Funny T-Shirts

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 Siqueira has been been passing himself off as a biologist rather than an English teacher. Who would believe an English teacher that uses "me" as a sentence subject? Me certainly wouldn't.

As for having "proof," scientists prefer to speak of evidence, rather than "proof" -- "proof" is a term more appropriate for mathematics. As for having evidence that Natasha claims to see down to the cellular level, we have plenty. First, there's the statement from the Discovery Channel program's producer-director, that Natasha claims to see down to the cellular level. Another is the on-camera statement of the physician of the man who supposedly has sarcoidosis. She states in front of the camera: "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."

But those are the facts and Julio Siqueira doesn't like to deal with facts.

Just watched this program on one of the 'discovery' channels.
I'm not convinced one way or another. I'm not some scientist, but I do know that when testing something against the option of chance you certainly use more than seven subjects. From only seven subjects you could not hope to draw any scientific result.

I'd like to have seen you go further into exactly what she was doing, rather than just try and test to see if she was doing what she claimed. It could be that there is still a lot to learn from this girl.
Equally, I concede that you may well have done this but it wasn't shown in the program.

Skolnick, that's not "plenty" of evidence. What you just described is actually called "scant" evidence - in court it would probably be inadmissible. A statement from the show's producer and a Doctor who doesn't know how to explain what Natasha is seeing isn’t convincing "evidence" or "proof."

You, csicop, and csmmh should have been a lot more thorough than that. As Jon indicates above, you "investigators" weren't very thorough or convincing.

And as far as Julio's grammar, you've already said the exact same thing earlier. Doesn't mean anything here. You're just avoiding the issue and using your rude tools to attack and defame.

And just to be clear, csmmh was “inaugurated" on Nov 13, 2003, less than two months before skolnick was hired as its "Executive Director". So if skolnick played no part in the early days of csmmh’s “creation” then what exactly would an “Executive Director” be doing? In his earler posts, skolnick acts like csmmh was some long established group, but it was in its infancy when skolnick joined.

Oh, and as far as using the words "proof" or "evidence" and the preference of "scientists," you're once again playing the ”Humpty Dumpty” game of "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone," it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." It's almost scary how much your conversations are like Humpty's with Alice.

"Proof" is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact," and "something that induces certainty or establishes validity," so Julio is far more accurate in his usage than you are. Good, solid evidence would provide the proof he asks for. Evidence your sloppy work did not provide us with. Plus, we're not scientists or mathematicians out here; we're the general public trying to make sense of your nonsense. "Proof" means a lot more than a math statement, Mr. "Scientist". You should quit playing these word games, especially considering how far behind you are.

Instead of playing these word games, skolnick, you should really correct all mistakes you've made on this forum, apologize for your insults, lies and falsehoods. Instead of admitting it when you're wrong, you branch out into other areas, making even more mistakes and insults in the process. Very hydra-like.

Jon, scientists frequently conduct and publish studies involving small numbers of subjects. They're called pilot or preliminary studies -- which was what our test was. Our test rules, which the Discovery Channel producer-director had agreed to, required them to inform the audience that the test was a only preliminary examination to see if more carefully-controlled studies of Natasha Demkina's claims were warranted. Regretfually, rather than tell viewers the truth, the program misrepresented the test as a definitive study that could validate her claimed abilties. So you are right that the study by itself settles nothing. However, we were able to gather a lot of other evidence to confirm the preliminary finding of our test, that nothing more "supernatural" is going on than simple "cold reading."

Your last post is priceless, skolnick. It’s unbelievable that you have the unmitigated gall to put charges of misrepresentation on the shoulders of the Discovery Channel. That’s a colossal load of absolute crap. You, Wiseman and Hyman all misrepresented the test yourselves, and you continue to do so. You clearly stated that the preliminary test results wouldn’t be conclusive, then you turn right around and claim that Natasha failed and there was no need to do further testing. Now to justify this, you claim it was other “evidence” that led to that conclusion. Unbelievable sophistic reasoning and misleading falsehoods.

So, let me get this straight. First you use the show's producer as part of your "evidence" that Natasha claimed to see at the cellular level, and then you say that the very same show's producer misrepresented the truth about the test.

