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
Which contradicts a lot of the vague statements she had already given about her "x-ray vision".
Incidentally, the diagnostic she made of the man based on a photo of his face was correct. Just like the "X-ray" diagnosing she made of other subjects on the same TV show. Not one single miss. She even diagnosed a dog.
Whatever the means she uses to diagnose, she did so well on this TV show, with a 100% accuracy, that it points she either can really diagnose people -- and animals -- just by looking at their photos, or that she is a fraud.
So far, the many "tests" made with her were all positive. And as the Japanese "test" showed, her claims grows wilder and wilder.
But in the only test conducted by skeptics, she failed. She missed two. Little did the evil skeptics know that when they changed protocols and tried everything to discredit her, she was actually not seeing inside people's bodies, but rather diagnosed through some kind of "energy". But somehow, the bad guys managed to make her miss two conditions, and she failed this test. The only test in which she failed.
The only test conducted by skeptics, was the one in which she failed. That was probably due to the bad vibes.
So, these are things to consider on Natasha's claims.
Now, I'm the "ex-friend" of Siqueira. He has no problem in conceding that Natasha is very probably a quack. He also doesn't try to hide the fact his interest on Natasha's test is not much her, but CSICOP-CSMMH. It was a CSICOP-CSMMH test.
But he also repeatedly stress his "commitment to public health". I guess attacking evil skeptics is a higher priority, since he obviously realizes he is defending Natasha's claims, which as I repeat, he admits are very probably bullshit.
I really do not understand (or better: I understand perfectly well...) your insistance on using personal attacks on me instead of correcting the mistakes on your website about Natasha, etc.
What you do not seem to understand is that your tactic is void because of one very simple question: I am ready to change! I am ready to listen to criticism and to incorporate it! I am ready to correct any mistake that I commit, and to present due apologies for it! In a phrase: I am not a coward...
This forum is visited by many people. So far, no one has supported you after I came here (besides ex-friend now; MacSushis might be rot this time...). Why? Simply because you does not face the challenges that I present you. You do not talk about them. You only... change the subject.
First was the issue of
What you, my dear friend, HAS TO SHOW is precisely WHERE and WHEN I have commited any single mistake in my articles criticizing your sloppy test on Natasha! And as I always say: Show my mistakes, and they will be corrected!
I am not CSICOP, which simply cannot and will not correct any of its mistakes because they do not want to admit they have flaws. I am not like CSMMH, which simply cannot and will not correct even a single web page line because they (you) are not brave enough to do it... I, unlike the previous
Further, I do not agree with what you said about the biologists of Canada (and their by-laws). Instead, I just think it is pointless to go further in this issue with you because it involves legal topics and semantic topics and etc, all of which you have proved yourself utterly unskilled for dealing with and for understanding. And topmost, I consider it pointly because I HAVE ALREADY SAID that I am not going to say that I am a biologist any more.
So, we are all now waiting for you, Mr. Skolnick, to honor your... gonads... Go honor them, and then come back to talk to us. Right?
I suspect none of the people who pose as Defenders of the Truth(tm) will care about these little details.
But I do have to say that from the beggining, knowing almost anything about the case, he privately wrote to me and a pal that Natasha was a Russian quack but that the CSICOP-CSMMH test was also problematic. As far as I know, he hasn't changed his mind much since then, and made those two opinions public in the meantime.
Siqueira likes to pose as "pseudoskeptic buster", and I do think his intention was to attack CSICOP and the organized skeptical movement from the beggining, with little consideration to Demkina's claims. I didn't know that at the time, and it took me some time to come to think that way about him.
😊
Natasha herself is too far away from my eyes and from my capabilities of dealing with her. If I could get trustworthy information about her claims, and if I could give feedbacks to her, I would strongly recommend that she try (that
Kentaro is again saying that I said "Natasha was a Russian quack".
He is a liar, just like you. And just like you he prefers to insist on lying than to correct his lies and present due apologies. No doubt he is coming here in the near future saying that I called Wiseman a bastard... I cannot believe how much I was wrong about the integrity of this guy. Yes, I am going to take off once and for all my link to his page on my site. I no longer believe that people who lack honesty and courage this much can do anything of value.
Julio Siqueira
________________
If you have not seen this TV show, then it's you who have not done your homework, since I have warned you about this very relevant information on the case for months now. It's understandable that you have your doubts about it being true. This is indeed "Unbelievable". Which incidentally is the name of the Japanese TV show.
