Natasha Demkina: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:19, 12 December 2005 editKeithTyler (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users6,882 edits many edits, partial rewrite, trying to remove all POV, please discuss any concerns on talk← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:37, 12 November 2024 edit undo46.253.36.102 (talk) →Brian Josephson's criticism Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
(699 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{short description\|Russian woman\|bot=PearBOT 5}}
	{{POV}}
			{{Use dmy dates\|date=July 2024}}
	'''Natasha Demkina''' (Наталья Демкина) (198?-), called "The Girl with X-ray Eyes," is a teenage alleged medical ] from ], ]. Demkina is said to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see ] and ], and thereby make medical ]. Believers of her power claim these diagnoses are often more accurate than those of ]s. She has demonstrated her readings on ] shows in the ] and, more recently, in a documentary for the ] titled "The Girl with X-Ray Eyes". After the latter demonstration, researchers rejected the likelihood of her having such an ability, though her believers criticize the methods and conclusions of the researchers.
			{{Infobox person
			\| name = Natasha Demkina
			\| native_name = Ната́лья Никола́евна Де́мкина
			\| image =
			\| alt =
			\| caption =
			\| birth_name = Natalya Nikolayevna Demkina
			\| birth_date = {{birth year and age\|1987}}
			\| birth_place = ], ], Russia, USSR
			\| death_date =
			\| death_place =
			\| nationality = Russian
			\| other_names =
			\| occupation = Alleged medical marvel
			\| years_active =
			\| known_for =
			\| notable_works =
			}}
			'''Natalya''' "'''Natasha'''" '''Nikolayevna Demkina''' ({{langx\|ru\|Ната́лья Никола́евна Де́мкина}}; born 1987) is a Russian woman who claims to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical ]. Since the age of ten, she has performed readings in Russia. She is widely known by the ] of her given name, ''Natasha''.
			In 2004 she appeared on television shows in the ], on the ] and in Japan. Since 2004 Demkina has been a full-time student of the ], ]. Since January 2006, Demkina has worked for the Center of Special Diagnostics of the Natalya Demkina (TSSD), whose stated purpose is to diagnose and treat illness in cooperation with "experts possessing unusual abilities, folk healers and professionals of traditional medicine".<ref name="NDWeb1">{{cite web\|title=Special Diagnostic Center of Natalya Demkina \|url=http://demkina.ru/ \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071224182520/http://www.demkina.ru/ \|archive-date=24 December 2007 \|url-status=dead }}</ref> Many experts are skeptical of her claims.

			== History ==
	== The CSMMH-CSICOP test==
			According to her mother, Tatyana Vladimovna, Demkina was a fast learner, but was otherwise a normal child until she was ten years old, at which time her ability began to manifest itself.<ref name="Discovery" />
	On ], ], she was tested under partially ] at the ], in ]. This test was documented in the Discovery Channel program, "The Girl with X-ray Eyes," and is described in two reports in the May/June ] issue of ] and in several online reports by the researchers. The parameters and conclusions of the test have been criticized by believers of ] abilities, and the prior bias of the research team has been questioned.

			:"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 analyze it." says Demkina<ref name="Guardian">'']'', 25 September 2004, </ref>
	The test was designed and conducted by ], ] and ], ], both research fellows of ] (CSICOP); and Andrew Skolnick, ], executive director of the ] (CSMMH) and former associate editor of the ]. The work in this particular field by these researchers has drawn much criticism from other paranormal investigators, particularly believers.

			After 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. This led to interest from a British tabloid newspaper which invited her to give demonstrations in London, as well as further invitations from groups in New York and Tokyo.<ref name="NDWeb1" /><ref name="Discovery" />
	Prior to the test, Demkina, her mother and agent, and the researchers agreed on the rules and expectations of the test, which were finalized in writing. The research team proposed a test which they determined should be easy to meet for a person with trans-dermal vision. Seven volunteers, six with known medical conditions ranging from a cranial metal plate to a removed ], were placed in a room around Demkina without indication of their condition. She would then be given, individually, one of six cards describing one of those six conditions, each of which are diagnosable via ]. Demkina's task was to identify which of the volunteers suffered from the condition described on the given card. To pass this test, Demkina would have to correctly match five of the six conditions against the seven possible sufferers.

