Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
The Girl With X-Ray Eyes
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.Posted By: Alex | Date: Tue Feb 03, 2004 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 710
Category: Health/Medicine
Category: Health/Medicine
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 21 of 36 pages « First < 19 20 21 22 23 > Last »
Part 2
“By contrast, our test presented her with a greatly simplified task. We restricted the targets to unambiguous, easily detected deformities: a large hole in the head covered by a metal plate; metal staples in the chest; a large portion of one lung missing; an artificial hip; and the like. On each trial we told her both what to look for and where to look. Natasha herself informed the producer before the test that not having to scan the entire body would make her task much less demanding. In the report posted on the Web site listed above, I give additional reasons why this test is much simpler than her typical reading. If Natasha has anything like the ability she claims, she should have easily matched each condition to the appropriate subject. Her claims imply a type of X-ray vision of extremely high resolution. Our test required X-ray vision of very low resolution.”
I kept the paragraph above in its totality. Hyman really believes that the task they gave Natasha was “greatly simplified”. He seems to be engaged in leading the readers to believe that there were only conditions that favored Natasha. That is deceiving writing. It is curious that he insists that the conditions were “unambiguous”, despite Natasha’s complaints about two of the conditions right BEFORE the beginning of the test. And most oddly... he moves on to detail all of the conditions, but he hides precisely the two conditions that Natasha complained about. And he hides them in the following terms: “and the like”. He cited all the four other clinical conditions that Natasha did not complain about: the metal plate, the metal staples, the missing part of the lung, and the artificial hip. But he left not cited precisely the conditions that were ambiguous and that Natasha complained about. Hyman seems to know exactly what he is doing with this “hide-and-seek” game of his. And he is doing it pretty well indeed... He ends the paragraph insisting on the falacy that her usual readings require X-ray vision (without quotation marks...) of extremely high resolution, but not their test. He forgets to warn his readers that the two conditions that he labelled as “and the like” are of structures smaller than any of the ones that they have proof of being Natasha’s actual diagnoses.
“Consequently, if her claim is true, we should expect her to match all seven conditions correctly. We set the criterion at five, rather than at seven, because we wanted to give her some leeway. Getting only four correct matches is highly inconsistent with her claim.”
It is vital to warn the readers that these “researchers” simply do not know what Natasha’s claim really is. My previous articles on this issue explain it fully.
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
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:54 AM
“By contrast, our test presented her with a greatly simplified task. We restricted the targets to unambiguous, easily detected deformities: a large hole in the head covered by a metal plate; metal staples in the chest; a large portion of one lung missing; an artificial hip; and the like. On each trial we told her both what to look for and where to look. Natasha herself informed the producer before the test that not having to scan the entire body would make her task much less demanding. In the report posted on the Web site listed above, I give additional reasons why this test is much simpler than her typical reading. If Natasha has anything like the ability she claims, she should have easily matched each condition to the appropriate subject. Her claims imply a type of X-ray vision of extremely high resolution. Our test required X-ray vision of very low resolution.”
I kept the paragraph above in its totality. Hyman really believes that the task they gave Natasha was “greatly simplified”. He seems to be engaged in leading the readers to believe that there were only conditions that favored Natasha. That is deceiving writing. It is curious that he insists that the conditions were “unambiguous”, despite Natasha’s complaints about two of the conditions right BEFORE the beginning of the test. And most oddly... he moves on to detail all of the conditions, but he hides precisely the two conditions that Natasha complained about. And he hides them in the following terms: “and the like”. He cited all the four other clinical conditions that Natasha did not complain about: the metal plate, the metal staples, the missing part of the lung, and the artificial hip. But he left not cited precisely the conditions that were ambiguous and that Natasha complained about. Hyman seems to know exactly what he is doing with this “hide-and-seek” game of his. And he is doing it pretty well indeed... He ends the paragraph insisting on the falacy that her usual readings require X-ray vision (without quotation marks...) of extremely high resolution, but not their test. He forgets to warn his readers that the two conditions that he labelled as “and the like” are of structures smaller than any of the ones that they have proof of being Natasha’s actual diagnoses.
“Consequently, if her claim is true, we should expect her to match all seven conditions correctly. We set the criterion at five, rather than at seven, because we wanted to give her some leeway. Getting only four correct matches is highly inconsistent with her claim.”
It is vital to warn the readers that these “researchers” simply do not know what Natasha’s claim really is. My previous articles on this issue explain it fully.
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
Part 3
“Should four correct matches be ‘significant?’: I used Bayesian reasoning to set the criterion at five correct matches. Many critics looked at the probability of Natasha getting four or more correct. Given the null hypothesis, this probability is .0183. Since this is lower than the conventional 0.05 level of significance, they argue that we should have declared the outcome ‘significant.’ Whether one looks at this problem from the traditional null hypothesis test (NHT) or from the Bayesian perspective, this claim does not make sense. Most statistical tests compare a null hypothesis with an alternative hypothesis. The typical alternative hypothesis is based on considerations that derive from an accepted theoretical framework. For such noncontroversial hypotheses the .05 level of significance is acceptable. J.B. Rhine recognized that unexpected or unusual hypotheses require a stricter level of significance. He advocated using the .01 level of significance for parapsychological hypotheses. Most orthodox scientists would insist on a level of significance of at least .001 for any paranormal hypothesis.”
“For the test of Natasha, I chose the .01 level. A criterion of four would be too low to meet that standard. If I had chosen the .001 level of significance, I would have had to set the criterion at seven. Rather than demand perfection, I compromised and the set the criterion at five, which gave us a .01 level of significance and provided adequate power.”
I think they could even have chosen seven as the criterion for passing. What I think is really problematic is the way that they have been handling Natasha’s “failure” in the test. Not even seven hits would convince me of her power. Only further and better experiments would. But the test had so many flaws that it can only be described as inconclusive. Hyman also forgets to mention that if Natasha passed, according to their own protocols, they would not be saying that she has paranormal powers. They would merely be saying that “further studies are warranted”. This is far less extreme than declaring Natasha a paranormal. Therefore, their “Bayesian reasoning” is a little bit exaggerated (even though not unreasonable). It seems to be more a material for manipulation than a tool for really analyzing the outcome of the experiment.
“The Bayesian approach provides a basis for revising the prior odds. An outcome of four correct matches revises the odds from 99:1 to 9:1 against the alternative hypothesis. While this outcome does lower the odds against the alternative, it still leaves the odds in favor of the null hypothesis. If Natasha had gotten five correct, the outcome would have lowered the odds to almost 1:1. This still would not swing the odds in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Such a reduction in the odds against her, however, would be enough for me to advocate additional investigation of her claim.”
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:54 AM
“Should four correct matches be ‘significant?’: I used Bayesian reasoning to set the criterion at five correct matches. Many critics looked at the probability of Natasha getting four or more correct. Given the null hypothesis, this probability is .0183. Since this is lower than the conventional 0.05 level of significance, they argue that we should have declared the outcome ‘significant.’ Whether one looks at this problem from the traditional null hypothesis test (NHT) or from the Bayesian perspective, this claim does not make sense. Most statistical tests compare a null hypothesis with an alternative hypothesis. The typical alternative hypothesis is based on considerations that derive from an accepted theoretical framework. For such noncontroversial hypotheses the .05 level of significance is acceptable. J.B. Rhine recognized that unexpected or unusual hypotheses require a stricter level of significance. He advocated using the .01 level of significance for parapsychological hypotheses. Most orthodox scientists would insist on a level of significance of at least .001 for any paranormal hypothesis.”
“For the test of Natasha, I chose the .01 level. A criterion of four would be too low to meet that standard. If I had chosen the .001 level of significance, I would have had to set the criterion at seven. Rather than demand perfection, I compromised and the set the criterion at five, which gave us a .01 level of significance and provided adequate power.”
I think they could even have chosen seven as the criterion for passing. What I think is really problematic is the way that they have been handling Natasha’s “failure” in the test. Not even seven hits would convince me of her power. Only further and better experiments would. But the test had so many flaws that it can only be described as inconclusive. Hyman also forgets to mention that if Natasha passed, according to their own protocols, they would not be saying that she has paranormal powers. They would merely be saying that “further studies are warranted”. This is far less extreme than declaring Natasha a paranormal. Therefore, their “Bayesian reasoning” is a little bit exaggerated (even though not unreasonable). It seems to be more a material for manipulation than a tool for really analyzing the outcome of the experiment.
“The Bayesian approach provides a basis for revising the prior odds. An outcome of four correct matches revises the odds from 99:1 to 9:1 against the alternative hypothesis. While this outcome does lower the odds against the alternative, it still leaves the odds in favor of the null hypothesis. If Natasha had gotten five correct, the outcome would have lowered the odds to almost 1:1. This still would not swing the odds in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Such a reduction in the odds against her, however, would be enough for me to advocate additional investigation of her claim.”
Part 4
Here Hyman seems to be presenting a statistical analysis that indicates that their criterion of five hits would be appropriate for the claim that “further studies are warranted”. If his statistical analysis is correct, then I think he has adequately dealt with my question above. But this deals only with the statistical part of the test, which I think is the least problematic part of all of it... And as I said, even if they had stipulated seven as a passing criterion, it might not have been a problem. The true problem, I think, are the way they handle this result.
“Other considerations. The statistical test is an idealized situation in which we are comparing two statistical hypotheses to each other. The statistical test helps us decide between the two competing hypotheses. In reality, the investigator is interested in conceptual hypotheses. In our test, the conceptual hypothesis of interest is that Natasha achieves her correct matches by paranormal powers. Many other conceptual hypotheses are also compatible with the alternative hypothesis. The most likely possibility is that Natasha achieves her correct matches by a combination of external clues and luck. If Natasha had ‘passed’ our test, this would have supported the statistical hypothesis that she could average five correct in our situation. However, such an outcome would have been compatible with many possible conceptual hypotheses. We need to conduct further and much more sophisticated tests to decide among the various conceptual possibilities.”
Not necessarily “much more sophisticated”. They just would need to avoid the flaws of the previous test. In my opinion the really great problem in testing Natasha is the distance she is from either USA or Great Britain.
“Conclusion: I recognize that readers can view our test from a variety of perspectives. These include public relations, propaganda, medical consequences, and science. For me, only the scientific perspective matters.”
If really so, then he should not have allowed himself to utter, in the Discovery Channel documentary, words declaring that Natasha was living an illusion...
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:55 AM
Here Hyman seems to be presenting a statistical analysis that indicates that their criterion of five hits would be appropriate for the claim that “further studies are warranted”. If his statistical analysis is correct, then I think he has adequately dealt with my question above. But this deals only with the statistical part of the test, which I think is the least problematic part of all of it... And as I said, even if they had stipulated seven as a passing criterion, it might not have been a problem. The true problem, I think, are the way they handle this result.
“Other considerations. The statistical test is an idealized situation in which we are comparing two statistical hypotheses to each other. The statistical test helps us decide between the two competing hypotheses. In reality, the investigator is interested in conceptual hypotheses. In our test, the conceptual hypothesis of interest is that Natasha achieves her correct matches by paranormal powers. Many other conceptual hypotheses are also compatible with the alternative hypothesis. The most likely possibility is that Natasha achieves her correct matches by a combination of external clues and luck. If Natasha had ‘passed’ our test, this would have supported the statistical hypothesis that she could average five correct in our situation. However, such an outcome would have been compatible with many possible conceptual hypotheses. We need to conduct further and much more sophisticated tests to decide among the various conceptual possibilities.”
Not necessarily “much more sophisticated”. They just would need to avoid the flaws of the previous test. In my opinion the really great problem in testing Natasha is the distance she is from either USA or Great Britain.
“Conclusion: I recognize that readers can view our test from a variety of perspectives. These include public relations, propaganda, medical consequences, and science. For me, only the scientific perspective matters.”
If really so, then he should not have allowed himself to utter, in the Discovery Channel documentary, words declaring that Natasha was living an illusion...
Part 5
“The outcome did not reach the criterion that had been set in advance. All parties had agreed with this criterion.”
No, they had not. No one agreed to a test where they would attempt to cast Natasha’s mother out of the test room. No one agreed to a test where there would be removed appendixes and minute circular scars in the esophagus as target conditions. No one agreed to a test where these ambiguous and alien off-the-cuff target clinical conditions would be swindled into acceptance through deceiving reasonings. No one agreed to a test where the subjects would never give any proof whatsoever of their true clinical situation. No one agreed to a test where the subjects would be so sloppily screened for that at the end there would be two subjects with a missing appendix. No one agreed to a test where one of the subjects would probably not be properly blind. No one agreed to a test where the researchers would be claiming after it that they have “closed the chapter” on Natasha, and that she is “living an illusion”, and that a “failure is a failure”.
“Some critics argue that Natasha's four correct matches involve more than just haphazard guessing. Even if this is so, the evidence from our test is consistent with her relying upon external clues. The evidence, as described in my previous reports, is inconsistent with the use of a paranormal diagnostic ability.”
The evidence gathered from the test is consistent with two main findings: first, Natasha’s power, if true, most likely has lots of limitations, which may render her diagnosing capabilities as quite problematic, and perhaps even dangerous some times... (she herself must try and learn more about her false positives and false negatives; and it seems indeed that she is doing that: she entered medical school in Moscow). Second, the “results” of the test are also very much compatible with the following hypothesis: researcher’s dishonesty (as scientists) and lack of proper care for social matters.
FINAL NOTE: I plan to finish the article by saying that this dishonesty from the part of the researchers is not a dishonesty in their personal lives. They may be good people. But they seem to have engaged in what late skeptic philosopher from Csicop Paul Edwards put as "Holy Lying", where you lie (and sometimes do worse things...) because of a cause that you believe.
Julio
_______________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:58 AM
“The outcome did not reach the criterion that had been set in advance. All parties had agreed with this criterion.”
No, they had not. No one agreed to a test where they would attempt to cast Natasha’s mother out of the test room. No one agreed to a test where there would be removed appendixes and minute circular scars in the esophagus as target conditions. No one agreed to a test where these ambiguous and alien off-the-cuff target clinical conditions would be swindled into acceptance through deceiving reasonings. No one agreed to a test where the subjects would never give any proof whatsoever of their true clinical situation. No one agreed to a test where the subjects would be so sloppily screened for that at the end there would be two subjects with a missing appendix. No one agreed to a test where one of the subjects would probably not be properly blind. No one agreed to a test where the researchers would be claiming after it that they have “closed the chapter” on Natasha, and that she is “living an illusion”, and that a “failure is a failure”.
“Some critics argue that Natasha's four correct matches involve more than just haphazard guessing. Even if this is so, the evidence from our test is consistent with her relying upon external clues. The evidence, as described in my previous reports, is inconsistent with the use of a paranormal diagnostic ability.”
The evidence gathered from the test is consistent with two main findings: first, Natasha’s power, if true, most likely has lots of limitations, which may render her diagnosing capabilities as quite problematic, and perhaps even dangerous some times... (she herself must try and learn more about her false positives and false negatives; and it seems indeed that she is doing that: she entered medical school in Moscow). Second, the “results” of the test are also very much compatible with the following hypothesis: researcher’s dishonesty (as scientists) and lack of proper care for social matters.
FINAL NOTE: I plan to finish the article by saying that this dishonesty from the part of the researchers is not a dishonesty in their personal lives. They may be good people. But they seem to have engaged in what late skeptic philosopher from Csicop Paul Edwards put as "Holy Lying", where you lie (and sometimes do worse things...) because of a cause that you believe.
Julio
_______________
Hi Skolnick,
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’s registration"...
And also:
"Really the only people who would have to worry about not meeting the 30 hours are non-practicing biologists."
Also, in the personal link below (seemingly from a native speaker of the English language), I found the following sentence:
http://www.wardgallery.com/myfineart/artists/winters/a.html
"Oddly, my Dad was also a biologist who never practiced"
So, either I am not so much of a sinner as Skolnick thought, or the number of Geppetto's sons in the world has incresed with this information that I now present...
Best Regards,
Julio
_________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 04:15 AM
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’s registration"...
And also:
"Really the only people who would have to worry about not meeting the 30 hours are non-practicing biologists."
Also, in the personal link below (seemingly from a native speaker of the English language), I found the following sentence:
http://www.wardgallery.com/myfineart/artists/winters/a.html
"Oddly, my Dad was also a biologist who never practiced"
So, either I am not so much of a sinner as Skolnick thought, or the number of Geppetto's sons in the world has incresed with this information that I now present...
Best Regards,
Julio
_________
Julio Siqueira refuses to understand that the reason I will no longer answer his "questions" is that he is incapable of distinguishing fact from falsehood and no amount of reasoning with him seems to help. For example, he still insists there is nothing wrong with deceiving people about his profession. He's an elementary school English teacher. He never held a job in his life as a biologist or in any other field of science. Yet he has been passing himself off as a "biologist," "microbiologist," "clinical bacteriologist," etc. 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.
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.
Posted by askolnick on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:11 AM
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.
Julio Siqueira is trying to put another fast one by us:
"At the link below (Biologists from Canada), I found the terms that I will present below: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/BNews02Feb.htm"
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
"Biologist" means any person whose principle occupation is concerned with Biology;"
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.
Posted by aaskolnick on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 01:07 PM
"At the link below (Biologists from Canada), I found the terms that I will present below: http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/BNews02Feb.htm"
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
"Biologist" means any person whose principle occupation is concerned with Biology;"
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.
Hmmm. That link did not come out correct. Trying again:
http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/APB Constitution and Bylaws revised 2005.pdf
Posted by aaskolnick on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 01:10 PM
http://www.apbbc.bc.ca/htdocs/APB Constitution and Bylaws revised 2005.pdf
Skolnick, quit posting your lies and sophistic reasoning. Anyone reading this forum or Julio’s website can plainly see that you are not willing to answer Julio’s questions and observations not because of the false and misleading reasons you give, but because you cannot do so without admitting that you are a fraud, and that your testing, analysis and conclusions about Natasha were baseless and did not prove either way whether Natasha Demkina possessed any paranormal abilities. Your test was meant to give you a platform to ridicule and spread propaganda. It was never meant to prove or to give any room whatsoever for the possibility that she might have the powers she claimed.
You went in there with the sole purpose of proving her to be a fake at any cost, and to ridicule her to remove any possible public support she might have. You prove this underlying nature of your intent with every insult and misleading remark you make. And you manage to make an endless number of those insults, brushing with such a broad stroke that you insult some of the most critical educators in the world.
Julio is well within his rights to take the title of “Biologist.” Julio went to school, passed the examinations, graduated and obtained a proper and recognized degree. This gives him every right to use that title, no matter what his current or past job history is. Your insulting and misleading rhetoric only shows your own outrageous bias and desire to ridicule others. It make you look foolish, not Julio.
Additionally, even if it were not proper for Julio to describe himself as a Biologist, it’s mistaken use wouldn’t justify your attacks on his character. You’re just mad because he has accurately pointed out the flaws in your methodology and defined your true reason and nature, that of a ridiculing skeptic whose only intention was to tear down Natasha.
You’ve chosen this “title” thing in its most narrow definition, and in doing so, you have invalidated your entire line of reasoning. You’ve leapt on this narrow and invalid reasoning to divert attention and use it as a false excuse not to answer Julio’s critique of your flawed scientific methodology.
Now, if Julio had posted himself as “Dr. Julio Siquera” without having earned the degree, then that would be a problem; but this idea clearly illustrates the lie that Skolnick asks us to believe. A person who goes through school and earns a high enough degree to be called “Doctor” can use that title even without ever having held a job as a Doctor. That person could be flipping burgers at a diner and still call himself “Dr. Suchandsuch”. It’s a totally bogus argument on the part of Skolnick. All designed to humiliate and ridicule, while giving the appearance of a “reason” not to answer legitimate questions and observations.
With every attack and attempt at character assassination, Skolnick shows himself to be more of a fraud than ever.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 03:38 PM
You went in there with the sole purpose of proving her to be a fake at any cost, and to ridicule her to remove any possible public support she might have. You prove this underlying nature of your intent with every insult and misleading remark you make. And you manage to make an endless number of those insults, brushing with such a broad stroke that you insult some of the most critical educators in the world.
Julio is well within his rights to take the title of “Biologist.” Julio went to school, passed the examinations, graduated and obtained a proper and recognized degree. This gives him every right to use that title, no matter what his current or past job history is. Your insulting and misleading rhetoric only shows your own outrageous bias and desire to ridicule others. It make you look foolish, not Julio.
Additionally, even if it were not proper for Julio to describe himself as a Biologist, it’s mistaken use wouldn’t justify your attacks on his character. You’re just mad because he has accurately pointed out the flaws in your methodology and defined your true reason and nature, that of a ridiculing skeptic whose only intention was to tear down Natasha.
You’ve chosen this “title” thing in its most narrow definition, and in doing so, you have invalidated your entire line of reasoning. You’ve leapt on this narrow and invalid reasoning to divert attention and use it as a false excuse not to answer Julio’s critique of your flawed scientific methodology.
Now, if Julio had posted himself as “Dr. Julio Siquera” without having earned the degree, then that would be a problem; but this idea clearly illustrates the lie that Skolnick asks us to believe. A person who goes through school and earns a high enough degree to be called “Doctor” can use that title even without ever having held a job as a Doctor. That person could be flipping burgers at a diner and still call himself “Dr. Suchandsuch”. It’s a totally bogus argument on the part of Skolnick. All designed to humiliate and ridicule, while giving the appearance of a “reason” not to answer legitimate questions and observations.
With every attack and attempt at character assassination, Skolnick shows himself to be more of a fraud than ever.
I've been invited to give a lecture on the CSMMH-CSICOP testing of Natasha Demkina at the University of Toronto on Friday, Nov. 25. I will be showing the Discovery Channel program and discussing the many errors in the program. I also will discuss the campaigns of disinformation and defamation by Natasha's supporters. I hope some of them will be able to come so I can answer their allegations face to face. I'll post more details about the time and location of my talk later this week.
Posted by askolnick on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:32 PM
Hi Archangel and Skolnick,
(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)
___________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:47 PM
(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)
___________
"I hope some of them will be able to come so I can answer their allegations face to face."
Oh God, I thought that invitation would not come...!!! Please, send the plane ticket.
Julio
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:49 PM
Oh God, I thought that invitation would not come...!!! Please, send the plane ticket.
Julio
Hi Skolnick,
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.
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:57 PM
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.
Part 2
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)
_______________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 05:58 PM
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)
_______________________
The links for Natasha's drawing and Rosen's lung are:
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/sarcoidosis.htm
http://www.granuloma.homestead.com/files/gross_sarcoid_honeycomb1.jpg
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 06:00 PM
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/sarcoidosis.htm
http://www.granuloma.homestead.com/files/gross_sarcoid_honeycomb1.jpg
Slolnick says: "I hope some of them will be able to come so I can answer their allegations face to face."
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’t much lead time…
I would enjoy being there, but I have better plans for Thanksgiving weekend.
Posted by Archangel on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 08:16 PM
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’t much lead time…
I would enjoy being there, but I have better plans for Thanksgiving weekend.
Hi Archangel,
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
_________________
Posted by Julio Siqueira on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 02:05 AM
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
_________________
"CSICOP’S A. ‘SKUKNICK’ – a malicious vandal, a ‘defacer’ using toilet humor to try to amuse. Is this the best what CSICOP can do to try to intelligently rebut charges of irregularities? A really silly guy by the name of Mr A SKUKNICK – (appears to be acting on behalf of CSICOP an anti-psychic organization) - is trying to parody and willfully maliciously DEFACE my website – the way vandals, racists and maliciously deface Jewish cemeteries and naughty schoolboys spitefully deface Christian pictures in Churches. Obviously, his toilet humor will amuse the lowly intelligent. His idiocy shows huge frustration of someone who does not have the vocabulary or intelligence to rebut any of the charges of fraud against himself and CSICOP’s debunking skeptics. Is this the best that CSICOP can do- sending an unbalanced juvenile to do a man’s job? Now, the deal is this: unless this A Skuknick gets rid of the defacing of my website forthwith my colleagues in the US want to install at least two permanent websites, one strongly attacking CSICOP AND its senior members –and another one his intimate friend Zwinge James Randi – both will be dealt legitimately but harshly - (courtesy of Skuknick) I’ve heard from a senior CSICOP academic and two other members who already have disassociated themselves from the idiocy of this malicious inarticulate CSICOP defacer." From Victor Zammit
People like Andrew skolnick is simply blocked from from other point of view. Which mean he doesn't get along with other people very well. I don't understand what Andrew is getting with all this, but he could be either playing with us (online people do/say crazy thing) or he's simply retarded from other's perception.
Majority of the people NEVER admit that they are wrong and always try to find lies to explain their defeat. (Or like politicians... always trying to win.) People like Andrew would rather suicide than reveal the truth. Although he knows some facts, but he does not know his current situation and surroundings. He is a hater.
Lies, hate, disbelief = askolnick
Posted by Phill Loss Sophia on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 09:55 PM
People like Andrew skolnick is simply blocked from from other point of view. Which mean he doesn't get along with other people very well. I don't understand what Andrew is getting with all this, but he could be either playing with us (online people do/say crazy thing) or he's simply retarded from other's perception.
Majority of the people NEVER admit that they are wrong and always try to find lies to explain their defeat. (Or like politicians... always trying to win.) People like Andrew would rather suicide than reveal the truth. Although he knows some facts, but he does not know his current situation and surroundings. He is a hater.
Lies, hate, disbelief = askolnick
The Shadow of Hate...
Hate-Crime Enhancement Law...
Death to haters...
Hating other's ethnicity, religion, sex orientation, race, and paranormal powers..... and many other kinds!
Posted by General Hatred on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:02 PM
Hate-Crime Enhancement Law...
Death to haters...
Hating other's ethnicity, religion, sex orientation, race, and paranormal powers..... and many other kinds!
Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros, the elementary school English teacher wrote:
"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."
"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.
Posted by askolnick on Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 10:07 PM
"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."
"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.
Page 21 of 36 pages « First < 19 20 21 22 23 > Last »
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.