If you think "bastard" was not an appropriate translation for the name-calling you did of Richard Wiseman, you are always free to give what you think may be an apropriate translation of the term you used. I translated the term "calhorda" you used and then included the original Portuguese term in my translation. You may also think interesting to include a translation for all the other names you called me, Skolnick, Wiseman, Hyman, Blackmore, Randi, etc.
Also, you indeed expressed your first opinion that Demkina was a Russian quack, or "curandeira", the word you used. Anyone interested may look up the translation of the Portuguese word. Also, in Brazilian law, "curandeirismo" is a crime. No matter what you try to come up with to distort what you originally wrote not only to me, but to a third person, you classified Demkina's behaviour as criminal according to Brazilian law.
These last two paragraphs, however, are arguments I have already expressed to you, to no effect.
So it's no surprise to me that you keep saying that Natasha's claims seems "indeed honest". Of course, it looks very honest for someone who complained about how a shortened esophagus or the absence of appendix was hard to see to now claim to be able to diagnose someone just by looking at his photograph.
By the way, she diagnosed liver cancer on the man. Just by looking at a small photo of his face. Unbelievable skeptic's allucinations.
To promote his agenda, Sequiera is clearly willing to ignore, corrupt, misquote, and make up his "facts." There's no other way to explain how he can continue to insist that Natasha never claimed to see on the cellular level and that her drawing is a drawing of an intact lung and not of a sarcoidosis granuloma.
There is simply no way to effectively argue with the prevaricator. He'll twist every piece of evidence and every fact to support his preconceived position.
Mistakes from you are like grasshopper's plagues. Anyway, I will try to bring the two of you closer to sanity as soon as I come back from the Chicken Little movie (I am going there now). At least this chicken won't chicken out... (you'd better learn from him).
Bye for now,
Julio
Back from Chicken Little and to the Little Chicken... 😊
Ok, I am taking a look of our heroes last postings, and will reply in some minutes from now. I will enclude the response I now received from Mr. Yale Rosen.
Bye for now,
Julio
_____________
Kentaro Mori said:
Batman (Skolnick):
Batman dies, at last:
This below is the email I received from Dr. Yale Rosen yesterday. I very much thank him for his kind attention, and his most professional stand. I must say that I never had any doubt about the soundness of his scholarly comments on this matter. What I had was a serious doubt about what kind of feedback he was presented with... (that is, I doubted CSICOP's and appendixes' integrity).
His text speaks for itself (and does not speak for Natasha anyway). So let the evidence be seen:
From Yale Rosen
November 15, 2005.
Dear Mr. Siqueira:
The reason that I did not respond to your previous e-mail is that I never received it.
In reply to your question:
1- I don't believe that any physician who looked at that drawing could come to the conclusion that it represents a honeycomb lung with emphysema or, for that matter, any other specific type of lung pathology.
2- The findings of honeycomb lung with emphysema depicted in that photograph are completely non-specific and could represent an end-stage of many disease processes including sarcoidosis. Any physician looking at that photograph might be able to come up with a differential diagnosis of all of the diseases that could produce that appearance but would not be able to say that the lung belonged to an individual with sarcoidosis.
3- ? Resemblance of drawing to website photo: I believe that it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that this drawing resembles the website photo and an even further stretch of the imagination to think that any physician would conclude that this drawing represents a diseased lung, let alone a lung involved with sarcoidosis.
With best wishes.
Yale Rosen, M.D.
____________________
I will comment on it later, but in a way there is no need to comment on it (as I said, it speaks for itself).
Julio
___________
"3- ? Resemblance of drawing to website photo: I believe that it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that this drawing resembles the website photo and an even further stretch of the imagination to think that any physician would conclude that this drawing represents a diseased lung, let alone a lung involved with sarcoidosis."
Dr. Rosen is being overly tactful; it's not a "stretch of imagination" that moved Siqueira to claim Natasha Demkina's drawing looks like a lung with sarcoidosis. It's Siqueira's willingness to stretch the truth beyond recognition in his campaign to attack skeptics. There is no resemblance whatsoever between Natasha's drawing of a 4-legged bug and a human lung. Even an elementary school English teacher like Siqueira should know human lungs don't have four limbs, two antennae, and a tail.
"I don't believe that any physician who looked at that drawing could come to the conclusion that it represents a honeycomb lung with emphysema or, for that matter, any other specific type of lung pathology."
I would add that no microbiologist or even any biologist would look at Natasha's drawing and conclude that it's a picture of a diseased human lung. But then Siqueira is no biologist. He's an elementary school English teacher, who pretends to be an authority on science and medicine.
