| Revision as of 17:55, 11 January 2007 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 editsm →External links: plural in title of group← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:04, 12 January 2007 edit undoPerfectblue97 (talk | contribs)8,055 edits reworked based on existing draftNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Natalia |
'''Natalia Demkina''', (]: Наталья Демкина; born 1987), also known by known the diminutive '''Natasha''', is a young woman from ], ]. She is currently a full time student at Semashko State ] University, ], and a member of the Center of Special Diagnostics; a unit which specializes in researching folk healing, traditional medicine, and claims of unconventional healing abilities. | ||
| During the late 1990s and early 2000s, she attracted significant international attention after its was claimed that she had the ability see inside the human body to the cellular level, and to be able to make accurate medical diagnosis based on what she saw. | |||
| Experiments conducted in Russia, the United Kingdom and Japan appear to validate her claims, while experiments conducted in the United States disagree. The existence of her abilities remains a point of controversy. | |||
| <ref name=Discovery>{{cite episode | |||
| | title = The Girl with X-Ray Eyes (summary of program only) | |||
| | episodelink = http://discoverychannel.co.uk/reality/human_files/girl/index.shtml | |||
| | series = | |||
| | serieslink = | |||
| | credits = | |||
| | network = Discovery Channel | |||
| | station = | |||
| | city = | |||
| | airdate = 9pm, 2004-09-30 (Discovery UK) | |||
| | season = | |||
| | number = | |||
| | minutes = | |||
| }}</ref><ref name=skolnick1>{{cite web | |||
| | last = Skolnick | |||
| | first = Andrew A | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = Testing Natasha: The Girl with Normal Eyes | |||
| | work = Skeptical Inquirer | |||
| | publisher = | |||
| | date = May 2005 | |||
| | url = http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/demkina.html | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2006-12-12 }}</ref><ref name=NDWeb1>, {{ru icon}}-see also the accessed 21 August 2006)</ref> | |||
| ==History== | ==History== | ||
| According to her mother, Tatyana Vladimovna, Natasha Demkina was like any other child growing up, but that she was a very quick learner.<ref name="Discovery">], 2004, </ref> Demkina claims to have first noticed her ability at the age of ten. She says "I was at home with my mother and suddenly I had a vision. I could see inside my mother's body and I started telling her about the organs I could see. Now, I have to switch from my regular vision to what I call medical vision. For a fraction of a second, I see a colorful picture inside the person and then I start to analyse it." <ref name="Guardian">'']'', 25 Sept 2004, </ref> Her mother states that none of Demkina's diagnoses have ever been wrong.<ref name="Discovery"/> | |||
| According to her mother, Tatyana Vladimovna, Demkina was a fast learned, but was otherwise a normal child until she was ten years old, at which time her ability reportedly began to manifest itself. <ref name="Discovery"/> After reportedly describing her mother's internal organs to her, Demkina's story began to spread by word of mouth among the local population and people began gathering outside her door seeking medical consultations. Her story was picked up by a local newspaper in spring 2003 and a local television station followed suit in November that year. In turn, leading to interest from the international media, and to invitations to give demonstrations, and undergo testing, in London, New York and Tokyo. <ref name="Discovery"/><ref name=NDWeb1/> | |||
| According to her personal website, news of Demkina's ability was at first spread by word of mouth. She began charging 150 ] for medical diagnoses. Later she increased the fee to 400 roubles, or approximately half the average weekly wage in Saransk.<ref name ="Guardian"/> She often gave as many as 10 readings per day.<ref name="skolnick">Skolnick AA, '']'', May 2005, </ref> Demkina gained further publicity in the spring of 2003, when a local newspaper wrote about her. She was interviewed for a local television program in November of that year, and by the end of 2003, she had been the subject of a number of tabloid news articles in and outside of Russia.<ref name="demkina_about"></nowiki>] at , Demkina's website (in Russian--see also the by , accessed 17 August 2006)</ref> In January of 2004, British tabloid newspaper ] brought Demkina to Britain. '']'' reports that on ] ], Demkina "impressed Fern Britton by spotting her sore ankle." She also gave Dr. Christopher Steele, the show's on-air physician, a reading. She claimed she saw something wrong with his ], that he had ]s, and an enlarged ] and ]. The physician later had a battery of clinical tests performed, and these found no evidence of the conditions Demkina reported.<ref name ="Guardian"/> <ref name ="skolnick"/> | |||