			=== Russia ===
	Demkina took a full hour to make her choice for the first condition, despite her reputation of finding ailments within minutes. Her remaining five choices were completed after three hours. At the end of the test, she had correctly identified four of the ailments with their sufferers from among the candidates, falling one short of the agreed-upon passing mark. The researchers concluded that, having failed the test, the existence of her special ability was dubious.
			After stories about Demkina had begun to spread, doctors at a children's hospital in her home town asked her to perform a number of tasks to see if her abilities were genuine. Demkina is reported to have drawn a picture of what she saw inside a doctor's stomach, marking where he had an ]. She also disagreed with the diagnosis of a cancer patient, saying all she could see was a small ].<ref name="NDWeb1" /><ref name="Discovery" />

	==~~Criticism~~ of ~~the~~ ~~test~~==		=== United Kingdom ===
			In January 2004, British tabloid newspaper '']'' brought Demkina to England. She gave a number of demonstrations and her diagnoses were then compared to professional medical diagnosis. A Discovery Channel documentary on Demkina mentions reports of Demkina having successfully identified all the ] and ] in a woman who had recently been a victim in a car crash. '']'' reported that she impressed the host of daytime television program ] by spotting that she had a sore ankle during an interview.<ref name ="Guardian" /><ref name ="skolnick" />

			Initially, Demkina's demonstrations were well received. However, after she had left the United Kingdom, it emerged that she had made errors among her diagnoses. In one incident she told television-physician ] that he was suffering from a number of medical conditions, including ], an ailment of the ], and an enlarged ] and ]. Later medical evaluation determined that he was in good health and was not suffering from any of the ailments she had identified.<ref name="NDWeb1" /><ref name="Discovery" /><ref name="Guardian" />
	===Unfairly high expectation===

			=== New York City ===
	Critics of the test point out that, despite the bar set in the test, the ] of correctly matching four hidden ailments among seven subjects is much lower than ], but closer to 1 in 50. (The blind odds of the test's passing mark is about 1 in 250.) Therefore, while not passing the test, Demkina still exhibited a better-than-average ability to diagnose internal ailments without help of trained medical assistance or technology.
			In May 2004 she was brought to ] by the ] to appear on a documentary titled ''The Girl with X-Ray Eyes'',<ref name="Discovery">The Discovery Channel, 2004, ; ''The Girl with X-Ray Eyes'', </ref> and to be tested by skeptical researchers from the ] (CSI) under partially controlled conditions.

			As a demonstration for the documentary, Demkina was shown wearing her vision-hat and giving diagnoses to people who had previously given descriptions of their specific medical conditions. Most of the people given these readings felt that Demkina had accurately identified their conditions. The researchers, however, were not similarly impressed. CSI researcher ] said, "When 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" />
	===Assessment of abilities===

			Then CSI researchers ], Richard Wiseman, and ] conducted their test of Demkina. In the test, Demkina was asked 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 non-paranormal observations could not be ruled out under the lax conditions of the test.<ref name ="hyman-SI" /> 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.<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, ] (CSICOP), </ref>
	Critics argue that the researchers did not base the test on Demkina's own claims of her abilities, but only from second-hand and third-hand sources such as non-scientific ]s, ] research, and Monica Garnsey, producer of the Discovery Channel program. Ultimately, Demkina and her supporters argue that she never indicated that she could diagnose all of the ailments included in the test, particularly ] and ] scars. The researchers' basis for including these (as well as the other) conditions was reportedly from third-party descriptions of her ability as being able to see organs inside the body.

			Subsequently, the design and conclusions of this experiment were subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the investigators.
	===The appendectomy candidate===

			=== Demkina's criticism ===
	Among her false diagnoses was to find the candidate who had had an appendectomy. Demkina's choice had an ] scar. While this is not sufficient evidence of an appendectomy, some of Demkina's supporters argue that it was an easy mistake, and moreover, the inclusion of that candidate was done to deliberately fool Demkina.
			After completing experiments in New York, Demkina made several complaints in regard to the conditions under which they were conducted, and about the way in which she and her diagnoses were treated. She argued that she had required more time to see a metal plate in one subject's skull, that surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected ] in another, and that she had been presented with two study subjects who had undergone abdominal procedure, but that she had only one abdominal condition on her list of potential diagnoses, leaving her confused as to which one matched the listed condition.

			Later, she also complained that she could not see that one volunteer had had their appendix removed because she said appendixes sometimes grow back. She said 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 (due to this complaint, all volunteers in subsequent experiments, in Tokyo, were required to bring medical certificates with them before diagnosis).
	Demkina later protested that she could not have identified a subject missing an appendix, as the surgery would leave ] that she cannot see through. With two candidates with abdominal scars, and therefore scar tissue, she could not tell which of the two had an appendix.

