Funny T-Shirts

Part 3:
Batman dies, at last:
“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.”

I never said that she never claimed it. As a matter of fact, you might be surprised if you asked me what I think is the likelyhood that she indeed said it . What I did say is that you just have nowhere to back you up on that. Again: the problem is not so much Natasha having or not having power. The real problem is you guys pretending to be what you are not, and that is quackery.

Oh Jama, what happened to you?

Julio Siqueira
__________________________

Ok,

This below is the email I received from Dr. Yale Rosen yesterday. I very much thank him for his kind attention, and his most professional stand. I must say that I never had any doubt about the soundness of his scholarly comments on this matter. What I had was a serious doubt about what kind of feedback he was presented with... (that is, I doubted CSICOP's and appendixes' integrity).

His text speaks for itself (and does not speak for Natasha anyway). So let the evidence be seen:

From Yale Rosen
November 15, 2005.
Dear Mr. Siqueira:

The reason that I did not respond to your previous e-mail is that I never received it.

In reply to your question:

1- I don't believe that any physician who looked at that drawing could come to the conclusion that it represents a honeycomb lung with emphysema or, for that matter, any other specific type of lung pathology.

2- The findings of honeycomb lung with emphysema depicted in that photograph are completely non-specific and could represent an end-stage of many disease processes including sarcoidosis. Any physician looking at that photograph might be able to come up with a differential diagnosis of all of the diseases that could produce that appearance but would not be able to say that the lung belonged to an individual with sarcoidosis.

3- ? Resemblance of drawing to website photo: I believe that it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that this drawing resembles the website photo and an even further stretch of the imagination to think that any physician would conclude that this drawing represents a diseased lung, let alone a lung involved with sarcoidosis.


With best wishes.
Yale Rosen, M.D.
____________________

I will comment on it later, but in a way there is no need to comment on it (as I said, it speaks for itself).

Julio
___________

Dr. Rosen answered Sequeira:

"3- ? Resemblance of drawing to website photo: I believe that it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that this drawing resembles the website photo and an even further stretch of the imagination to think that any physician would conclude that this drawing represents a diseased lung, let alone a lung involved with sarcoidosis."

Dr. Rosen is being overly tactful; it's not a "stretch of imagination" that moved Siqueira to claim Natasha Demkina's drawing looks like a lung with sarcoidosis. It's Siqueira's willingness to stretch the truth beyond recognition in his campaign to attack skeptics. There is no resemblance whatsoever between Natasha's drawing of a 4-legged bug and a human lung. Even an elementary school English teacher like Siqueira should know human lungs don't have four limbs, two antennae, and a tail.

Dr. Rosen makes it clear that there is NO way any physician could possibly think Natasha's drawing represents any type of lung disease:

"I don't believe that any physician who looked at that drawing could come to the conclusion that it represents a honeycomb lung with emphysema or, for that matter, any other specific type of lung pathology."

I would add that no microbiologist or even any biologist would look at Natasha's drawing and conclude that it's a picture of a diseased human lung. But then Siqueira is no biologist. He's an elementary school English teacher, who pretends to be an authority on science and medicine.

Julio, excellent posts. Good job with Dr. Rosen; you proved your point and put the lie to skolnick's insults.

Skolnick said:
"One of the most ridiculous example is where he tried to correct the conclusion of one of the world's leading authorities on what sarcoidsoses look like -- even though the only thing Siqueira knows about sarcoidosis is how to spell it. The distinguished scientist didn't bother to answer the kook's email."

Julio, you definitely proved Skolnick to be a total and complete liar by posting your communications with Dr. Rosen, clearly showing that skolnick makes things up as he goes along. This is the same thing he did with Natasha’s test; he makes things up and lies.

With every insulting post, every attack and attempt at character assassination, Skolnick shows himself to be more of a fraud than ever, you prove my points about you time and time again. You are a liar and a hypocrite.

Julio, on the other hand, is very honest and forthright. He clearly stated in his mail to Dr. Rosen that he was not a medical expert and was humbly asking Dr. Rosen a question. Yet skolnick still insults Julio and continues to ignore his own lies, insults and faleshoods. What a bastard you are skolnick.

Obviously, skolnick is “sputtering mad” at Julio for accurately pointing out the flaws, mistakes, lies and incompetence in the work Skolnick performed in the “investigation” of Natasha Demkina. Skolnick proves this with every attack, insult and low blow he attempts to land on Julio. The only way for Skolnick to answer Julio is to insult and ridicule him, while trying to distract and mislead the viewers, exactly like he did with Natasha Demkina.