| ===Russia=== | |||
| After stories about Demkina had begun to spread, doctors at a children’s hospital in her home town asked her to performed a number of task to see if her abilities were genuine. In one test, Demkina is reported to have drawn a picture of what she saw inside a doctor’s stomach, successfully marking where he had an ulcer. She also disagreed with the diagnosis of a cancer patient, saying all she could see was a small cyst. Further tests on the woman validated her assertion. <ref name="Discovery"/><ref name=NDWeb1/> | |||
| ===United Kingdom=== | |||
| In January 2004, Demkina was brought to ] by a group of British journalists. She was asked to diagnose a number of people, and her diagnosis were then compared to professional medical diagnosis. She scored well in the experiments including one case in which she is reported to have successfully identified all the fractures and metal pins in a woman who had recently been a victim in a car crash, even though the subject was fully clothed and had no visible signs of her injuries. Following this she made several diagnosis on live shows, again reportedly scoring a high level of success. Her level of accuracy was sufficient to convince witnesses of her abilities. <ref name="Discovery"/> | |||
| However, the experiments were not carried out under properly controlled conditions, and there were no doctors present for much of the process, so the results could not be declared as scientifically valid. After Demkina had left the United Kingdom it also emerged that she had made serious errors. In one incident she attempted to diagnose television-physician Dr. Christopher Steele. She reported that he was suffering from a number of medical conditions, including kidney stones, an ailment of the gall bladder, and an enlarged liver and pancreas. A later medical evaluation showed that the Dr. Steele was in good health and was not suffering from any of the ailments that she had diagnosed. | |||
| <ref name=Discovery/><ref name=NDWeb1/><ref name=skolnick1/><ref name=Guardian1>{{cite news | |||
| | last = Sample | |||
| | first = Ian | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = Visionary or fortune teller? Why scientists find diagnoses of 'x-ray' girl hard to stomach | |||
| | work = The Guardian | |||
| | pages = | |||
| | language = | |||
| | publisher = | |||
| | date = 2004-09-25 | |||
| | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1312544,00.html | |||
| | accessdate = }}</ref> | |||
| ===New York=== | |||
| In May 2004 Demkina traveled to ], where she appeared in a documentary; titled ''The Girl with X-Ray Eyes '' produced by the Discovery Channel. In New York, her abilities were tested under in a more scientific environment than the London experiments. <ref name="Discovery"/> | |||
| Preliminary tests was arranged by ] and ] of the ] (CSICOP) and Andrew Skolnick of the ] (CSMMH). The experiment was designed it to look for a ''strongly demonstrated ability'', apparent ''weak or erratic abilities'' were decided to be non-viable given the nature of her claims, and were therefore determined to pose no interest. <ref name=hymanSI>{{cite web | |||
| | last = Hyman | |||
| | first = R | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = Testing Natasha | |||
| | work = Skeptical Inquirer | |||
| | publisher = CSICOP | |||
| | date = May 2005 | |||
| | url = http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/natasha.html | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2006-12-12 }}</ref> | |||
| Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick arranged seven volunteers. Six of whom had undergone documented medical procedures, and one of whom was a control subject. Demkina was then given a list detailing the conditions that she was looking for, and was asked to identify which condition matched which volunteer. It was agreed in advance that the experiment would be considered a success if she managed to correctly match five of the seven patients to their conditions<ref name =hymanSI/>. Medical conditions that were not on the list presented to her were deemed to be unimportant. | |||
| Over the course of 4 hours, Demkina correctly diagnosed four of the volunteers (including the control subject); falling below the requirements of the experiment. From these results, researchers concluded that she had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of an ability to warrant further study and no further experiments were carried out. <ref name=skolnick1/><ref name=hyman>{{cite web | |||
| | last = Hyman | |||
| | first = R | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = Statistics and the Test of Natasha | |||