I don't think you can have it both ways skolnick. Especially with your penchant for dismissing anyone you claim is telling "falsehoods". Twisting the facts to suit your needs is not very scientific.

Then you say this: However, we were able to gather a lot of other evidence to confirm the preliminary finding of our test, that nothing more "supernatural" is going on than simple "cold reading."

Wrong! First, you cannot say that the preliminary findings of the test led to any conclusion – according to your own “rules,” the test’s results clearly called for further testing. That’s just a blatant and misleading falsehood on your part, and it goes against your own test protocols! Then, there's no "confirmation" in the other “facts” you gathered, that's the whole point of most of the posts on this thread and all the criticisms of your "investigation" into Natasha Demkina - that the testing you did wasn't sufficient and the evidence you gathered didn't provide enough proof to convince most of your viewing audience. Then you're insulting on top of it.

Shoddy work. I hope no one ever submits themselves to testing by you or csicop ever again.

Because of the disreputable effort to rewrite the history of CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina for the Discovery Channel program, here are the test rules that were approved by the producer-director and by Natasha Demkina, her mother, and her British agent nearly a week before they came to the United States for the test. http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/demkina.protocols.doc


Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal
and the
Commission for Scientific
Medicine and Mental Health

Center for Inquiry
Amherst, NY

Test Design and Procedures for
Preliminary Study of
Natasha Demkina


1.) The entire test, including pre-test briefing will take place at the New York Academy of Sciences, or other suitable facility.

2.) The Subject Recruiter will choose and "shepherd" the test subjects to the testing facility and will provide us with each subject's "target" medical condition, such as implanted pace maker, resected lung, bone plate and screws, that are clearly documented by medical records and/or x-rays. The target conditions will all be different, no two subjects will have the same condition.

3.) Seven subjects will be provided, one of whom will not have any of six different target medical conditions. The task Natasha will be provided is to match the 6 target conditions to the correct 6 subjects who have the medical conditions

4.) A test card for each condition will be created. On each card, a target condition will be clearly described using non-medical terms in Russian and in English. The card may also contain a simple illustration of what Natasha should look for, such as a drawing of an artificial hip joint, or a drawing of a human body showing a missing left kidney. Below that will be numbers 1 to 7 corresponding to the 7 subjects who will be identified only by number and not their name. Natasha will be required to circle the correct patient number that matches the target medical condition. (See attached example.)

5.) Natasha will also be required to sign each card when she is done and to hand the card to the Test Proctor. The Proctor will then hand her the next card until all 6 cards have been marked, signed, and turned in. The Proctor will also sign each completed card and place it into the completed card envelope.

(Part 2)

6.) In interest of keeping the test clear and meaningful -- and more importantly -- to protect the privacy and other rights of the volunteer subjects, Natasha will not be permitted to offer any other diagnosis or observation about the subject's health. She simply must look for the target condition in the subjects and correctly identify the subject who has the condition on the test card.

(If any subject is interested in obtaining Natasha's opinion, they may do so on their own after the testing is over.)

7.) No other information will be provided on the test cards.

8.) The test cards will be placed in a random order within a sealed envelope and given to the Test Proctor (probably Ray Hyman) to be opened during the test briefing. The Proctor (and all others involved in the test except for the Subject Recruiter) will be completely blinded as to the identities of the subjects and their medical conditions.

9.) Likewise, the entire Discovery Channel crew must be blinded and none of them will be allowed to directly speak with any of the subjects until the test is completed and unblinded.

10.) In a room away from the test room, Natasha and her translator will be shown the cards and all the test rules will be explained by the Test Proctor. Natasha will be told that, on each card, she will have to identify the subject who has the condition by marking the subject's number on the card.

11.) In the test briefing room -- and in the test room -- the number of people must be kept to a minimum to reduce distractions, possible interference, noise, and tension. The Test Proctor and video person will be the only personnel from CFI and CSMMH who will be present within the test briefing room and test room.

12.) When ready, the Test Proctor will open the test card envelope and hand Natasha the 6 test cards. He will explain to her what is required and how she is to mark the cards, and other rules of the test. Natasha may ask for clarification of anything she doesn't understand - including the target medical conditions or the test protocols. Explanations may include generic drawings of the organ or surgical implant in question.

(Part 3)


13.) The Test Proctor will ask Natasha if she understands what the test requires, how the test will proceed, and whether she has any questions. When she says she fully understands and is ready to be tested, the Test Proctor will escort her and the translator into the test room (and any of her friends and family members), where the test subjects will already be waiting. The test rules must also be explained and agreed to by all of Natasha's friends and family members who she wants to bring with her into the testing room.

14.) At no time will Natasha or her translator (or any other person other than authorized CSICOP/CSMMH personnel) be allowed to talk to any of the subjects until the test is fully completed. If she needs a subject to turn to a different angle, she must step out of the room and make her request to the Proctor. The Proctor will then enter the test room and have ALL the subjects turn to the requested angle. Then Natasha and her translator will be brought back in.

15.) All 7 subjects will be standing in a line and numbered 1 to 7. They will be wearing normal clothing that fully covers every part of their body except for their hands, neck, and head. Natasha must conduct her examination from one spot in the room that provides her a clear and close view of the subjects. She must not approach any of the subjects -- which could cause an exchange of body language cues that could reduce the accuracy of this test.

If for any reason, any subject has to move or leave the room, Natasha and her translator (and any of her friends or family members) must first be taken to another location so that they cannot view the subject walking.
16.) Because this is a test of Natasha's abilities, Natasha will not be allowed to talk with anyone (including her friends and family members) during the test other than the Test Proctor.

17.) To further reduce the risk of unintentional non-verbal communication between the subjects and Natasha, all subjects will wear mirror lens sunglasses that will prevent anyone from seeing the subjects' eye movements.

18.) Neither Natasha or her translator will be allowed in any way to discuss the targeted medical conditions in the test room. If she wants to ask a question, she must ask the Test Proctor to leave the room.

19.) The Test Proctor will not know the subjects or their target conditions until the test is over and the results are opened.

20.) During the test, the Subject Recruiter will not be in the test room, since he or she knows the subjects' medical conditions.

21.) When Natasha is finished marking and signing each card, the test proctor will take the card from her, sign it, and randomly hand her one of the remaining cards from the test card envelope until all cards are completely marked.

(Last part)

(Last part)

22.) After all cards are filled out, signed, and collected, the proctor will take Natasha and her translator into another room and ask her how well she thinks she has done. She should be encouraged to say which "diagnoses" she is most confident with and to explain why.

23.) The unblinding of the test should then be conducted in the presence of the test subjects, who will then have available for showing radiological or other medical records that document their targeted medical conditions (if we can get this documentation because of lack of time -- at the very least, we should offer to help arrange for the Discovery Channel people to obtain appropriate medical documentation.).

24.) At this point, the Test Proctor will interpret the results of the test. The goal of this test is for Natasha to match at least 5 of the target medical conditions to the correct subject.

If Natasha correctly matches 5 or more target medical conditions, the Test Proctor will declare that she has demonstrated that she achieved a significantly better than chance score and therefore further, more thorough scientific testing of her claimed abilities are certainly warranted.

If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities.

25.) It is imperative that the Test Proctor be allowed to explain in the Discovery Channel program that the CSICOP/CSMMH test is not in any way a definitive test. It is too simple and brief to determine the truth of Natasha's claims with comfortable certainty. It can only help decide whether further study of Natasha's claimed abilities are warranted.

26.) Throughout the design and conduct of this test, we must observe all rules regarding the ethical treatment of human subjects. We will have each subject sign a statement that fully informs them of the testing procedure, their medical information that will be made public, and how this information will be used (ie. Broadcast on the Discovery Channel and possibly published in The Skeptical Inquirer, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, or other publications).

I see, and you're right I went a little too far. I should have re-read the test rules..

In my opinion, (and in the opinions of many, many others) she should have been tested further. But, the test was "failed" which meant no further testing by csicop.

I probably should have left my comment about further testing out since it wasn't core to the point I was trying to make. It just gave you the opportinity to distract from the real point I was making and not answer it. You are very good at distraction and manipulation, I'll give you that.