You’re one angry SuperTroll, skolnick!

Skolnick says:
"Dr. Rosen is being overly tactful; it's not a "stretch of imagination" that moved Siqueira to claim Natasha Demkina's drawing looks like a lung with sarcoidosis."

Tell me Skolnick, did you talk to Dr. Rosen to get this "clarification," or are you just putting words in Dr. Rosen's mouth when you make the claim that Dr. Rosen is "being overly tactful" and "it's not a 'stretch of imagination"..."

I think you're lying and twisting what Dr. Rosen said.

Then there's this insult to Natasha by Skolnick:
"There is no resemblance whatsoever between Natasha's drawing of a 4-legged bug and a human lung. Even an elementary school English teacher like Siqueira should know human lungs don't have four limbs, two antennae, and a tail."

What the hell? I thought you weren't out to insult the poor girl? That is an insult. Clearly. Makes you a liar, a liar who uses uses ridicule to “win.”

Further, you're asking that we look at the drawing from the perspective of a Doctor. Natasha isn't a Doctor (yet!) She was a child trying to draw what she said she saw.

Your statements, and even the answer of Dr. Rosen are misleading with respect to that.

Dr. Rosen: "If Ms. Demkina is claiming that a physician made a diagnosis of sarcoidosis based upon this drawing I would say that that's simply unbelievable."

This is wrong. From what I understand, a doctor did not make the diagnosis based on the drawing. The diagnosis was made by examination of the patient, whereupon the Russian Doctor said that the drawing could appear to indicate what the lung diagnosis was.

Skolnick is just twisting the facts, and then using ridicule and falsehoods to further obscure the truth. I think skolnick purposely mislead Dr. Rosen, which led to Dr. Rosen’s statement. I think it’s very clear that there was at least some misunderstanding. You can get the answer you want by asking the "right" question.

Then, taking a child’s drawing and making fun of it…well, that’s just despicable, skolnick.

That's another hole in the "investigation." What are the "antennas" or "legs" or whatever the "appendages" on the "lung" are? Did skolnick bother to find out what those details were? No, he just makes incorrect assumptions about the drawing, saying that it's a microscopic view...or a bug or a representation of a human being or some such crap as that…but he doesn’t even know what the details of the drawing are supposed to be! Certainly not a bug!

What are those tube-like appendages? What are the vein-like protrusions at the top? Skolnick doesn’t know! Skolnick just makes it up as he goes along...this simple drawing makes that abundantly clear.

Dr. Rosen said: "Resemblance of drawing to website photo: I believe that it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that this drawing resembles the website photo and an even further stretch of the imagination to think that any physician would conclude that this drawing represents a diseased lung, let alone a lung involved with sarcoidosis."

Skolnick says:"Dr. Rosen makes it clear that there is NO way any physician could possibly think Natasha's drawing represents any type of lung disease.."

That's actually backwards. My question to Dr. Rosen would be the exact opposite. If a patient was diagnosed with honeycomb sarcoidosis, and a child drew that picture "interpretation" of the diseased lung, would your imagination stretch far enough to be able to see the resemblance? From Dr. Rosen's above answer, I would say yes! Dr. Rosen thinks it would be a “stretch of the imagination,” but not impossible or even unlikely.

As far as "diagnosing" sarcoidosis from that picture alone...well, no, of course not. No one said the girl was some great medical artist. And that’s not what happened, no one diagnosed anything from that drawing, the Russian Doctor obviously had a decent imagination! Unlike our dear Humpty-skolnick...who has it not only wrong, but backwards as well.

Skolnick also changes Dr. Rosen's answer so it fits what skolnick wants it to say. There's a name for that, isn't there?

Hi Archangel,

Excellent postings from you. I felt very happy when I read Skolnick's postings too. They clearly show that he has a weak basis. He surely got surprised to learn (from an... English Teacher ) that granulomas may be macroscopic. It is clear by his last two answers that he did not know that. So that is another serious flaw in their research that I had not dwelt upon properly: they did not have any medical counselling to carry on with this daunting endeavour. I got update my articles once more...

More Soon,
Julio
________________

Hi again, Archangel,

As a matter of fact I have been very light on Skolnick and friends.

You know that Skolnick decided to kill his time after he "retired" (i.e. got kicked off ) from old JAMA and then he created (almost by himself) the so called "CSMMH" (Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health - Skolnick's backyard). Now, Skolnick is insisting all the while that I am liar just because I called myself a biologist.

Well, ready for a surprise? Just take a look at the definition of "Comission". I looked at the online dictionary of the English language http://www.dictionary.com and just see what I found:

They have 6 entries for this. I could not find exactly where Skolnick believes his private "commission" would conceivably fit...

Entry 1 says: The act of granting certain powers or the authority to carry out a particular task or duty. The authority so granted. The matter or task so authorized: Investigation of fraud was their commission. A document conferring such authorization.

No, they do not fit in here above...

Entry 2, A, says: A group of people officially authorized to perform certain duties or functions: The Federal Trade Commission investigates false advertising.
Nope, they do not fit here too...

Part 2
Entries 3, 4 and 5...:The act of committing or perpetrating: the commission of a crime. A fee or percentage allowed to a sales representative or an agent for services rendered. An official document issued by a government, conferring on the recipient the rank of a commissioned officer in the armed forces. The rank and powers so conferred.

They do not seem to fit here too (even though the meantion of “fee” might be a hint as to what they are really up to ).

Entry 6 is the verb, that refers to these five entries above.

The only entry that was left was entry 2B, which reads:

“A ruling council within the Mafia that adjudicates family disputes and regulates family activities.”

This last one seems to be what Skolnick really has in mind

And this is the man that demands that I not be called a biologist...

What a Quack

Julio Siqueira
The Real Thing
_________________________________

JUST IN TIME

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?

Well, jokes are nice but we got to get down to work,

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’t I criticize Carroll then? What stopped me?

The fact is that I do not demand perfection from anyone. The skeptic dictionary has many flaws, very serious indeed, in many of its most important entries dealing with the paranormal. But then I witnessed an event regarding the Ganzfeld entry. What happened was this: the old entry for Ganzfeld was very flawed indeed. Carroll clearly seemed not to know what he was criticizing. He seemed not to know the protocol of the Ganzfeld experiments, and their logic. Then one reader clearly, and bitterly, showed this flaw to him. This reader was a Jason Ewin. Ewin’s message was not exactly “polite”. Nevertheless, Carroll replied. In a hard talk, but replied. Ewin insisted, and proved that Carroll was wrong. Now, what did Carroll do after it? Did he hide himself? Did he pretend that things had not happened? Did he chicken out and kept his entry unchanged (like Skolnick Chickenick would have done, and also Wiseman and Hyman too)?. No, Carroll did not do this.

What Carroll did was, first, he bravely kept Ewin’s postings, despite their agressiveness. And second: he changed deeply his entry on Ganzfeld. The new entry is almost perfect.

Yes, there remains many problems in many other important entries in the Skeptic Dictionary. But what is the need to condemn a man that, even though being highly flawed in many parts of his work, is, nonetheless, capable of self correction? What is the point in condemning a man that is brave and honest enough to perform changes in his work?

I simply do not care how long it is going to take until Carroll corrects further items in his dictionary. What I care is the fact that he is capable of honestly changing, and he is interested earnestly in giving a precise account of things.

Had Quacknick and playmates showed any signs of such bravery and honesty, I would never had bothered to do the painstaking works I have done criticizing their sloppy “research”...

Bye,
Julio
_________________

About Dr. Rosen’s scholarly reply,

First, let me comment on Quacknick’s (Chickennick’s) unsophisticated utterances...

“I would add that no microbiologist or even any biologist would look at Natasha's drawing and conclude that it's a picture of a diseased human lung.”

Yes, we biologists, especially we microbiologists, would never conclude that. But if a girl, a young girl, looks at me and says “I can see inside you, I can see your lungs, and you do not have tuberculosis. I do not know what it is, but I will make a drawing of what I see”, then that would make my imaginations start “streching”. Of course I would end up asking real authorities on the matter.

“Even an elementary school English teacher like Siqueira should know human lungs don't have four limbs, two antennae, and a tail.”

A tail? Gosh! I thought that was a skirt!!!

“There is no resemblance whatsoever between Natasha's drawing of a 4-legged bug and a human lung.”

Oh dear, please do not get mad at me, but I must confess that I found that very much to resemble you...

As I said, Dr. Rosen’s reply speak for itself. But since a certain unsophisticated individual (quack quack) decided to add unspecialized and inprecise comments about Dr. Rosen’s scholarly analysis, I must add my comments too.