			In response to these complaints, the research team stated that Demkina should have been able to find the plate without extrasensory abilities, because its outline could be seen beneath the subject's scalp, and questioned why the presence of scar tissue in a subject's throat had not alerted her to them having an esophagal condition. Additionally, they noted that it remains clinically impossible for an appendix to spontaneously regrow.<ref name="NDWeb1" /><ref name="Discovery" /><ref name="skolnick" />
	It was later discovered that, in fact, a second candidate had also had an appendectomy which was not revealed to the researchers. However, Demkina did not pick this candidate either. But the miscommunication of that candidate's conditions has caused some to question the accuracy of the information on the others. The researchers have admitted that their determination of the candidates' conditions were based solely on their own testaments, not on any sort of medical examination.

			==== Brian Josephson's criticism ====
	Furthermore, some point out, the location of the appendix within the body can vary, and this can cause difficulty in diagnosing ], even by medical experts.
			In a self-published commentary regarding the New York testing performed by the ] (CSICOP) and CSMMH, Nobel prize winning physicist and parapsychology supporter ] 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 ] that was statistically unjustifiable because it greatly increased the risk of the experiment falsely recording a moderate correlation as being no correlation.<ref name="josephson">
	===Inconclusive conclusion===
			{{cite web \|last = Josephson \|first = Brian \|author-link = Brian Josephson \|title = Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes \|url = http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/ \|access-date=2006-08-31 }}</ref><ref name="thes">{{cite web \|url=http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/THES1.html \|title=Scientists fail to see eye to eye over girl's 'X-ray vision' \|author-link=Phil Baty \|publisher=] \|date=2004-12-10 }}</ref>

			Hyman responded that the high benchmark used in the testing was necessary due to the higher levels of statistical significance which he says is necessary when testing paranormal claims,<ref name="hyman" /><ref name="hyman2">
	The researchers' made statements that their test showed Natasha is "living an illusion", and that they had settled the question of Natasha's powers, based on the fact that the test to prove her powers failed. However, critics argue this is a ]. Other scientists, particularly physicist and paranormal believer ], have criticized the test and the conclusions drawn from it by CSICOP. Some feel that statements and conclusions such as these are in conflict with the researchers' own characterization of the test as "not in any way a definitive test" and one which could not determine Demkina's powers "with comfortable certainty". The researchers themselves initially expressed concern over the Discovery Channel's characterization of the test as being conclusive.
			{{cite web \|last = Hyman \|first = Ray \|author-link = Ray Hyman \|title = Statistics and the Test of Natasha \|date =2005-06-07 \|publisher = CSICOP \|url=http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/statistics_and_the_test_of_natasha/ \|access-date=2010-02-05}}</ref> 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 ] that could have helped increase her number of correct matches".<ref>Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH), </ref>

			Bayes factors are used to compensate for variables that cannot be calculated through conventional statistics;<ref name="bayesian">] </ref><ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.abelard.org/briefings/bayes.htm#testing_for_rare_conditions \|title = Cause, Chance and Bayesian Statistics: A Briefing Document \|access-date =2006-09-11 }}</ref> in this case, the variable created by the visual clues that Demkina might gather from observing a subject.<ref name="hyman2" /> The Bayes factors used by Hyman were calculated by professors ] and ] of the Department of Statistics at ].<ref name="hyman2" /><ref name="hyman-stat-response">{{cite web \|last=Hyman \|first=Ray \|author-link=Ray Hyman \|title=Statistics of the Natasha test: response to concerns and questions \|publisher=Skeptical Inquirer \|year=2005 \|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949 \|access-date=2007-02-02}}</ref>
	===Other irregularities and questions===

			=== Tokyo ===
	There are questions regarding the accurate assessment of other candidate's conditions, as well as the characterization of the test and its participants by the Discovery Channel program. Some have argued that various ]es generated by the test and its execution, including the exclusion of her mother and sister from the test room, could have preoccupied Demkina from performing her best. The conditions of the test have been criticized as not being "controlled" as they were asserted to be.
			After visiting New York, Demkina traveled to ] (東京電機大学) in Japan, at the invitation of Professor ], who studies claims of unusual human abilities.<ref name="NDWeb1" />

			According to accounts on her personal website, after her experiences in London and New York, Demkina set several conditions for the tests, including that the subjects 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" />
	==Defense of the test==

			Demkina's website claims that she was able to see that one of the subjects had a ] knee, and that another had asymmetrically placed internal organs. She also claims to have detected the early stages of pregnancy in a female subject, and an undulating ] in another subject.<ref name="NDWeb1" />
	The coordinators of the test point out that despite flaws in the design of the test, the design was approved by Demkina, her mother, and her agent. In addition, the researchers themselves cite irregularities and flaws in the controlled environment of the test and its execution that contributed to Demkina's above-average (though failed by definition) performance.