| | work = | |||
| | publisher = CSICOP | |||
| | date = | |||
| | url = http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha2.html | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2006-12-12 }}</ref> | |||
| After the experiment, Wiseman publicly attributed Demkina's score to a combination of ] and external observation. | |||
| :Professor Richard Wiseman: "At best, she's done this a lot and she has a real expertise at being able to look at people and make reasonably accurate diagnoses." <ref name=Guardian1/> | |||
| ===Tokyo=== | |||
| After visiting New York, Natasha traveled to 東京電機大学 (]) in Japan, at the invitation of Professor Machi Yoshio; who specialized in the study of unusual human abilities. <ref name=NDWeb1/> | |||
| After her experiences in London and New York, Demkina set several conditions for the experiments, including that the patients bring with them a medical certificate stating their health status, and that the diagnosis be restricted to a single specific part of the body – the head, the torso, or extremities - which she was to be informed of in advance. <ref name=NDWeb1/> | |||
| According to accounts on her website, Demkina was able to see that one of the patients had a prosthetic knee, and that another had asymmetrically placed internal organs. She also diagnosed the early stages of pregnancy with a female patient, and diagnosed an undulating spinal curvature in another subject; producing a drawing that was almost identical to X-rays of the patient. <ref name=NDWeb1/><ref name=NDpress>{{cite web | |||
| | last = Kuzina | |||
| | first = Svetlana | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = X-Ray Girl Surprises Japanese | |||
| | work = | |||
| | publisher = Pregnancy Press | |||
| | date = 2005 | |||
| | url = http://www.578.ru/pregnancy_press/18_r/2005/027.htm | |||
| | format = | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | accessdate = 2006-07-17 }}</ref> | |||
| Having reviewed accounts of the New York experiments; specifically claims that that Demkina might be using a number of ] to aid her diagnosis, Professor Machi also arranged for an experiment to take place in a veterinary clinic, where Demkina was asked to diagnose an anomaly in a dog. Demkina correctly identified that the dog has an artificial device in its back right leg, but only after being specifically directed to look at the animals paws. <ref name=NDWeb1/> | |||
| ==Criticism== | |||
| As with many other paranormal cases, the case of Natasha Demkina has been the subject of debate within the paranormal and scientific communities, and experiments involving her been the subject of a variety of criticism. | |||
| ===Demkina=== | |||
| After completing experiments in New York, Demkina made several complaints in regards to the conditions under which they were conducted, and about the way in which she and her diagnosis were treated. | |||
| She argued that she had required more time to see a metal plate in one subjects skull, that surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected ] in another, and that that she had been presented with two patients who had undergone abdominal procedure, but that she had only one abdominal condition on her list of potential diagnosis, leaving her confused as to which one matched the listed condition. | |||
| She also complained that she was unable to see that one volunteer had had their appendix removed because appendixes sometimes grow back, and that she was not able to compare her own diagnosis to an independent medical diagnosis after key experiments had been conducted. Preventing her from being able to see if she was diagnosing genuine conditions that were unknown to those conducting the experiments, and which were thus being listed against her in the overall results despite them being valid (as a result of this complaint, all volunteers in the Tokyo experiments were required to bring medical certificates with them prior to diagnosis). | |||
| In response to these complaints, the research team stated that Demkina should have been able to find the plate without extra sensory abilities, because its outline could be seen beneath the subject's scalp, and questioned why the presence of scar tissue in a patients throat had not alerted her to them having an esophagus condition. Additionally, they noted that it remains clinically impossible for an appendix to spontaneously regrow. | |||
| <ref name=Discovery/><ref name=skolnick1/><ref name=NDWeb1/> | |||
| ===Josephson=== | |||
| Under the New York experiment, Demkina had to correctly match 5 patients out of 7 with their condition in order to succeed. According to Professor Brian Josephson, such a standard of proof was statistically unjustifiable, and give the impression that the experiment was purposefully designed to portray Demkina as a fraud by setting an untenably high goal for her to reach <ref name=Josephson1>Josephson B, University of Cambridge, </ref> | |||
