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
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.
22.) After all cards are filled out, signed, and collected, the proctor will take Natasha and her translator into another room and ask her how well she thinks she has done. She should be encouraged to say which "diagnoses" she is most confident with and to explain why.
23.) The unblinding of the test should then be conducted in the presence of the test subjects, who will then have available for showing radiological or other medical records that document their targeted medical conditions (if we can get this documentation because of lack of time -- at the very least, we should offer to help arrange for the Discovery Channel people to obtain appropriate medical documentation.).
24.) At this point, the Test Proctor will interpret the results of the test. The goal of this test is for Natasha to match at least 5 of the target medical conditions to the correct subject.
If Natasha correctly matches 5 or more target medical conditions, the Test Proctor will declare that she has demonstrated that she achieved a significantly better than chance score and therefore further, more thorough scientific testing of her claimed abilities are certainly warranted.
<u>If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities.</u>
25.) It is imperative that the Test Proctor be allowed to explain in the Discovery Channel program that the CSICOP/CSMMH test is <u>not in any way a definitive test</u>. It is too simple and brief to determine the truth of Natasha's claims with comfortable certainty. <u>It can only help decide whether further study of Natasha's claimed abilities are warranted</u>.
26.) Throughout the design and conduct of this test, we must observe all rules regarding the ethical treatment of human subjects. We will have each subject sign a statement that fully informs them of the testing procedure, their medical information that will be made public, and how this information will be used (ie. Broadcast on the Discovery Channel and possibly published in The Skeptical Inquirer, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, or other publications).
In my opinion, (and in the opinions of many, many others) she should have been tested further. But, the test was "failed" which meant no further testing by csicop.
I probably should have left my comment about further testing out since it wasn't core to the point I was trying to make. It just gave you the opportinity to distract from the real point I was making and not answer it. You are very good at distraction and manipulation, I'll give you that.
It's this part that I was really trying to address:
Skolnick said: "So you are right that the study by itself settles nothing. However, we were able to gather a lot of other evidence to confirm the preliminary finding of our test, that nothing more "supernatural" is going on than simple "cold reading."
My point is really about the conclusions you came to from the testing results and the statements you've made. Failure of the test may not have led to further testing, but the results also did not show that Natasha couldn't do what she claimed. You say that yourself.
HOWEVER (and this is a BIG "HOWEVER") you have made the unjustified jump from "inconclusive" to "nothing supernatural going on".
So let me rephrase my above comments and remove any reference to further testing by your own rules (I was wrong about that):
First, you cannot say that the preliminary findings of the test led to any conclusion
It was a crappy job and you know it. You prove this by your defensiveness. Even Hyman and Wiseman have both said that the testing could have been done better (and not on Natasha's part).
You cannot smash down the psychological aspect of a person trying to utilize presumed psychic powers. It's like expecting a chess master or an athlete to play his best game under impossible conditions. Playing games with Natasha's comfort was either stupidity or just plain manipulation to help make her fail. You have to be aware of the impact on her psyche by the things you did.
I find the whole focus on the "text messaging" to be idiotic, what kind of help would that have provided? Was her Russian boyfriend a detective?
You could have done much better from the scientific point of view. And you know, it wouldn't have been so bad if you could have kept your smartassed, insulting mouth shut. It's your shitty attitude of smug superiority that's really galling to people and that makes you lots of enemies.
First, you cannot say that the preliminary findings of the test led to any conclusion
So, let me get this straight.
First you use the show's producer as part of your "evidence" that Natasha claimed to see at the cellular level, and then you say that the very same show's producer misrepresented the truth about the test.
I don't think you can have it both ways skolnick. Especially with your penchant for dismissing anyone you claim is telling "falsehoods". Twisting the facts to suit your needs is not very scientific.
What about that?
I admit that I believe in psychic powers. I've seen and experienced them. But, I also know that there are a lot of charlatans out there.
Really, if I felt that skolnick was an honest investigator, I would relish this opportinity to commnunicate with him regarding questions and ideas that I have.
For instance, I wonder if the God of the Hebrews, the God of the Christian bible, if real, was actually a being with advanced technology and scientific knowledge, instead of a "supernatural" creator. Intelligent Design could be very real, but not supernaturally...we do it all the time in botany, and now cloning and other technical advances. We can design humans as well.
Anyway, this is all a waste of time because Skolnick is just a rat-bastard who uses insults and ridicule as tools of "science." Idiotic.
Skolnick, your last postings have been getting weaker and weaker.The time for the Coup de Grace is drawing near...
Let
Only on December 3, 2004 (almost one month after my first contact with Skolnick...), did Skolnick present further evidence of Natasha's "extended claims" (cellular vision, etc). He showed a part of an email he received from the program producer (Monica Garnsey) nearly a month before the test, "containing a summary of Natasha's 'abilities' to help us design the test". Monica is quoted as saying that: "I double-checked a few things with her last night. ... She usually scans people all over first, by making them stand up fully clothed and looking them up and down; delivers a general diagnosis; and then goes into more detail when the patients have discussed their concerns with her. She says she can certainly see ribs, heart, lungs, initially in general 'like in an anatomy book', but can see right down to the cell level if she concentrates.". Note that there is only the briefest mentioning of "cellular vision", and that nowhere is it said if she can diagnose diseases at the cellular level, or even at the microscopic multicellular tissue level, and definitely there is nothing at all about molecular vision.
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm
Yes, it seems that some sort of
- What is it that you see at the cell level, baby? Do you see isolated cells in good detail, or only the multicellular pattern (like cells being only tiny spots)? Do you see details inside cells? Do you see processes in them, and things you believe to be abnormalities?
The researchers decided to ask nothing, and now think they have the right to behave as if they had asked everything. That is dishonest. That is unscientific. Even Hyman keeps talking about cellular vision. That is simply stupid. And these are the self acclaimed top skeptics of the World...
Skolnick, again you said that the phisician of the man said
Skolnick continues, unscientifically (anwering Jon):
Good posts from you.
I think it would be nice if CSICOP/CSMMH could do some more tests with Natasha. They would have to clear a bit the relationship wounds, and I would strongly advise the venture to be a joint venture with people like Dean Radin and Stanley Krippner, etc. But there is indeed a social need out there for it.
Their decision, by itself, is not an unreasonable one. The cutoff value of five is, I think, acceptable. What is unacceptable is the so many violations of protocol from their part, especially rule 25...
It turns out that the jury is still out as to Natasha's power or quackery. However, the verdict has already been issued concerning CSICOP's (and appendixess) honesty...
By Julio
________________
I can't tell you how great it was and how good it made me feel to read your statement Yes, Archangel, YOU speak like a scientist.
Thank you!
And, like I said earlier, you are very good at getting to the core details and addressing the issues, thanks for developing and detailing the issues with skolnick's misrepresentations that I was trying to point out. Good work, as always!
It
"Because of the disreputable effort to rewrite the history of CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina for the Discovery Channel program"
That's not what happened at all, there was nothing "disreputable" about it, it was a simple mistake on my part.
The <u>real</u> disreputable effort to rewrite the history of the tests is actually your doing when you try to use the test results as part of the basis to make a claim that you have enough "evidence" to show that Natasha has no supernatural powers. The test itself was inconclusive, and the other "evidence" you claim to have doesn't add any further proof for you to be able to make statements about Natasha having no powers and having "normal eyes.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm
You said:
"I have to disagree with Julio on one point however, because I do not believe that anyone should be subjected to an
You remind me of a televangelist faith healer who was so addicted to telling falsehoods that he always added or subtracted at 15 minutes whenever someone asked him for the time. In my many years of being an investigative journalist, I've met few scoundrels who have been so adverse to telling the truth as you.
Humpty! You're still here! We thought you'd left for Toronto already, so you could climb up on your wall!
Skolnick, you're so funny. Do you think anyone believes that Julio is "lying" or even "wrong" about your being in Toronto? You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the "depth" of your "analytical" skills.
Julio pokes fun at you and you go ballistic with wild accusations. You seem quite crazy, there dude.
I am still laughing out loud at that comment! It is sooooo <a href="http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm">
<font color="red">"You were so vague about your Toronto trip that it's silly for you to make such a statement. Really goes to show the 'depth' of your 'analytical' skills."</font>
Let's see, today is Monday, November 21, and I posted that I am invited to speak at the University of Toronto on Friday, November 25. Can't get less "vague" than that. So much for Tweedledum as a Sack of Doorknobs' analytical skills. This clown couldn't follow a train of thought if he were tied to the caboose.
Not only mad, but wrong again! What I said was that your "trip" was vague, not your speaking date, meaing that your entire trip itinerary was vague.
Here's that train of thought for you, Humpty
1. You were invited to speak on the 25th of November.
2. You did not indicate your arrival date into Toronto. For all we know, you might spend a week or more on location preparing for your little presentation.
3. Even saying the "25th" is vague.
3a. What time of day is the presentation
3b. What is the exact location of the presentation ("University of Toronto" is vague.
That's part of what I mean by "vague". Therefore it's "silly" for you to make your strong, overblown statements. This propensity of yours to take "vague" information and act like it's factual and definitive is part of what got you in trouble with the entire "investigation" of Natasha Demkina. You were "vague" with that too.
Can you say "Arrival Date"? Can you define
Gosh, I've already answered that for you by accurately comparing you to "Humpty Dumpty." Definite lack of common sense, especially when you're in "attack" mode.
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things, he likes things vague - like Natasha's "bug" drawing. Skolnick left that pretty vague, didn't he? And, once again, we Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.
You didn't say you weren't going to be there, either. Vague, vague, and more vague.
Also, if you actually read what Julio wrote, he didn't say you were there, either. He just said that you were "out to Toronto." Which I took to mean "off to Toronto." I mean, with your investigative and analytical skills, Skolnick, I can well see it taking you a week or more to find your way to Toronto from the NY/NJ area. I'm sure you'll end up in Boise Idaho trying to find the "University of Toronto" there...heh..
Skolnick takes things and twists them. Especially vague things. Skolnick likes to keep things vague, for example, Natasha's "bug" drawing was left pretty vague by Skolnick - gave him the opportunity to twist it into something it wasn't.
And, once again, we see Skolnick distracting from the real points that he cannot answer, using ridicule and insults.