			Machi also arranged for a test to take place in a veterinary clinic, where Demkina was asked to diagnose an anomaly in a dog. Natasha claims to have correctly identified that the dog had an artificial device in its back right leg after being specifically directed to look at the animal's paws.<ref name="NDWeb1" />
	===Level of blindness in study===

			The Tokyo test was reviewed by three Japanese experts: the occult critic Hajime Yuumu, the psychologist Hiroyuki Ishii, and the ] Society skeptic Hiroshi Yamamoto. The results of Dr. Machi's tests and a panel discussion by the three critics aired on ] on 12 May 2005. It is noted that Demkina refused to participate in any test where the patients stood behind a cloth screen, despite the cloth being see-through with x-rays in the same way skin is.<ref>{{cite web \|url=http://www.h5.dion.ne.jp/~hirorin/xlaygirl.htm \|archive-date=2006-05-07 \|title=２００５年５月１２日奇跡体験アンビリバボー \|website=h5.dion.ne.jp \|language=ja \|access-date=2017-05-09\|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060507152400/http://www.h5.dion.ne.jp/~hirorin/xlaygirl.htm}}</ref>
	Although the odds of blindly guessing four or more matches correctly are approximately one in fifty, Demkina had not been guessing blindly, the researchers say.

	The diagnosis candidates wore ] with ] ]es, to avoid providing ] movements or other ocular reactions to Demkina's presence. Demkina was also not allowed to see them move when she wanted them to stand or sit, having to turn her back while they changed position. This was to avoid any visual identification of conditions that can affect a patient's motions, such as an artificial hip. The candidates were also not told which condition Demkina was looking for at a given time. However, the researchers assert some exceptions to these blinds.

	An early design called for Demkina to assess the candidates behind a fabric screen. The researchers argued that since Demkina professed an ability to see through ], she should be able to see through such a screen. Demkina did not agree to a screen.

	As a result, Demkina was able to study the subjects for more than four hours, during which the researchers feel she had much opportunity to gain insights about the candidate's health problems via normal ] and ]. The practical ability of a medical layperson to make such visual diagnoses has not been assessed, though Demkina's reputation has brought her into contact with a high number of people with various subdermal ailments.

	===Leaks in blindness===

	While searching for one of the ailments, a partial ], Demkina asked a question in front of the candidates which indicated the ailment. This may have caused a reaction from the candidate suffering the ailment which Demkina noticed. Whether or not this occured is not certain, but creates a hole in the blindness of that particular identification. Demkina identified that ailment correctly.

	According to the researchers, Demkina arrived at the test facility earlier than they expected. During this time, they argue, the possibility exists that she witnessed some of the candidates arriving, and through this out-of-bounds experience saw some indication of a condition. One condition that could be determined in this way, by watching a person walk, is an ]. During the test, Demkina correctly identified the candidate with the artificial hip. Whether or not the canididate had any visible irregularity in ] is unknown.

	The "control" candidate, who had none of the target ailments, reportedly looked younger and healthier than the others. The researchers, who chose the candidates themselves, suggest the control candidate was obvious. Demkina successfully identified the control candidate.

	The candidate with a ] condition and related ]s in his chest, reportedly looked older and less healthy than the others, and was also male. The researchers suggest this made him the visibly most likely candidate for that ailment. Demkina successfully identified his ailment.

	===Obvious misses===

	One ailment Demkina failed to properly identify was the candidate with a cranial metal plate. The researchers argue that such a plate should be very easy to detect; it can be felt on the ] and even seen with close visual examination.

	The candidate she did choose as having the skull plate wore a hat.

	===Supplementary examination of a researcher===

	Prior to the test, one of the researchers (Skolnick) executed an impromptu, informal experiment, having Demkina evaluate him for undisclosed ailments. During this challenge, she gave diagnoses of conditions which the researcher denies having, and failed to diagnose any of his known ailments. There was no recording of this test, and it was not officially considered part of her testing.

