| Revision as of 20:57, 12 December 2005 editKeithTyler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,882 edits many edits, please discuss any concerns on talk← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:19, 12 December 2005 edit undoKeithTyler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,882 edits many edits, partial rewrite, trying to remove all POV, please discuss any concerns on talkNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{POV}} | {{POV}} | ||
| '''Natasha Demkina''' (Наталья Демкина), called "The Girl with X-ray Eyes," is a teenage alleged medical ] from ], ]. Demkina |
'''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. | ||
| == The CSMMH-CSICOP test== | == The CSMMH-CSICOP test== | ||
| 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 paranormal abilities, and the prior bias of the research team has been questioned. | 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. | ||
| The test was designed and conducted by ], ] |
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. | ||
| 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. | |||
| The rules for the preliminary testing and interpretation of the outcome were agreed upon by the researchers, Natasha Demkina, her mother, and her agent. According to the researchers, the test was designed to be easy for someone with the abilities Demkina reportedly possesses. For the test, Demkina was given six test cards , each of which described a different target medical condition. She was given the cards one at a time so she only had to look for one target condition at a time. The conditions included a large metal plate covering a missing section of ]; a removed ]; an artificial ]; a removed section of the left ]; a removed portion of the ]; and metal surgical staples in the chest. All these conditions are visible by ]. Her task then was to examine seven volunteer subjects and match the six previously confirmed medical conditions to the subject who had the condition. One subject, a control subject, had none of the target medical conditions. | |||
| 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. | |||
| Although Demkina normally takes about 10 minutes to provide her clients with a complete medical reading from head to toe, she took one hour just to find (correctly) the subject who is missing a large part of her left lung. Despite being told exactly what to look for and where in the body to look, she took more than three additional hours to match the remaining five target conditions. | |||
| ⚫ | ==Criticism of the test== | ||
| The CSMMH-CSICOP test was a preliminary exam. According to the written protocols of the test, for the results to warrant further study, Demkina, her mother, her agent, and the researchers, agreed that she would have to get five or more correct matches. She only matched four correctly, thereby failing the test according to the agreed-upon rules. 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. Demkina would not agree to a blinded study with the subjects behind a fabric screen, despite her claim to be able to see through clothing fabric. As a result, she was able to study the subjects for more than four hours, during which she had the opportunity to pick up many clues about their health problems just using her normal eyes and ears. The subjects wore sunglasses with opaque tape on the lenses so they would not know when Demkina was looking at them and accidentally give hints through unintentional eye movements or pupil dilations. Demkina was also not allowed to see them move when she wanted them to stand or sit, and had to turn her back while they complied so she could not look for irregularities that might give things away like which subject had the artificial hip (see the section below for one exception). To further guard against the subjects unintentionally giving things away, the subjects were not told which condition she was looking for each time (see the section below for one exception). | |||
| ===Unfairly high expectation=== | |||
| ==Natasha's hits and misses== | |||
| 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. | |||
| Demkina's mother claimed that her daughter never made an incorrect diagnoses in the thousands of readings she has provided people. However, during the test, Demkina made three ] and three ] "diagnoses." Her most dramatic failure was her inability to "see" the large metal plate in a subject's forehead that could easily be felt and even seen upon close examination. Instead, she indicated that the metal plate and missing skull section was in a subject, who had a normal skull, but was missing his appendix, which she also failed to see. | |||
| ===Assessment of abilities=== | |||
| Despite the measures taken to guard against Demkina basing her determinations on criteria other than her alleged supernatural vision, there is reason to believe that several of her correct and incorrect answers might have been gleaned through wholly natural vision: | |||
| * Demkina correctly identified the first subject, who was missing part of a lung. During the first trial, however, the previously agreed upon rules for the test were broken when a question she asked was interpreted in English in front of the subjects. When the subjects heard what she was looking for, the one with that condition may have made some form of involuntary movement that gave her away. | |||
| * Demkina correctly identified the subject with the artificial hip. However, because of a misunderstanding, she was allowed to wait outside the testing site, where at least two of the subjects reported that she watched them arrive and climb a flight of stairs, the researchers noted. Such an observation may have revealed information that could have helped her identify the subject who has an artificial hip. | |||
| * Demkina correctly identified the control subject. This subject was also the youngest and looked healthier than the other subjects. This may have helped Demkina to figure out that he was the subject who had none of the conditions she was looking for. | |||
| * Demkina correctly identified the subject who has surgical staples in his chest. This subject was the oldest, looked less healthy than the other subjects, and was male. These factors may have helped Demkina to figure out that he was likely to have had open heart surgery. | |||
| * Demkina incorrectly identified the subject with a metal plate in his head. She chose the only subject who was wearing a hat. She may have assumed that he was using the hat to cover a scar or other visual clue. That subject, however, had a intact skull. He was one of the two subjects who has no appendix. | |||
| 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. | |||
| As reported by Skolnick, Demkina offered him a medical reading following the test, which was both incorrect and likely were guesses based on normal, non-paranormal observations : | |||
| * She said that he had phlegm in his bronchial tubes, which were causing a cough. What she did not know was that the loud coughing spasm she had heard earlier resulted when he accidentally inhaled some water while drinking. | |||
| * She said his vertebrae were too close together. She might have based this on his poor posture due to tired and sore shoulders from carrying heavy bags earler that day. | |||
| * Demkina also said he has headaches caused by narrow blood vessels in his neck. Earlier that day, Skolnick told the translator that he had a headache, which may have been passed on to Natasha. The headache, he reported, was the result of stress and inadequate sleep and is not a recurrent problem caused by narrow blood vessels in his neck. | |||
| * Demkina failed to see nasal polyps, a narrow pharynx that is causing sleep apnea, signs of recent colon surgery, or any of his other confirmed medical conditions. | |||
| These diagnoses were not part of the official test, so her failure to correctly diagnose the researcher was not counted against her in the test results. | |||