To me the most important feedback from Dr. Rosen was that I was wrong in my initial impression. Natasha’s drawing, so, does not have any important feature that would indicate sarcoidosis, either at the cellular level, or at the macroscopic level. If she was really seeing something of the sarcoidosis, then she ended up drawing the irrelevant parts of the tissues involved. (or she does not draw well). There are other things that I could ask Dr. Rosen on this matter, things rather similar to what Archangel advanced. But to me they are not the essential, and I am not going to be inconvenient asking for free advice from such a highly respected academical when the main issue, as far as I am concerned, is already settled (against Natasha’s claim).

Part 2
What then is Natasha’s drawing? I do not know. I never knew. All I know is that CSICOPers never bothered to ask, but they were hastily interested in condemning her. What are the “limbs” and the “tail” (or skirt)? I do not know. But if I wanted to criticize her, the least that I would do is to try to get to know what she thinks these things are. It is a fortunate thing for CSICOPers that Dr. Rosen’s comment does not reveal that it has any resemblance to sarcoidosis.

But, the most important thing, as far as this thread is concerned, is that this whole issue ended up letting Skolnick reveal himself. He said that I had corrected Dr. Rosen, and that as a result Dr. Rosen decided not to answer my email. Andy knew that he was lying. He knew that I had been respectful and humble while addressing Dr. Rosen. Despite that, he carried on with his questionable tactic. So, as it turned out, we did not actually had a problem (that is, a serious mistake from the researchers) BEFORE. But we do have a problem NOW. Thank you, Skolnick.

With a friend like you (i.e. a collaborator in researches) no one needs foes

Bye for now
Julio
______________

Hi everybody,

Mori said:
“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.”

If you had told me this last May, of course I would have commented on it.

What can it be? First, just a lucky guess (yes, it can!). Second, conscious fraud, with or without involvement of the TV company. Third, unconscious “fraud”, if she somehow gathered some feedback about the case through some sensory leakage. Fourth, mild paranormality, involving telepathy and etc (Ganzfeld results are robust). Fifth, strong paranormality, akin to “X-Ray Eyes” plus “Super Psi” (or even Zeus, Invisible Pink Unicorns, whatever).

How can we choose? We cannot. Only through research. CSICOP’s research had many flaws, but also had some merits. It is quackery to try to sell it the way Chicknick is trying to do here, almost as if it were a perfect piece of investigation. But it is silly, and unscientific, to discard its feedbacks altogether. We do not do this in science. We build upon previous experiments, trying to perfect them, but not discarding them altogether (at least not necessarily so).

If someone come and say, based on this TV program from Japan, that Natasha is Wonder Woman, then I say it is unscientific to claim so.

If someone (like you...) say, based on this very same program, that Natasha is a Quack, then I say that it is unscientific to claim so.

That is all I claim. It is a humble claim. But it tries to be a precise one.

Bye,

Julio, the Humble

______________________

Once again "Julio the Humble" is lying through his teeth. I did not create the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. The Center for Inquiry formed CSMMH in November 2003 by merging the Council for Scientific Medicine and the Council for Scientific Mental Health, which existed for several years. At the time, I was a correspondent for PeerView Press and Doctor's Guide to the Internet and was living in the Chicago area and was in no way involved with the old Councils or new Commission. I was hired as executive director of the Commission in January 2003. The Commission is only one part of the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit educational organization affiliated with the State University of New York at Buffalo. And the Commission's web site is owned and registered by the Center for Inquiry.

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.

You're lying Julio.

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.

Kentaro Mori, you are well aware that Siqueira also wasn't the least bit interested in seeing the Discovery Channel program either, before writing his "analysis" of it. He argued with you and with me that not seeing it would allow his criticisms to be "more accurate." So it's not the least surprising Siqueira had no interest in seeing the Fuji TV program. Knowing something about a subject would impair the "accuracy" of his comments.

And up is down, black is white, and ignorance is knowledge -- in mind of Julio the Humble.

Correction: I typed 2003 when I meant to type 2004. I was hired as CSMMH's executive director in January 2004.

Some more lies by Julio Siqueira that should be corrected:

He states that Skolnick "created (almost by himself) the so called 'CSMMH' (Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health - Skolnick's backyard)."

He also claims CSMMH is Skolnick's "private commission" and that its website, http://www.csmmh.org, is Skolnick's website

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 looked to me that Julio was poking fun at you, not "lying through his teeth."

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.