	===Inconsistency of test results versus reputation===

	At one point during the course of the four-hour test, Demkina's mother, who had been excluded from the testing room, stated that Natasha had never given a flawed diagnosis. Researchers suggest her three flawed diagnoses during the test puts that claim into doubt.

	===Difference in environment===

	The researchers argue that Demkina's improved accuracy rate outside of a controlled study as opposed to within one suggest that her skill is less rooted in ] ability, or even medical knowledge, but on ] techniques widely used by ]s, ]s, and other ] -- with the help of the ] of believers. She also appears to be helped by external clues from the person she is reading, including clues that are subtle and unintentional, such as the ].

	==References==		==References==
			{{reflist}}
	* Hyman, R. (2005) "Testing Natasha". ''The Skeptical Inquirer'' 29 (3),28-33
	* Skolnick, A. (2005) "Natasha Demkina: the girl with normal eyes". ''The Skeptical Inquirer'' 29 (3),34-37
	* (2004) "The Girl with X-ray Eyes". The Discovery Channel

	==See also==
	*]

	==External links==

	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*

			== External links ==
	]
			* at ]
			* at ] Forum, 5 October 2005, retrieved 5 April 2013
			* at the website of the Association for Skeptical Investigations

			{{DEFAULTSORT:Demkina, Natasha}}
	]
			]
			]
			]
			]

Latest revision as of 22:37, 12 November 2024

Russian woman

Natasha Demkina
Ната́лья Никола́евна Де́мкина
Born	Natalya Nikolayevna Demkina 1987 (age 37–38) Saransk, Mordovia, Russia, USSR
Nationality	Russian
Occupation	Alleged medical marvel

Natalya "Natasha" Nikolayevna Demkina (Russian: Ната́лья Никола́евна Де́мкина; born 1987) is a Russian woman who claims to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical diagnoses. Since the age of ten, she has performed readings in Russia. She is widely known by the childhood variant of her given name, Natasha. In 2004 she appeared on television shows in the United Kingdom, on the Discovery Channel and in Japan. Since 2004 Demkina has been a full-time student of the Semashko State Stomatological University, Moscow. Since January 2006, Demkina has worked for the Center of Special Diagnostics of the Natalya Demkina (TSSD), whose stated purpose is to diagnose and treat illness in cooperation with "experts possessing unusual abilities, folk healers and professionals of traditional medicine". Many experts are skeptical of her claims.

History

According to her mother, Tatyana Vladimovna, Demkina was a fast learner, but was otherwise a normal child until she was ten years old, at which time her ability began to manifest itself.

"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 analyze it." says Demkina

After 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. This led to interest from a British tabloid newspaper which invited her to give demonstrations in London, as well as further invitations from groups in 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 perform a number of tasks to see if her abilities were genuine. Demkina is reported to have drawn a picture of what she saw inside a doctor's stomach, 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.

United Kingdom

In January 2004, British tabloid newspaper The Sun brought Demkina to England. She gave a number of demonstrations and her diagnoses were then compared to professional medical diagnosis. A Discovery Channel documentary on Demkina mentions reports of Demkina having successfully identified all the fractures and metal pins in a woman who had recently been a victim in a car crash. The Guardian reported that she impressed the host of daytime television program This Morning by spotting that she had a sore ankle during an interview.

Initially, Demkina's demonstrations were well received. However, after she had left the United Kingdom, it emerged that she had made errors among her diagnoses. In one incident she told television-physician Chris Steele 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. Later medical evaluation determined that he was in good health and was not suffering from any of the ailments she had identified.

New York City

In May 2004 she was brought to New York City by the Discovery Channel to appear on a documentary titled The Girl with X-Ray Eyes, and to be tested by skeptical researchers from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) under partially controlled conditions.

As a demonstration for the documentary, Demkina was shown wearing her vision-hat and giving diagnoses to people who had previously given descriptions of their specific medical conditions. Most of the people given these readings felt that Demkina had accurately identified their conditions. The researchers, however, were not similarly impressed. CSI researcher Richard Wiseman said, "When 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.

Then CSI researchers Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, and Andrew Skolnick conducted their test of Demkina. In the test, Demkina was asked to correctly match six specified anatomical anomalies to seven volunteer subjects. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Subsequently, the design and conclusions of this experiment were subjects of considerable dispute between Demkina's supporters and those of the investigators.