| Josephson states that, statistically, the odds of Demkina scoring 4 out of 7 were 1 in 50, or less than 2%. A success rate notably above that which could reasonably be attributed to chance alone. | |||
| In their defense, those behind the New York Experiment stated that statistical calculation indicating that a result which is higher than could be expected though random chance should not be considered proof in the case of paranormal abilities, such as those claimed by Demkina, because of the need, though ], to compensate for the possibility that Demkina could have harvested clues about a patients condition through keen observation and ], thus allowing her to make informed choices rather than random guesses. <ref name=hyman/> | |||
| Josephson However contends that by using inference to minimize the probability of a false positive occurring, the experiment also had an also enhanced the probability of a false negative occurring. In this case, a moderate/weak correlation being recorded as no correlation because of the inference level being set too high.<ref name=Josephson1/> ] can be contentious because the validity of a result depends on the validity of the prior distribution; which cannot be assessed statistically, sometime leading it and can lead to leads to ].<ref name=ayesian>Mathworld </ref> | |||
| The Bayes factor of the experiment was calculated by professors Persi Diaconis and Susan of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University. | |||
| In most clinical trials, a result is considered to be statistically significant if the probability that the difference between groups could have occurred by chance alone is 20 to 1 or below. <ref name="Stats">Medical University of South Carolina </ref> | |||
| ==Further claims== | |||
| == Discovery Channel appearance == | |||
| In May 2004 she was brought to ] by the Discovery Channel to appear on a documentary titled ''The Girl with X-Ray Eyes'',<ref name="Discovery">The Discovery Channel, 2004, </ref> and to be tested by researchers under partially controlled conditions. | |||
| In addition to reporting being able to preform see inside a patient, which she refers to as "medical vision", Demkina also claims to be able to diagnose medical conditions from photographs without first seeing the subject in person. According to her personal website these abilities were explored while in Tokyo, and were validated by Japanese scientists. <ref name=NDWeb1/> They were not explored during experiments in the US. <ref name=hymanSI/> | |||
| As a demonstration for the documentary, Demkina was shown giving diagnoses to people who had previously given descriptions of specific medical conditions that they had. Most of the people given these readings felt that Demkina had accurately identified their conditions. The researchers, however, were not similarly impressed. Professor Wiseman said that "hen I saw her do her usual readings, I couldn't believe the discrepancy between what I was hearing and how impressed the individuals were... I thought they were going to walk away saying it was embarrassing, but time and again, they said it was amazing. Before each reading, I asked the people what was the main medical problem and Natasha never got one of those right." Wiseman compared the belief of people in Demkina's diagnoses to the belief of people in fortune tellers, and said that people focus only on those portions of Demkina's comments that they believe.<ref name ="Guardian"/> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| Then the researchers ] and ] of the ] (CSICOP) and Andrew Skolnick of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH) conducted their test of Demkina. CSICOP is an organization dedicated to debunking paranormalist claims, and CSMMH is an affilated organization. In the test, Demkina was required to correctly match six specified anatomical anomalies to seven volunteer subjects.<ref name="skolnick"/> <ref name ="hyman-SI">Hyman R, '']'', May 2005, </ref> 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.<ref name ="hyman-SI"/> 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 the "]" could not be ruled out under the lax conditions of the test.<ref name ="hyman-SI"/> Demkina and the investigators had agreed that she needed to correctly match at least five of the seven conditions to warrant further testing.<ref name ="hyman-SI"/> | |||
| *] | |||
