Girl with X ray Eyes ( Natasha Demkina )

#1
ok so first this girl proved her abilities to Russian Doctors and countless other people..

then proved her abilities to UK scientists when she was tested in Britain

then came to US and was tested unfairly and she still managed to get 4 out of 7 correct ( 5 correct diagnosis were required to pass ).. She was featured in the documentary "The girl with X ray eyes" on discovery channel

1) http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/CSICOP_vs_Natasha_Demkina.htm

2) http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Demkinafile/X-ray_sequel.html

3) http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/skeptics-in-the-media/demkina-files/



and then after this , she was again tested by Japanese Scientists

http://english.pravda.ru/health/20-04-2005/8097-demkina-0/


During the test in Japan, Natasha was able to see that one of the patients had a prosthetic knee. Another patient had asymmetrically placed internal organs. Natasha easily diagnosed early stages of pregnancy and even a pathology of the fetus with a female patient. She diagnosed a rare undulating spinal curvature with a male patient. When Japanese doctors compared Natasha's drawing of the curvature with the X-ray photograph, they could see that the photo and the drawing were absolutely identical. When Natasha was finished with her seven patients, Japanese doctors could not help bursting into applause. However, it was only the first stage of the trial.

Professor Machi could not ignore the remarks of his American colleagues, though. US scientists concluded as a result of their research that the Russian girl was not seeing but guessing people's diseases with the help of certain external factors. The Japanese professor decided to conduct another testing session for the girl, this time in a vet clinic.

Natasha Demkina was offered to diagnose the disease of an old rottweiler. The girl was afraid to approach the unmuzzled animal, but the doctor told her that she had to look at the dog's paws. Five minutes later the girl pointed at the animal's right back leg, in which she saw a prosthetic device.
The Japanese scientists did not believe the girl, when she told them that she could also see diseases on people's photographs. When she was presented a small, passport-sized photo of a person, she quickly diagnosed liver cancer with the person on the picture.
the results speak for itself , any further info regarding her ?
 
Last edited:
#2
ok so first this girl proved her abilities to Russian Doctors and countless other people..

then proved her abilities to UK scientists when she was tested in Britain

I don't care why the mainstream media or the general populace isn't "making a big deal" about it. I am grateful to you for posting the info about her here. I hadn't heard about the case before.

BTW why do you muck up the links to prevent clicking on them?
 
Last edited:
#7
the results speak for itself , any further info regarding her ?
I still have yet to read much of this but something that just came up for me is - how would she know "when things are going wrong" ? It's one thing to see inside but to know the range of individual differences and when something is out of synch with that would, I'd think, require a lot of knowledge.
 
#10
This site has been troubled with spam, and that measure was obviously introduced to make it more difficult for the spammers. Obviously we all want new people, with interesting things to say, to join - so do bear with us!

David
Ah.Yeah. Though I think just having the admin accept new members before they can post is a more effective approach.
 
C

Chris

#11
From Wikipedia:

Then CSI researchers Ray Hyman and Wiseman, and Andrew Skolnick of the now defunct Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH) conducted their test of Demkina. In the test, Demkina was asked to correctly match six specified anatomical anomalies to seven volunteer subjects.[4][5] The cases in question included six specified anatomical anomalies resulting from surgery and one "normal" control subject. The researchers said that, because of limitation in time and resources, the preliminary test was designed to look only for a strongly demonstrated ability.[5] The researchers explained that while evidence of a weak or erratic ability may be of theoretical interest, it would be useless for providing medical diagnoses. In addition, the researchers said that the influence of non-paranormal observations could not be ruled out under the lax conditions of the test.[5] Demkina and the investigators had agreed that in order to warrant further testing, she needed to correctly match at least five of the seven conditions.[5] In the 4-hour-long test, Demkina correctly matched conditions to four volunteers, including the control subject. The researchers concluded that she had not demonstrated evidence of an ability that would warrant their further study.[4][6]
...
In a self-published commentary regarding the New York testing performed by CSICOP and CSMMH, Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and the director of University of Cambridge's Mind-Matter Unification project, criticized the test and evaluation methods used by Hyman and questioned the researchers' motives, leveling the accusation that the experiment had the appearance of being "some kind of plot to discredit the teenage claimed psychic."