Demkina's criticism

After completing experiments in New York, Demkina made several complaints in regard to the conditions under which they were conducted, and about the way in which she and her diagnoses were treated. She argued that she had required more time to see a metal plate in one subject's skull, that surgical scars interfered with her ability to see the resected esophagus in another, and that she had been presented with two study subjects who had undergone abdominal procedure, but that she had only one abdominal condition on her list of potential diagnoses, leaving her confused as to which one matched the listed condition.

Later, she also complained that she could not see that one volunteer had had their appendix removed because she said appendixes sometimes grow back. She said 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 (due to this complaint, all volunteers in subsequent experiments, in Tokyo, were required to bring medical certificates with them before diagnosis).

In response to these complaints, the research team stated that Demkina should have been able to find the plate without extrasensory abilities, because its outline could be seen beneath the subject's scalp, and questioned why the presence of scar tissue in a subject's throat had not alerted her to them having an esophagal condition. Additionally, they noted that it remains clinically impossible for an appendix to spontaneously regrow.

Brian Josephson's criticism

In a self-published commentary regarding the New York testing performed by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and CSMMH, Nobel prize winning physicist and parapsychology supporter Brian Josephson 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.

Hyman responded that the high benchmark used in the testing was necessary due to the higher levels of statistical significance which he says is necessary when testing paranormal claims, 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".

Bayes factors are used to compensate for variables that cannot be calculated through conventional statistics; in this case, the variable created by the visual clues that Demkina might gather from observing a subject. The Bayes factors used by Hyman were calculated by professors Persi Diaconis and Susan Holmes of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University.

Tokyo

After visiting New York, Demkina traveled to Tokyo Electrical University (東京電機大学) in Japan, at the invitation of Professor Yoshio Machi, who studies claims of unusual human abilities.

According to accounts on her personal website, after her experiences in London and New York, Demkina set several conditions for the tests, including that the subjects 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.

Demkina's website claims that she was able to see that one of the subjects had a prosthetic knee, and that another had asymmetrically placed internal organs. She also claims to have detected the early stages of pregnancy in a female subject, and an undulating spinal curvature in another subject.

Machi also arranged for a test to take place in a veterinary clinic, where Demkina was asked to diagnose an anomaly in a dog. Natasha claims to have correctly identified that the dog had an artificial device in its back right leg after being specifically directed to look at the animal's paws.

The Tokyo test was reviewed by three Japanese experts: the occult critic Hajime Yuumu, the psychologist Hiroyuki Ishii, and the Tondemo-bon Society skeptic Hiroshi Yamamoto. The results of Dr. Machi's tests and a panel discussion by the three critics aired on Fuji Television on 12 May 2005. It is noted that Demkina refused to participate in any test where the patients stood behind a cloth screen, despite the cloth being see-through with x-rays in the same way skin is.

References

^ "Special Diagnostic Center of Natalya Demkina". Archived from the original on 24 December 2007.
^ The Discovery Channel, 2004, discoverychannel.co.in; The Girl with X-Ray Eyes, (Wayback Machine)
^ The Guardian, 25 September 2004, "Visionary or fortune teller? Why scientists find diagnoses of 'x-ray' girl hard to stomach"
^ Skolnick AA, Skeptical Inquirer, May 2005, "Testing Natasha: The Girl with Normal Eyes"
^ Hyman R, Skeptical Inquirer, May 2005, "Testing Natasha"
^ Hyman R, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), "Statistics and the Test of Natasha"
Josephson, Brian. "Scientists' unethical use of media for propaganda purposes". Retrieved 31 August 2006.
"Scientists fail to see eye to eye over girl's 'X-ray vision'". Times Higher Education Supplement. 10 December 2004.
^ Hyman, Ray (7 June 2005). "Statistics and the Test of Natasha". CSICOP. Retrieved 5 February 2010.
Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH), "Answer to Critics"
Mathworld Bayesian Analysis
"Cause, Chance and Bayesian Statistics: A Briefing Document". Retrieved 11 September 2006.
Hyman, Ray (2005). "Statistics of the Natasha test: response to concerns and questions". Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved 2 February 2007.
"２００５年５月１２日奇跡体験アンビリバボー". h5.dion.ne.jp (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 7 May 2006. Retrieved 9 May 2017.

External links

The Girl With X-Ray Eyes at Museum of Hoaxes
The Girl with "X-Ray" Vision at James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, 5 October 2005, retrieved 5 April 2013
The Demkina File at the website of the Association for Skeptical Investigations

Categories: