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
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.
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