Funny T-Shirts

Natasha recently claimed on a Japanese TV show that she can diagnose people just by looking at a photograph of them. And the photo doesnt even have to show the diagnosed part. Just the face allowed her to diagnose a man. She speculated that that was probably due to the fact that she can diagnose through some kind of energy.

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.

Hi Skolnick,

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 “Is Julio a biologist or not?”. Now is the issue “Is Julio good at English or not?”. And we never get to the issue “Is the rule number 25 to be respected by Skolnick or not?”, and etc...

Ok, let’s talk then again about me being English proficient, me being biologist, and me being scientist...

English first: I have already presented to you my curriculum in the English language area. I have a certificate of proficiency from the Michigan University (go check it) and one from Cambridge (the “Real Thing”, that is, UK) University (go check it). Besides that, I have a two-year English teacher’s course diploma from IBEU (Brazil-USA Institute), with credits in the following areas: English literature (excellent courses), English language (grammar, composition writing, applied linguistics, phonetics), Psychology, and American Culture. The last time that I attended these English classes was about 1988. So for the last fifteen years I have only had contact with the English language in my own way, mainly through reading. I never travelled abroad (except when I crossed, on foot, the bridge linking Brazil and Paraguai - I did it both ways).

So, my knowledge of the English language is not perfect. And sometimes I commit serious mistakes (like “either me”). And so what?

If you, Skolnck, want to talk about the English language here with me, I am ready to... We can talk about it in many of its aspects: phonetics, phonology, grammar, linguistics, socio-linguistics, history and culture of USA, etc. I could even teach you what is a mistake in language, how it comes about, etc.

Part 2
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 “entities”, have balls, man! And I do use them, not only to fertilize women, but to honor the tradition that any man (or any woman) must honor: courage and honesty!

So I suggest, if you still have your working ones too (or even non-working, it doesn’t matter), that you immediately start honoring them and change right away the very many mistakes in YOUR webpages, just as I have just corrected (and in one instance even appended an apology to YOU) my own pages some two days ago!

By the way, it is not only in the English language that I sometimes commit serious mistakes. In my own native language too. As a matter of fact, I spotted some mistakes in YOUR writings too, and I never brought them up because I think it is utterly silly to try to pick on it. What is involved in this Natasha Issue is not grammar (nor glamour...), but meaning (semantics) and preciseness of the description of the facts.

Now for the Julio biologist: for the thousandth time, even though I think it is not incorrect for me to label myself as a biologist, I HAVE ALREADY AGREED to your suggestion (or demand, or whatever), and I will not say that I am a biologist any more. I do not care to titles. What I care to is that people must know who I am. So, in issues where this is relevant, I will append to my name: B.A. in Biology; M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology (non-practicing biologist). I will keep saying this in this issue of your sloppy test on Natasha because in this instance it is most relevant. I have been able to spot many weaknesses in your reports precisely because of my background as a scientist in biology. And, YES, I am a scientist, because I am dealing with science, because I have done research before, because I have a scientific outlook on the world and because of a thousand other reasons. I think anyone can be a scientist. No diplomas needed. Go read Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World”... just to start understanding this issue better.

Part 3
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? “Me thinks” it is the best you can do now.

Julio Siqueira
B.A. in Biology
M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology
(Non-Practicing Biologist)
Pseudoskeptic’s Buster

________________________________

Kentaro Mori, the "scientist" who "tested" Natasha Demkina in Japan is none other than the engineering professor who has tested and confirmed the supernatural powers of many charlatans. As far as I know, he's never failed to detect and confirm woo-woo in anyone. He even scientifically confirmed the marvelous psychic powers of spoon-bender Uri Geller. I think that pretty much shows Natasha's powers are as real as Uri's.

I wonder who will write something about the problems with Fuji TV's test, then, Andrew. Or about Demkina's sensational revelation that turned everything we thought we knew about her powers upside down. Afterall, she can diagnose people just by looking at their passport photo.

I suspect none of the people who pose as Defenders of the Truth(tm) will care about these little details.

P.S. You've known Siqueira's opinions and intentions since he first started his crusade. Correct me if I'm wrong: From the first time he heard of the CSMMH-CSICOP test of Natasha Demkina, he formed the opinion that Natasha is honest and the testors are frauds and has worked hard to "prove" this preconception. Do you think he ever had any intention to find the facts, or was he just seeking information to use and distort to prove his presumptions?

Andrew, I know about some of Siqueira's opinions, but I cannot be sure about his intentions. Only he may know what he is really up to.
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.

Above, "knowing almost anything" should be "knowing almost nothing".

BREAKING NEWS: Rotten MacSushi Triggers Hallucinations Among Far-East Skeptics!


“Natasha recently claimed on a Japanese TV show that she can diagnose people just by looking at a photograph of them.”

As I told you before, this is an interesting piece of information. Did you see Natasha saying this in the Japanese TV show, with real time translation, etc? Do you think that, in any way, her claim might have been distorted by the presentation? It is important to check these details.

“She speculated that that was probably due to the fact that she can diagnose through some kind of energy.”

The girl is right. All dianostic procedures involve energy transfer of some kind. She seems to be improving her scientific knowledge of the World.

“Which contradicts a lot of the vague statements she had already given about her "x-ray vision".”

Which “vague statements”? This is news to all of us, including me and Skolnick. (or should it be “including I”, Skolnick? Why me and not I, huh? - from now on you will be my English Language Advisor... Let’s see if you are good enough for that )

“Incidentally, the diagnostic she made of the man based on a photo of his face was correct.”

Incidentally, you mean, “chance event”? What was the “p” value for that? What were the controls used, etc? Tell us more please.

“She even diagnosed a dog.”

Oh God, you and Skolnick are one of a kind. He decided to wage war on biologists, and you now refuse to accept the Vets... Why wouldn’t she be able o diagnose dogs? If you were complaining about her diagnosing fleas, it would make much more sense. But dogs? What is the point?

Part 2
“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.”

Mama Mia, I’m gonna take out that link from my site to yours... You used to be a wise skeptic before you met Skolnick. We are not stuck only on two options, perfect paranormality or fraud. What we have to do is to analyze the incident and see if any conclusion can be drawn from it. But you have to describe the program better, which so far you have not done (since last May, when you first reported to me this TV show). It seems that skeptics do not like to do homeworks...

“So far, the many ‘tests’ made with her were all positive. And as the Japanese ‘test’ showed, her claims grows wilder and wilder.”

From a certain point of view, even the CSICOP test she passed. It may be that her claims are growing wilder. But you must provide evidence for that, Mori. I myself can diagnose people by using photos (especially missing limbs ). So please, without details, no tales...

“But in the only test conducted by skeptics, she failed. She missed two”

No, it was not she that missed two. It was YOU who “missed one”... Natasha actually missed three.

“The only test conducted by skeptics, was the one in which she failed. That was probably due to the bad vibes.”

My bet is that her paranormal powers, if any, are weak and erratic, and that she indeed uses lots of cold reading and similar stuff. Most likely without the intention to deceive.

“Now, I'm the ‘ex-friend’ of Siqueira”

And you will remain so. Until you correct the grave misinformation you told Hyman-Wiseman-Skolnick about me having said (or is it “my having said”, Skolnick? Which is right and why? Huh?) that Natasha is a quack and that Wiseman is a bastard. Your faulty behavior has already delivered its aftermaths here at this very forum: Skolnick repeated the lie that I called Wiseman a bastard... In reply, I forced him to shut up on that, and he had no choice but to abide to it (he was not brave enough, however, to apologize publicaly to me here; a typical case of missing... “spheres”).

Part 3
“He has no problem in conceding that Natasha is very probably a quack.”

Quite on the contrary. She does not behave like a quack. Most likely she is not a quack. It might be that she is living an illusion. But only good research can tell it. As to quackery, so far I have seen no signs whatsoever of her being a quack. I cannot say the same, however, about either you or Skolnick...

“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.”

In my first report about this issue, which I sent ONLY to Skolnick-Wiseman-Hyman and to YOU, I already told that I did not care much for the Natasha phenomenon itself, and I clearly indicated my reasons for that: first, even if true, her powers would most likely remain unexplained and we would not learn to harness them and to make other people have them. Second, what she does (if she does it) is already done by some technical equipment, perhaps far better (better resolution, and most likely less false negatives and less false positives). Before I saw the documentary, I was already interested in the public health aspect of the case. In Saransk, poor Russia, most likely Natasha serves as a kind of motivator for people to go pressure the doctors for treatment. They get to the hospital saying “Hey, guys, the Little Miracle Girl has said that I have this disease, I must get treated”, and they manage to make the system work. People like Skolnick, who have grown fat in the rich cholesterol of industrialized societies, does not know how much the “motivation factor” (that is: yelling and fighting!) may be the difference between death or life for patients in countries where the public hospital system is cracking miserably, like in many parts of Russia and like in many parts of Brazil. After I saw the documentary, I started to care more about Natasha (that is, to like her more) as a human being and as an individual.

“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.”

Part 4
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 “she try” or that “she tries”, Skolnick? And why so? Huh?) to learn more about her own power, I would recommend that she become a doctor, I would recommend that she stress to her “patients” that she may not see all and that she may see things that are not there, etc. All I know is that she entered the medical school, and that seems to be very good indeed. My priority then, that is, my capability, is not attacking evil skeptics, but rather, attacking the “evil” in the skeptics (just as I allow and welcome their attacking the “evil” in me), evil which is destroying the potential benefits of their own test. And I would never say that Natasha’s claims are “bullshit” (be it feces from an ox, or silly talk). Some weeks ago, I vehemently protested against CSICOP skeptic Victor Stenger for calling my comments “gibberish” (a rather “polite” way of saying “bullshit”). It is this sort of “liberal” use of words from your part that I condemn the most.

Natasha’s claim seems to be honest indeed. And must be treated accordingly. This is all that I myself, humbly, claim. The rest is Skeptics’ Hallucinations...