It's this part that I was really trying to address:
Skolnick said: "So you are right that the study by itself settles nothing. However, we were able to gather a lot of other evidence to confirm the preliminary finding of our test, that nothing more "supernatural" is going on than simple "cold reading."

My point is really about the conclusions you came to from the testing results and the statements you've made. Failure of the test may not have led to further testing, but the results also did not show that Natasha couldn't do what she claimed. You say that yourself.

HOWEVER (and this is a BIG "HOWEVER") you have made the unjustified jump from "inconclusive" to "nothing supernatural going on".

So let me rephrase my above comments and remove any reference to further testing by your own rules (I was wrong about that):

First, you cannot say that the preliminary findings of the test led to any conclusion – according to your own “rules,” the test’s results clearly were inconclusive as to proving or disproving Natasha's abilities. That’s just a blatant and misleading falsehood on your part, and it goes against your own test protocols! Then, there's no "confirmation" in the other “facts” you gathered, that's the whole point of most of the posts on this thread and all the criticisms of your "investigation" into Natasha Demkina - that the testing you did wasn't sufficient and the evidence you gathered didn't provide enough proof to convince most of your viewing audience. Then you're insulting on top of it.

There. Better?

I should have left it to Julio, he's much better at the details than I am.

All in all, we felt that you didn't pursue a thorough enough test, and from the flimsy testing and investigation that you did perform, your conclusions about Natasha's abilities are not justified.

It was a crappy job and you know it. You prove this by your defensiveness. Even Hyman and Wiseman have both said that the testing could have been done better (and not on Natasha's part).

You cannot smash down the psychological aspect of a person trying to utilize presumed psychic powers. It's like expecting a chess master or an athlete to play his best game under impossible conditions. Playing games with Natasha's comfort was either stupidity or just plain manipulation to help make her fail. You have to be aware of the impact on her psyche by the things you did.

I find the whole focus on the "text messaging" to be idiotic, what kind of help would that have provided? Was her Russian boyfriend a detective?

You could have done much better from the scientific point of view. And you know, it wouldn't have been so bad if you could have kept your smartassed, insulting mouth shut. It's your shitty attitude of smug superiority that's really galling to people and that makes you lots of enemies.

I moved a sentence to a better location:

First, you cannot say that the preliminary findings of the test led to any conclusion – according to your own “rules,” the test’s results clearly were inconclusive as to proving or disproving Natasha's abilities. Then, there's no "confirmation" in the other “facts” you gathered, that's the whole point of most of the posts on this thread and all the criticisms of your "investigation" into Natasha Demkina - that the testing you did wasn't sufficient and the evidence you gathered didn't provide enough proof to convince most of your viewing audience. That’s just a blatant and misleading falsehood on your part, and it goes against your own test protocols! Then you're insulting on top of it.

Much better. I think. I'm actually getting tired of all this, if you can believe it, which is leading to a bit of sloppiness on my part.

In another life, Skolnick and I probably would have been good friends. I do like his photography.

Then there's this part:
So, let me get this straight.

First you use the show's producer as part of your "evidence" that Natasha claimed to see at the cellular level, and then you say that the very same show's producer misrepresented the truth about the test.

I don't think you can have it both ways skolnick. Especially with your penchant for dismissing anyone you claim is telling "falsehoods". Twisting the facts to suit your needs is not very scientific.

What about that?

I'm really torn on whether or not Natasha can do what she claims. I really wish csicop had proven it one way or another. But they didn't. They left so many gaps that either party (believers or non-believers) can make a solid case.

I admit that I believe in psychic powers. I've seen and experienced them. But, I also know that there are a lot of charlatans out there.

Really, if I felt that skolnick was an honest investigator, I would relish this opportinity to commnunicate with him regarding questions and ideas that I have.

For instance, I wonder if the God of the Hebrews, the God of the Christian bible, if real, was actually a being with advanced technology and scientific knowledge, instead of a "supernatural" creator. Intelligent Design could be very real, but not supernaturally...we do it all the time in botany, and now cloning and other technical advances. We can design humans as well.

Anyway, this is all a waste of time because Skolnick is just a rat-bastard who uses insults and ridicule as tools of "science." Idiotic.

Hi Everybody, especially Dear Skolnick,

Skolnick, your last postings have been getting weaker and weaker.The time for the Coup de Grace is drawing near...

Let’s go on then:

“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.”

Did you mean “Julio the Bumble” or “Julio the Mamba?” . Whatever. It seems that the two of us (The Mamba and Quacknick) are “Non-Terminal” then... Hadn’t we agreed that this BA, MX stuff were no degree? Now zero becomes two? How come? As to MS, weird this one, huh? How did you get it? What is it? I found three entries at http://www.dictionary.com that might refer to it:

First Entry for Ms: Used as a courtesy title before the surname or full name of a woman or girl: Ms. Doe; Ms. Jane Doe.
Seems unlikely. But we’d better wait till the athletic afro-american subject furnishes further details about that most thorough, how can we put it, “inspection” that you performed on his pelvis before we can really come to a definite conclusion (after all, we are scientists !)

Second Entry for M.S.: Multiple Sclerosis
I felt tempted to bet on this one above...

Third Entry: Magister Scientiae (Master of Science).
You, a Master of Science???!!! Where did you get that? Perhaps at the link below:
http://www.belforduniversity.org/university/mastersprogram.asp?mcid=3
[This program allows professionals and working adults like youself - Skolnick - to get master's degrees on the basis of life experience. You can receive this accredited degree without attending classes, submitting assignments or taking tests.].

Let’s continue quoting from Quacknick:

“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.’”

Here above Batman was talking to Robin. What Skolnick Quacknick is talking about above is an analysis I presented ONLY to Skolnick-Hyman-Wiseman plus skeptic Kentaro Mori. I already talked about this issue in previous pages of this forum, so if anyone is interested in it, please refer to what I said, and if anything is unclear in what I said, then we can proceed from that point on. Obviously, since I have already answered to it, we cannot start again back from zero, as Skolnick is trying to swindle us into accepting. So for now let’s reject Zero Skolnick.

Part 2
“So it's not the least surprising Siqueira had no interest in seeing the Fuji TV program.”

It doesn’t matter if it is Fuji, Sushi, or Bushi: I will take it. I have already commented here on the feedbacks that Robin (aka Kentaro Mori) brought to us from Japan. If either He (thanks Skolnick ) or anyone else wants to discuss it further, it will be a delight (I myself will talk a little more about it in my next messages).

“and the late Francis Crick, PhD”,

Yes, I took a look, of course, at the list of fellows of the CSMMH before pulling your leg. I did notice the presence of our darling Susy Blackmore (Dawkins is not there), but I did not notice Mr. Francis Crick (possibly he is not more on that list since his death, even though he remained after his death in the CSICOP list until quite recently - it seems that they believe in the afterlife after all...). Big Shot. Good guy, like many other ones there. (You should work harder to honor their names, Skolnick, and, honestly, to honor yours too!).

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- (Hey, Skolnick, didn’t you forget “defecation” ).

Archangel poured some light into the debate:
“It looked to me that Julio was poking fun at you, not “lying through his teeth.’”

Oh, dear friend, you are the only one with sense of humor around here! Skolnick is always looking for enemies over his shoulders. Like ex-Vietnam veterans. So paranoid.

Back to Skolnick:
“As for having evidence that Natasha claims to see down to the cellular level, we have plenty. First, there's the statement from the Discovery Channel program's producer-director, that Natasha claims to see down to the cellular level. Another is the on-camera statement of the physician of the man who supposedly has sarcoidosis. She states in front of the camera: ‘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.’”

Ok, this is what we really have to talk about. This is true evidence.

First, the producer (Discovery Channel) says that she doubled checked some information with Natasha to give feedback to you as to her claims. And Natasha, according to her, said that she can see right down to the cell level if she concentrates. The letter from the producer, Monica Garnsey, that you passed to us (to me and to Mori) states this, as I fully reproduced in my own webpage. I reproduce below the full paragraph where I talk about it:

Part 3
Only on December 3, 2004 (almost one month after my first contact with Skolnick...), did Skolnick present further evidence of Natasha's "extended claims" (cellular vision, etc). He showed a part of an email he received from the program producer (Monica Garnsey) nearly a month before the test, "containing a summary of Natasha's 'abilities' to help us design the test". Monica is quoted as saying that: "I double-checked a few things with her last night. ... She usually scans people all over first, by making them stand up fully clothed and looking them up and down; delivers a general diagnosis; and then goes into more detail when the patients have discussed their concerns with her. She says she can certainly see ribs, heart, lungs, initially in general 'like in an anatomy book', but can see right down to the cell level if she concentrates.". Note that there is only the briefest mentioning of "cellular vision", and that nowhere is it said if she can diagnose diseases at the cellular level, or even at the microscopic multicellular tissue level, and definitely there is nothing at all about molecular vision.
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

Yes, it seems that some sort of “cellular vision” is part of what can be said to be Natasha’s claims by the researchers (and I never said anything to the contrary). But to claim “to be able to see” is not the same as to claim “to be able to diagnose”. Where is the claim for diagnosing at the cell level? Nowhere! Where is the claim for diagnosing at the molecular level (or even seeing at this level - Skolnick told me in email that she could indeed see and diagnose at this molecular level too! - On 9 November, an email from Skolnick to me clearly stated: "The test was designed to determine whether Ms. Demkina can do what SHE and her supporters claim -- that she can look into a person's body with her x-ray and microscopic vision and see abnormalities anywhere in the body down to the molecular and cellular level. And her diagnoses, they say, are never wrong.".)? Nowhere! Where is Skolnick’s acknowlegment of his fault on this matter, and his due apologies? Nowhere!

If I was one of the researchers, upon learning of this “cellular vision” stuff, the first thing I would do is to go deeper into that (so easy: phone call with online translator; any telephone company has it almost for free!). Being myself a MA in Clinical Bacteriology (no matter Quacknick likes it or not...), I immediately spotted the need for further questions. And this EVEN BEFORE I saw the documentary, that is, at the moment when I was still talking ONLY TO SKOLNICK. The questions would be:

Part 4
- What is it that you see at the cell level, baby? Do you see isolated cells in good detail, or only the multicellular pattern (like cells being only tiny spots)? Do you see details inside cells? Do you see processes in them, and things you believe to be abnormalities?

The researchers decided to ask nothing, and now think they have the right to behave as if they had asked everything. That is dishonest. That is unscientific. Even Hyman keeps talking about cellular vision. That is simply stupid. And these are the self acclaimed top skeptics of the World...

Skolnick, again you said that the phisician of the man said “‘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.’”. It seems that I do not have this part in my version of the documentary. I believe you got your one from Monica Garnsey herself. It might be an unedited version. The version that I have only shows the man saying that he showed the picture to the doctor after this doctor diagnosed him, and only some further words from the program narrator, and then they move to another section of the program. I do not really think that it is that much important, but if you could get this little passage, change it into wmv (or whatever) and make it available to us (copyright fair use provision!), I would greatly thank you. Or you could indicate to me where in the program it appears, so that I do not have to see the whole program again. I plan to see the whole of it again, but it might take sometime (one week, I do not know), so pleaaasssseeee, be kind..... and generous. After I see it, I may even realize that it is good backup for the diagnostic cellular vision claim (from the part of the researchers).

Jon said:
Just watched this program on one of the 'discovery' channels. I'm not convinced one way or another.

I fully agree with Jon. My bias is actually against Natasha, even though I think she may have some telepathic powers (again, remember: Ganzfeld results are quite robust!), which combined with cold reading, and the like, yield the alleged hits she has. But this is only a crude guess from me.

Archangel said:
“Skolnick, that's not ‘plenty’ of evidence. What you just described is actually called ‘scant’ evidence - in court it would probably be inadmissible. A statement from the show's producer and a Doctor who doesn't know how to explain what Natasha is seeing isn’t convincing ‘evidence’ or ‘proof.’”

Yes, Archangel, YOU speak like a scientist. Our M.S. (multiple sclerosis?), however, do not...