| 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.<ref name="skolnick">Skolnick AA, '']'', May 2005, </ref><ref name="hyman">Hyman R, ], </ref> The design and conclusions of the experiment were subsequently the subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the investigators. For example, physicist, Nobel laureate, and paranormal enthusiast ] charged that Demkina's four matches represented a statistically significant result in favor of her abilities, since the odds against her matching that many at random were 50 to one.<ref name="thes">'']'', , 10 Dec 2004</ref> Professor Hyman responded that ] requires higher levels of statistical significance when testing paranormal or other unlikely claims.<ref name="hyman"/> The investigators posted a detailed rebuttal of typical objections, such as pointing out that the 50-to-1 odds would only be for random blind guessing: "Demkina was not blindly guessing. She had a great number of normal sensory clues that could have helped increase her number of correct matches."<ref>Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH), </ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| In the Discovery Channel program,<ref name="Discovery"/> Demkina offered a number of explanations for why she failed to see the specified conditions in three of the subjects and reported seeing those conditions in three wrong subjects. She said that she should have looked longer and deeper to find the subject who has a metal plate covering a missing section of his skull, even though the outline of the large metal plate could be seen beneath the scalp from up close. She said surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected ] and removed ], though the researchers countered that those surgical scars should have helped her identify the correct subjects. Demkina also claimed that appendixes can grow back after an appendectomy, which the researchers dismissed as incorrect.<ref name="Discovery"/><ref name="skolnick"/> | |||
| == References == | |||
| <div class="references-small"> | |||
| <references/> | <references/> | ||
| </div> | |||
| == |
==External Links== | ||
| * at ] | |||
| * at ] Educational Foundation Forum* | |||
| * Official webpage of Natasha Demkina (in Russian) | |||
| * at the website of the Association for Skeptical Investigations | |||
| * at Skeptical Investigations | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 12:04, 12 January 2007
Natalia Demkina, (Russian: Наталья Демкина; born 1987), also known by known the diminutive Natasha, is a young woman from Saransk, Russia. She is currently a full time student at Semashko State Stomatological University, Moscow, and a member of the Center of Special Diagnostics; a unit which specializes in researching folk healing, traditional medicine, and claims of unconventional healing abilities.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, she attracted significant international attention after its was claimed that she had the ability see inside the human body to the cellular level, and to be able to make accurate medical diagnosis based on what she saw.
Experiments conducted in Russia, the United Kingdom and Japan appear to validate her claims, while experiments conducted in the United States disagree. The existence of her abilities remains a point of controversy.
History
According to her mother, Tatyana Vladimovna, Demkina was a fast learned, but was otherwise a normal child until she was ten years old, at which time her ability reportedly began to manifest itself. After reportedly describing her mother's internal organs to her, Demkina's story began to spread by word of mouth among the local population and people began gathering outside her door seeking medical consultations. Her story was picked up by a local newspaper in spring 2003 and a local television station followed suit in November that year. In turn, leading to interest from the international media, and to invitations to give demonstrations, and undergo testing, in London, New York and Tokyo.
Russia
After stories about Demkina had begun to spread, doctors at a children’s hospital in her home town asked her to performed a number of task to see if her abilities were genuine. In one test, Demkina is reported to have drawn a picture of what she saw inside a doctor’s stomach, successfully marking where he had an ulcer. She also disagreed with the diagnosis of a cancer patient, saying all she could see was a small cyst. Further tests on the woman validated her assertion.
United Kingdom
In January 2004, Demkina was brought to London by a group of British journalists. She was asked to diagnose a number of people, and her diagnosis were then compared to professional medical diagnosis. She scored well in the experiments including one case in which she is reported to have successfully identified all the fractures and metal pins in a woman who had recently been a victim in a car crash, even though the subject was fully clothed and had no visible signs of her injuries. Following this she made several diagnosis on live shows, again reportedly scoring a high level of success. Her level of accuracy was sufficient to convince witnesses of her abilities.
However, the experiments were not carried out under properly controlled conditions, and there were no doctors present for much of the process, so the results could not be declared as scientifically valid. After Demkina had left the United Kingdom it also emerged that she had made serious errors. In one incident she attempted to diagnose television-physician Dr. Christopher Steele. She reported that he was suffering from a number of medical conditions, including kidney stones, an ailment of the gall bladder, and an enlarged liver and pancreas. A later medical evaluation showed that the Dr. Steele was in good health and was not suffering from any of the ailments that she had diagnosed.
New York
In May 2004 Demkina traveled to New York, where she appeared in a documentary; titled The Girl with X-Ray Eyes produced by the Discovery Channel. In New York, her abilities were tested under in a more scientific environment than the London experiments.
Preliminary tests was arranged by Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and Andrew Skolnick of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH). The experiment was designed it to look for a strongly demonstrated ability, apparent weak or erratic abilities were decided to be non-viable given the nature of her claims, and were therefore determined to pose no interest.
Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick arranged seven volunteers. Six of whom had undergone documented medical procedures, and one of whom was a control subject. Demkina was then given a list detailing the conditions that she was looking for, and was asked to identify which condition matched which volunteer. It was agreed in advance that the experiment would be considered a success if she managed to correctly match five of the seven patients to their conditions. Medical conditions that were not on the list presented to her were deemed to be unimportant.
Over the course of 4 hours, Demkina correctly diagnosed four of the volunteers (including the control subject); falling below the requirements of the experiment. From these results, researchers concluded that she had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of an ability to warrant further study and no further experiments were carried out.
After the experiment, Wiseman publicly attributed Demkina's score to a combination of cold reading and external observation.
- Professor Richard Wiseman: "At best, she's done this a lot and she has a real expertise at being able to look at people and make reasonably accurate diagnoses."
Tokyo
After visiting New York, Natasha traveled to 東京電機大学 (Tokyo Electrical University) in Japan, at the invitation of Professor Machi Yoshio; who specialized in the study of unusual human abilities.
After her experiences in London and New York, Demkina set several conditions for the experiments, including that the patients bring with them a medical certificate stating their health status, and that the diagnosis be restricted to a single specific part of the body – the head, the torso, or extremities - which she was to be informed of in advance.
According to accounts on her website, Demkina was able to see that one of the patients had a prosthetic knee, and that another had asymmetrically placed internal organs. She also diagnosed the early stages of pregnancy with a female patient, and diagnosed an undulating spinal curvature in another subject; producing a drawing that was almost identical to X-rays of the patient.
Having reviewed accounts of the New York experiments; specifically claims that that Demkina might be using a number of conventional factors to aid her diagnosis, Professor Machi also arranged for an experiment to take place in a veterinary clinic, where Demkina was asked to diagnose an anomaly in a dog. Demkina correctly identified that the dog has an artificial device in its back right leg, but only after being specifically directed to look at the animals paws.
Criticism
As with many other paranormal cases, the case of Natasha Demkina has been the subject of debate within the paranormal and scientific communities, and experiments involving her been the subject of a variety of criticism.
Demkina
After completing experiments in New York, Demkina made several complaints in regards to the conditions under which they were conducted, and about the way in which she and her diagnosis were treated.
She argued that she had required more time to see a metal plate in one subjects skull, that surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected esophagus in another, and that that she had been presented with two patients who had undergone abdominal procedure, but that she had only one abdominal condition on her list of potential diagnosis, leaving her confused as to which one matched the listed condition.