Julio Siqueira

______________

You See Skolnick?,

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

________________

Julio, I have seen the TV show. I can attest that in the show, Natasha was shown looking at a small photograph of a man, and then proclaimed her diagnostic. It was specifically claimed that she diagnosed him only by looking at his photograph.

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.

Kentaro Mori san, you are trying to reason with someone who is stupid or dishonest enough to keep arguing that Natasha Demkina's drawing shown in the Discovery Channel program is a drawing of an entire lung and not of a sarcoidosis granuloma -- as the narrator clearly indicates. The narrator states that the "drawing could indicate some characteristics of a sarcoidosis granuloma, a lesion in the lung made up of immune cells." Sequiera wants us to believe that the Moscow doctor, who looked at the drawing and said she "sees the same thing" through her microscope, must have been examining the patient's entire lung under the scope, and not a tumor made up of immune cells. (Nevermind that the patient didn't have his lung removed!) Sequiera then has the brazen dishonesty to ignore what the man's physician says right for the TV camera: "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."

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.

Hi Batman and Robin,

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

Hi Bat and Rob,

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
_____________

Hi Everybody,

Kentaro Mori said:
“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.”

Yes, my intention was precisely this one. I find it strange that you now claim that you did not know it at that time. But at the very same time I was gathering information to criticize a skeptical work that is enormously more influential than this Natasha issue. And the fact is that this other skeptical work I ended up NOT CRITICIZING. It is the Skeptic Dictionary. Now, what is the difference between Robert Carroll and his Skeptdic on the one hand, and Skolnick-CSICOP/CSMMH and their “test” on Natasha on the other hand? I will give you sometime to try to figure it out, and if you do not, I will let you know of a story of an honest skeptic work, and why it is honest. But I will give to the two of you (Batman and Robin; oops, Skolnick and Mori) a clue. Follow the links below:
http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html
http://skepdic.com/comments/ganzfeldcom.html

Mori:
“I can attest that in the show, Natasha was shown looking at a small photograph of a man, and then proclaimed her diagnostic. It was specifically claimed that she diagnosed him only 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.”

I asked you about it last May and you did not give these feedbacks. No that you gave them, I can talk about them. And I will. (of course I could not have seen this documentary, since I am not in Japan). In my next message.

About your bad choice of English equivalents to Portuguese words: “a quack” ALWAYS implies deliberate fraudulent conduct. That is the problem, Mori. A “bastard” is an offense that also affects the FAMILY (progenitors) of the person. That is the problem, Mori. As to the proper equivalents, I have already posted them at this forum in the previous pages. Go take a look at them, please.

[Just a correction: In the first email that you decided to reveal to the whole world that I, in private emails, had called Wiseman a “calhorda” (a scoundrel), you DID NOT append to it the Brazilian term that I actually used. You only did it after my complaint.]

Mori:
“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.”

But Wiseman said the same about her. That she seemed honest. And the whole of Discovery Channel personnel who took part in the documentary also attested to her integrity (as to her powers, they were split in half). As to the appendix and minute circular scar, please refer to my critique of the test.

Part 2:
Batman (Skolnick):
“Kentaro Mori san, you are trying to reason with someone who is stupid or dishonest enough to keep arguing that Natasha Demkina's drawing shown in the Discovery Channel program is a drawing of an entire lung and not of a sarcoidosis granuloma -- as the narrator clearly indicates.”

The narrator did not say this. Not the way that you seem to be implying. And it is precisely at these times that I clearly see that you are very much UNTRAINED IN MEDICAL ISSUES... (Mama Mia). A granuloma is not a microscopical structure, Mr. Andy Degreeless... Take a look at its definition below:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/granuloma/AN00830

The narrator said granuloma and you started to see isolated cells. Oh My God. I am at the verge of sending a letter to Jama. I am serious.

Batman Begins, that is, Continues...
“The narrator states that the ‘drawing could indicate some characteristics of a sarcoidosis granuloma, a lesion in the lung made up of immune cells.’”

And our “respected academical” (Andy Degreeless) jumped to the conclusion that groups of immune cells are microscopic always... That they do not make up macroscopic structures... (I would bet that the neurons of certain...“skeptics” would not add up to macroscopic structures ).

Go Ahead, Batman:
“Sequiera wants us to believe that the Moscow doctor, who looked at the drawing and said she ‘sees the same thing’ through her microscope, must have been examining the patient's entire lung under the scope, and not a tumor made up of immune cells. (Nevermind that the patient didn't have his lung removed!)”

Oh Lord. Can anyone please instruct this man that tumors are not small enough to be placed under microscopes? What the doctor saw, Skolnick (Quacknick) was a slice of a tumor. The passage is fully explained in my published works. Go take a look at them, please.

Batman:
“Sequiera then has the brazen dishonesty to ignore what the man's physician says right for the TV camera: ‘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.’”

I cannot recall this passage. Please send it to me in wmv, or wait till Friday so that I can take a look at it, right? Where in the documentary does this appear, please?