Stating that the results should have been deemed "inconclusive", Josephson argued the odds of Demkina achieving four matches out of seven by chance alone were 1 in 50, or 2% – making her success rate a statistically significant result. He also argued that Hyman used a Bayes factor that was statistically unjustifiable because it greatly increased the risk of the experiment falsely recording a moderate correlation as being no correlation.[7][8]

Hyman responded that the high benchmark used in the testing was necessary due to the higher levels of statistical significance which he claims to be necessary when testing paranormal claims,[6][9] and that a high Bayes factor was necessary to compensate for the fact that "Demkina was not blindly guessing", but instead "had a great number of normal sensory clues that could have helped increase her number of correct matches".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina

Pardon my language, but doesn't that make it sound as though Hyman et al. didn't know their arses from their elbows? Why, with their great experience, weren't they able to design an experimental protocol that didn't involve the subject having a "great number of normal sensory clues"? What sort of a substitute is it to doctor the results after the experiment has been done, with a "Bayes factor" reflecting the experimenter's preconceptions?
 
C

Chris

#13
If you want to understand these types of phenomena, the last place to look is Wikipedia. That is the place to look only if you want to know how militant sceptics view the subject. A balanced view requires other sources.
I'm well aware of the bias in Wikipedia's coverage. My point is that Hyman's comment is nonsensical, given that he himself had conducted the study he was criticising!
 
#14
Why, with their great experience, weren't they able to design an experimental protocol that didn't involve the subject having a "great number of normal sensory clues"?
As I mention above, the experiment was stupid. Startlingly so.There's nothing in it worthy of discussion - be it pro or con.
 
C

Chris

#17
Saiko

If you think that was huffy, I can only assume you've never been properly huffed!

But my point wasn't really that the experiment wasn't worth discussing, but that Hyman's criticism of it didn't make much sense, considering that he'd conducted it. To be fair, one of the four flaws he points out couldn't have been prevented by the experimenters, so his comments are only three-quarters as nonsensical as I thought.
 
#18
1 ) htt*://criticandokardec.co* /CSICOP_vs_Natasha_Demkina.htm
2 ) htt*://skepticalinvestigations.or* /Demkinafile/X-ray_sequel.html
3 ) htt*//skepticalaboutskeptics.or* /investigating-skeptics/skeptics-in-the-media/demkina-files

htt*://english.pravda.ru/health/20-04-2005/8097-demkina-0/
Here are clickable versions of the links (Especially useful for people accessing the forum from a mobile device, I would imagine).
1 ) htt*://criticandokardec.co* /CSICOP_vs_Natasha_Demkina.htm
2 ) htt*://skepticalinvestigations.or* /Demkinafile/X-ray_sequel.html
3 ) htt*//skepticalaboutskeptics.or* /investigating-skeptics/skeptics-in-the-media/demkina-files

htt*://english.pravda.ru/health/20-04-2005/8097-demkina-0/
 
#19
Wow, did I just get into the Wayback machine with Mr. Peabody? I thought that the Deminka controversy was long gone. The whole Discovery Channel mess was a muck up from start to finish as outlined by Josephson and Jose Siquiera. There were a number of serious problems with the protocol and violations of the protocol that made this thing a complete joke. The worst of these was that no one bothered to verify the medical conditions of the test subjects, it's not really known whether they had the problems that they claimed. The second worst was that the skeptics violated an agreement to treat the results as preliminary. They instead treated the test as a failure.
 
#20
Saiko

If you think that was huffy, I can only assume you've never been properly huffed!

But my point wasn't really that the experiment wasn't worth discussing, but that Hyman's criticism of it didn't make much sense, considering that he'd conducted it. To be fair, one of the four flaws he points out couldn't have been prevented by the experimenters, so his comments are only three-quarters as nonsensical as I thought.
Okay. My bad for giving you huffy points that you didn't deserve.

My point (which I admit iwasn't expressed clearly) is laid out much better by Craig Weiler above: the experiment cannot be used as a valid discussion of Deminka's abilities - neither for nor against.
 
Top