Skolnick said:
"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."
Julio, you definitely proved Skolnick to be a total and complete liar by posting your communications with Dr. Rosen, clearly showing that skolnick makes things up as he goes along. This is the same thing he did with Natasha
"Dr. Rosen is being overly tactful; it's not a "stretch of imagination" that moved Siqueira to claim Natasha Demkina's drawing looks like a lung with sarcoidosis."
Tell me Skolnick, did you talk to Dr. Rosen to get this "clarification," or are you just putting words in Dr. Rosen's mouth when you make the claim that Dr. Rosen is "being overly tactful" and "it's not a 'stretch of imagination"..."
I think you're lying and twisting what Dr. Rosen said.
Then there's this insult to Natasha by Skolnick:
"There is no resemblance whatsoever between Natasha's drawing of a 4-legged bug and a human lung. Even an elementary school English teacher like Siqueira should know human lungs don't have four limbs, two antennae, and a tail."
What the hell? I thought you weren't out to insult the poor girl? That is an insult. Clearly. Makes you a liar, a liar who uses uses ridicule to
Skolnick says:"Dr. Rosen makes it clear that there is NO way any physician could possibly think Natasha's drawing represents any type of lung disease.."
That's actually backwards. My question to Dr. Rosen would be the exact opposite. If a patient was diagnosed with honeycomb sarcoidosis, and a child drew that picture "interpretation" of the diseased lung, would your imagination stretch far enough to be able to see the resemblance? From Dr. Rosen's above answer, I would say yes! Dr. Rosen thinks it would be a
Excellent postings from you. I felt very happy when I read Skolnick's postings too. They clearly show that he has a weak basis. He surely got surprised to learn (from an... English Teacher 😊 ) that granulomas may be macroscopic. It is clear by his last two answers that he did not know that. So that is another serious flaw in their research that I had not dwelt upon properly: they did not have any medical counselling to carry on with this daunting endeavour. I got update my articles once more...
More Soon,
Julio
________________
As a matter of fact I have been very light on Skolnick and friends.
You know that Skolnick decided to kill his time after he "retired" (i.e. got kicked off 😊 ) from old JAMA and then he created (almost by himself) the so called "CSMMH" (Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health - Skolnick's backyard). Now, Skolnick is insisting all the while that I am liar just because I called myself a biologist.
Well, ready for a surprise? Just take a look at the definition of "Comission". I looked at the online dictionary of the English language http://www.dictionary.com and just see what I found:
They have 6 entries for this. I could not find exactly where Skolnick believes his private "commission" would conceivably fit...
Entry 1 says: The act of granting certain powers or the authority to carry out a particular task or duty. The authority so granted. The matter or task so authorized: Investigation of fraud was their commission. A document conferring such authorization.
No, they do not fit in here above...
Entry 2, A, says: A group of people officially authorized to perform certain duties or functions: The Federal Trade Commission investigates false advertising.
Nope, they do not fit here too...
Entries 3, 4 and 5...:The act of committing or perpetrating: the commission of a crime. A fee or percentage allowed to a sales representative or an agent for services rendered. An official document issued by a government, conferring on the recipient the rank of a commissioned officer in the armed forces. The rank and powers so conferred.
They do not seem to fit here too (even though the meantion of
This fake commission is directed by a non-doctor, degreeless (and without pedigree 😊 ) certain individual named, guess who...
Skolnick Quacknick himself (he even uses the symbol of medicine in his website)
My Lord? How could things come to this point?
First, about the brave skeptic Robert Carroll and his Skeptic Dictionary: As I said, my intention was to publish a critique of some of the entries of the skepdic. I gathered voluminous material for that. But I ended up not doing so, even though the skepdic is arguably the most influential skeptic material on this planet. Why didn
What then is Natasha
Mori said:
Julio the Bumble also lies when he says I have no academic degrees. I have two, a BA in Natural Sciences and an MS in journalism from Columbia University.
First, contrary to what you claim, I answered all the questions you made to me about the Japanese TV show. Find one question you made me about the show and I didn't answer, otherwise, acknowledge you lied.
Second. Contrary to what you claim, you certainly could have seen the Japanese TV show, even though you're not in Japan. Do you know why? Because I have
warned you about it. Did you try to watch this show? I don't know. I do know you never asked me if I could help you to have access to this show. You didn't even ask me if I recorded it. Which I did. Acknowledge you lied, and could have seen the Japanese TV show if you just tried to, because I have warned you about it months ago.
