been most humble (I plainly admitted my lack of skill in that issue, saying that "I have absolutely no expertice in this"), Skolnick now shamelessly thinks he has the right to say that I "corrected Mr. Rosen's conclusion".
So far, our work here (mine and Archangel's) has been to dig through Skolnick's several "layers". It has turned out that the deeper his layer, the more it stinks.
My claims are limited and humble. And what I claim now is merely that my layer-digging labour is done this time. I have done my part. It is now up to Skolnick to go on digging, and maybe turn out some long forgotten layer of truth and earnest commitment to public health. After all, the unlikelly is not impossible...
Best Regards,
Julio
_________________
Hate-Crime Enhancement Law...
Death to haters...
Hating other's ethnicity, religion, sex orientation, race, and paranormal powers..... and many other kinds! 😠
<font color="red">"The smallest scale that either me or the CSMMH people have proof of her claiming to be able to see at is at things as small as 2 centimeters from a distance of three meters at most." </font>
"Me have proof"?! No wonder you've been passing yourself off as a biologist rather than an English teacher. Who would believe an English teacher that uses "me" as a sentence subject? Me certainly wouldn't.
I am now wondering whether your many distortions and falsehoods are the result of an inability to comprehend English, rather than a deliberate effort to deceive. If so, I have misjudged you. Anyone illiterate enough to write "me have proof" will almost certainly mangle and misrepresent what ever he reads and writes, even without a deceptive intention.
Even so, you would still be guilty of two disturbing deceptions: Passing yourself off as a scientist, when you're not, and passing yourself off as competent to analyse and critique others using English.
If I was wrong to conclude your falsehoods and misrepresentations are deliberate attempts to deceive, then I apologize. But you still are guilty of misrepresenting yourself as being competent enough to conduct an analysis of scientific research using English, when clearly you're not.