She also complained that she was unable to see that one volunteer had had their appendix removed because appendixes sometimes grow back, and that she was not able to compare her own diagnosis to an independent medical diagnosis after key experiments had been conducted. Preventing her from being able to see if she was diagnosing genuine conditions that were unknown to those conducting the experiments, and which were thus being listed against her in the overall results despite them being valid (as a result of this complaint, all volunteers in the Tokyo experiments were required to bring medical certificates with them prior to diagnosis).
In response to these complaints, the research team stated that Demkina should have been able to find the plate without extra sensory abilities, because its outline could be seen beneath the subject's scalp, and questioned why the presence of scar tissue in a patients throat had not alerted her to them having an esophagus condition. Additionally, they noted that it remains clinically impossible for an appendix to spontaneously regrow.
Josephson
Under the New York experiment, Demkina had to correctly match 5 patients out of 7 with their condition in order to succeed. According to Professor Brian Josephson, such a standard of proof was statistically unjustifiable, and give the impression that the experiment was purposefully designed to portray Demkina as a fraud by setting an untenably high goal for her to reach
Josephson states that, statistically, the odds of Demkina scoring 4 out of 7 were 1 in 50, or less than 2%. A success rate notably above that which could reasonably be attributed to chance alone.
In their defense, those behind the New York Experiment stated that statistical calculation indicating that a result which is higher than could be expected though random chance should not be considered proof in the case of paranormal abilities, such as those claimed by Demkina, because of the need, though Bayesian inference, to compensate for the possibility that Demkina could have harvested clues about a patients condition through keen observation and cold reading, thus allowing her to make informed choices rather than random guesses.
Josephson However contends that by using inference to minimize the probability of a false positive occurring, the experiment also had an also enhanced the probability of a false negative occurring. In this case, a moderate/weak correlation being recorded as no correlation because of the inference level being set too high. Bayesian inference can be contentious because the validity of a result depends on the validity of the prior distribution; which cannot be assessed statistically, sometime leading it and can lead to leads to confirmation bias.
The Bayes factor of the experiment was calculated by professors Persi Diaconis and Susan of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University.
In most clinical trials, a result is considered to be statistically significant if the probability that the difference between groups could have occurred by chance alone is 20 to 1 or below.
Further claims
In addition to reporting being able to preform see inside a patient, which she refers to as "medical vision", Demkina also claims to be able to diagnose medical conditions from photographs without first seeing the subject in person. According to her personal website these abilities were explored while in Tokyo, and were validated by Japanese scientists. They were not explored during experiments in the US.
See also
References
- ^ "The Girl with X-Ray Eyes (summary of program only)". 9pm, 2004-09-30 (Discovery UK). Discovery Channel.
{{cite episode}}: Check|episodelink=value (help); Check date values in:|airdate=(help); Cite has empty unknown parameters:|city=and|serieslink=(help); External link in|episodelink=|series=(help); Unknown parameter|episodelink=ignored (|episode-link=suggested) (help) - ^ Skolnick, Andrew A (May 2005). "Testing Natasha: The Girl with Normal Eyes". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Official Home Page, Template:Ru icon-see also the English translation accessed 21 August 2006)
- ^ Sample, Ian (2004-09-25). "Visionary or fortune teller? Why scientists find diagnoses of 'x-ray' girl hard to stomach". The Guardian.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Hyman, R (May 2005). "Testing Natasha". Skeptical Inquirer. CSICOP. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Hyman, R. "Statistics and the Test of Natasha". CSICOP. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - Kuzina, Svetlana (2005). "X-Ray Girl Surprises Japanese". Pregnancy Press. Retrieved 2006-07-17.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - ^ Josephson B, University of Cambridge, Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes
- Mathworld Bayesian Analysis
- Medical University of South Carolina Statistical Significance
External Links
- The Demkina File at Skeptical Investigations
- Julio Siqueira's critique of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation of Natasha Demkina
- How not to do an experiment
- 東京電機大学
Demkina, Natasha Demkina, Natasha Demkina, Natasha Demkina, Natasha Demkina, Natasha