Third. In the email I sent you warning about the Japanese TV show, the FIRST email I sent you about it, on May 17, 2005, I wrote that "Natasha claims she can diagnose a person just by looking at a photo of the subject. And she claims she can see, diagnose, even the body parts that =do not= show up in the picture. A 3x4 cm photo is enough for a whole body diagnostic." What did you comment about it? You thought I was talking about the Discovery Channel documentary, but noted that if it was a different program, you were interested. I once again made clear it was a Japanese TV show. You finally understood, but you never asked me again about it. Acknowledge you lie when you say you would "of course" comment on it, because you didn't.
I suspect your reply to these simple facts may take the approach of accusing me of not helping you. Just like you accused me of not doing my homework just because I haven't told you everything that happened in the Japanese TV show. Even though you did not ask me.
You see, out of the blue, and after you have insulted me numerous times, to several people, I thought you would find very important to know about Natasha's latest claim. So, I emailed you about it. All your replies ended up going in the direction you're used to: you once again bourght up your disagreements with me, your attacks on CSICOP-CSMMH, Skolnick et al. But the span of attention you gave to the relevant claim was limited to saying that you were interested.
Of course, I could, from my part, once again try to direct things up towards a productive end and say that I could help you to watch the show. But enough is enough. If you didn't specifically ask me for help to see this show, I wouldn't do it. You didn't. You didn't even ask me about the specifics of the events I described.
So, you're indeed telling the truth when you acknowledge your aim is to attack CSMMH-CSICOP. And that's it.
And up is down, black is white, and ignorance is knowledge -- in mind of Julio the Humble.
Some more lies by Julio Siqueira that should be corrected:
He states that Skolnick <font color="red">"created (almost by himself) the so called 'CSMMH' (Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health - Skolnick's backyard)."</font>
He also claims CSMMH is Skolnick's <font color="red">"private commission"</font> and that its website, http://www.csmmh.org, <font color="red"> is Skolnick's website</font>
When CFI hired me to be the Commission's executive director in January 2004, CSMMH had nearly 100 Research Fellows, including four Nobel Laureates -- Baruj Benacerraf, MD; Arthur Kornberg, MD; Leon Lederman, PhD; and the late Francis Crick, PhD -- along with many other distinguished scientists, physicians, psychologists, philosphers, and academics. And it sponsored the publication of two peer-reviewed journals, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, published since 1997, and The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, published since 2002.
Anyone checking the record would see that the Commission's web site belongs to SUNY-Buffalo affiliated CFI and that it was first registered in October 2003.
http://wisesource.com/whois/index.php?domain=csmmh&ext=org&show_raw=1
It's all on the record and that record again shows Julio Siqueria is lying through his teeth in a campaign of disinformation and defamation.
It would be wise to address the criticisms of your work rather than making these personal attacks. It makes you and your compatriots look bad, which lends less credibility to the work you do.
<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 Siqueira has been been passing himself 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.
As for having "proof," scientists prefer to speak of evidence, rather than "proof" -- "proof" is a term more appropriate for mathematics. As for having evidence that Natasha claims to see down to the cellular level, we have plenty. First, there's the statement from the Discovery Channel program's producer-director, that Natasha claims to see down to the cellular level. Another is the on-camera statement of the physician of the man who supposedly has sarcoidosis. She states in front of the camera: <font color="blue">"I can't explain it. I can't explain how [Natasha] sees at the cell level. I can't explain why she has this ability."</font>
But those are the facts and Julio Siqueira doesn't like to deal with facts.
I'm not convinced one way or another. I'm not some scientist, but I do know that when testing something against the option of chance you certainly use more than seven subjects. From only seven subjects you could not hope to draw any scientific result.
I'd like to have seen you go further into exactly what she was doing, rather than just try and test to see if she was doing what she claimed. It could be that there is still a lot to learn from this girl.
Equally, I concede that you may well have done this but it wasn't shown in the program.
<center>Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal
and the
Commission for Scientific
Medicine and Mental Health
Center for Inquiry
Amherst, NY
Test Design and Procedures for
Preliminary Study of
Natasha Demkina
</center>
1.) The entire test, including pre-test briefing will take place at the New York Academy of Sciences, or other suitable facility.
2.) The Subject Recruiter will choose and "shepherd" the test subjects to the testing facility and will provide us with each subject's "target" medical condition, such as implanted pace maker, resected lung, bone plate and screws, that are clearly documented by medical records and/or x-rays. The target conditions will all be different, no two subjects will have the same condition.
3.) Seven subjects will be provided, one of whom will not have any of six different target medical conditions. The task Natasha will be provided is to match the 6 target conditions to the correct 6 subjects who have the medical conditions
4.) A test card for each condition will be created. On each card, a target condition will be clearly described using non-medical terms in Russian and in English. The card may also contain a simple illustration of what Natasha should look for, such as a drawing of an artificial hip joint, or a drawing of a human body showing a missing left kidney. Below that will be numbers 1 to 7 corresponding to the 7 subjects who will be identified only by number and not their name. Natasha will be required to circle the correct patient number that matches the target medical condition. (See attached example.)
5.) Natasha will also be required to sign each card when she is done and to hand the card to the Test Proctor. The Proctor will then hand her the next card until all 6 cards have been marked, signed, and turned in. The Proctor will also sign each completed card and place it into the completed card envelope.
6.) In interest of keeping the test clear and meaningful -- and more importantly -- to protect the privacy and other rights of the volunteer subjects, Natasha will not be permitted to offer any other diagnosis or observation about the subject's health. She simply must look for the target condition in the subjects and correctly identify the subject who has the condition on the test card.
(If any subject is interested in obtaining Natasha's opinion, they may do so on their own after the testing is over.)
7.) No other information will be provided on the test cards.
8.) The test cards will be placed in a random order within a sealed envelope and given to the Test Proctor (probably Ray Hyman) to be opened during the test briefing. The Proctor (and all others involved in the test except for the Subject Recruiter) will be completely blinded as to the identities of the subjects and their medical conditions.
9.) Likewise, the entire Discovery Channel crew must be blinded and none of them will be allowed to directly speak with any of the subjects until the test is completed and unblinded.
10.) In a room away from the test room, Natasha and her translator will be shown the cards and all the test rules will be explained by the Test Proctor. Natasha will be told that, on each card, she will have to identify the subject who has the condition by marking the subject's number on the card.
11.) In the test briefing room -- and in the test room -- the number of people must be kept to a minimum to reduce distractions, possible interference, noise, and tension. The Test Proctor and video person will be the only personnel from CFI and CSMMH who will be present within the test briefing room and test room.
12.) When ready, the Test Proctor will open the test card envelope and hand Natasha the 6 test cards. He will explain to her what is required and how she is to mark the cards, and other rules of the test. Natasha may ask for clarification of anything she doesn't understand - including the target medical conditions or the test protocols. Explanations may include generic drawings of the organ or surgical implant in question.
13.) The Test Proctor will ask Natasha if she understands what the test requires, how the test will proceed, and whether she has any questions. When she says she fully understands and is ready to be tested, the Test Proctor will escort her and the translator into the test room (and any of her friends and family members), where the test subjects will already be waiting. The test rules must also be explained and agreed to by all of Natasha's friends and family members who she wants to bring with her into the testing room.
14.) At no time will Natasha or her translator (or any other person other than authorized CSICOP/CSMMH personnel) be allowed to talk to any of the subjects until the test is fully completed. If she needs a subject to turn to a different angle, she must step out of the room and make her request to the Proctor. The Proctor will then enter the test room and have ALL the subjects turn to the requested angle. Then Natasha and her translator will be brought back in.
15.) All 7 subjects will be standing in a line and numbered 1 to 7. They will be wearing normal clothing that fully covers every part of their body except for their hands, neck, and head. Natasha must conduct her examination from one spot in the room that provides her a clear and close view of the subjects. She must not approach any of the subjects -- which could cause an exchange of body language cues that could reduce the accuracy of this test.
If for any reason, any subject has to move or leave the room, Natasha and her translator (and any of her friends or family members) must first be taken to another location so that they cannot view the subject walking.
16.) Because this is a test of Natasha's abilities, Natasha will not be allowed to talk with anyone (including her friends and family members) during the test other than the Test Proctor.
17.) To further reduce the risk of unintentional non-verbal communication between the subjects and Natasha, all subjects will wear mirror lens sunglasses that will prevent anyone from seeing the subjects' eye movements.
18.) Neither Natasha or her translator will be allowed in any way to discuss the targeted medical conditions in the test room. If she wants to ask a question, she must ask the Test Proctor to leave the room.
19.) The Test Proctor will not know the subjects or their target conditions until the test is over and the results are opened.
20.) During the test, the Subject Recruiter will not be in the test room, since he or she knows the subjects' medical conditions.
21.) When Natasha is finished marking and signing each card, the test proctor will take the card from her, sign it, and randomly hand her one of the remaining cards from the test card envelope until all cards are completely marked.