| ===The appendectomy candidate=== | |||
| ⚫ | The |
||
| 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. | |||
| Natasha Demkina and her supporters have rejected the researchers' conclusion and are accusing them of having changed the rules at the last minute and of deliberately setting her up to fail. They also claim that Demkina was not allowed to ask questions during the test, that her mother was barred from the test room to cause her stress, and that the researchers had unethically raised the test bar. Those allegations are not supported by the facts, the researchers say. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ⚫ | ==Criticism of the test== | ||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Inconclusive conclusion=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Other irregularities and questions=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==Defense of the test== | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Level of blindness in study=== | |||
| 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=== | |||
| ===Controversy regarding the appendectomy subject=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| Critics point to the appendectomy subject in particular when trying to invalidate the study. They claim that the subject she chose also had an abdominal scar, so her determination should be counted as correct rather than incorrect. However, she was not asked to look for a scar, the researchers reported. She was asked to look for a subject with no appendix, and had been given a diagram (see links below) and a description so she knew what to look for and where to look. This may be where critics of the study got the idea the Demkina chose correctly, just not the subject the researchers had been expecting. Demkina did not, however, choose either of the two subjects who in fact had appendectomies. Some critics argue that this might have been very confusing to her if she saw two people with the same intestine features and concluded that that pattern did not indicate a removed appendix. However, that would not explain why she wrongly reported seeing a missing appendix in a subject who still had hers. At the beginning of the test, Demkina protested that she could have trouble identifying the subject with a removed appendix, because, she said, post-operative scars can be confusing to her. She also said that an appendix can grow back after it is surgically removed. When told that an appendix cannot grow back, Demkina insisted that appendixes sometimes do grow back in Russia. Curiously, Demkina herself had had an appendectomy at age 10, soon before her ability allegedly appeared. She says she had to have another operation to remove swabs that were left inside her during the appendectomy. Her own experience may have contributed to her misconception regarding appendix regrowth, or may be completely unrelated. Demkina also complained that scar tissue could block her view of the missing appendix. However, however, Skolnick told her, that should be no problem because, if she had the ability she claims, she easily would be able to see the appendixes in the people who still have theirs, since they would have no scar tissue. Eliminating those who have an appendix would reveal one who has none, scars or no scars. Nevertheless, her supporters claim that the researchers unfairly ignored her protest about the test's target conditions. | |||
| ===Inconsistency of test results versus reputation=== | |||
| In regards to another one of her misses, Demkina says she should have looked more carefully and deeply to see the subject's missing skull section and large metal plate. However, she had studied the seven subjects for over four hours and the metal plate in the subject's forehead was just beneath the skin. It is so shallow that it can be easily felt by running a finger over his skin. | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Errors in the Discovery Channel program=== | |||
| ===Difference in environment=== | |||
| Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel program is marred by a number of factual errors, which Discovery Channel has not corrected despite a written request from CSMMH. Although the Commission led the design of the test, neither the Commission nor its role is even mentioned. Instead, Skolnick, the Commission's executive director, is incorrectly identified as a "medical doctor," there only to answer medical questions. Skolnick is a medical journalist, not a medical doctor. Another error has led people to wrongly accuse the researchers of changing the rules at the last moment, to put stress on Demkina so that she would fail. The program's narrator claims that Demkina's mother was barred from the test room at the last moment. Although there was this initial confusion over whether her mother and young sister could remain in the test room, Skolnick clear it up. However, according to a statement by Demkina's agent, Will Stewart, the mother chose to wait outside the room with her 11-year-old daughter, where the child wouldn't have to sit still and remain quiet for four hours. According to the researchers, the narrator also mispoke when she said the researchers had reassured Demkina that the section of esophagus surgically removed from one subject was "substantial." They say they told Demkina that they did not know how much of the woman's esophagus was removed, and instructed her not to choose by the length of the esophagus, but to look instead for the resulting surgical scars, including the scar that completely circles the esophagus where the resected ends were surgically rejoined. | |||
| ⚫ | 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 ]. | ||
| Perhaps the most troubling error is the program's repeated misrepresentation of the test as definitive rather than preliminary, the researchers note. For example, the narrator states, "Success has been set at five or more correct diagnoses out of seven with blind odds of one in 250. With such a result, the scientists would admit that Natasha had significant abilities." This statement violates one of the more important , which required that the audience be told that the test was only a preliminary examination to see if Demkina's claims warranted further study: "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." | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 23:19, 12 December 2005
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Natasha Demkina (Наталья Демкина) (198?-), called "The Girl with X-ray Eyes," is a teenage alleged medical psychic from Saransk, Russia. Demkina is said to possess a special vision that allows her to look inside human bodies and see organs and tissues, and thereby make medical diagnoses. Believers of her power claim these diagnoses are often more accurate than those of doctors. She has demonstrated her readings on television shows in the United Kingdom and, more recently, in a documentary for the Discovery Channel 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.
The CSMMH-CSICOP test
On May 1, 2004, she was tested under partially controlled conditions at the City College of New York, in New York City. 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 2005 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer and in several online reports by the researchers. The parameters and conclusions of the test have been criticized by believers of paranormal abilities, and the prior bias of the research team has been questioned.
The test was designed and conducted by Ray Hyman, Ph.D and Richard Wiseman, Ph.D., both research fellows of Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP); and Andrew Skolnick, M.S., executive director of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (CSMMH) and former associate editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The work in this particular field by these researchers has drawn much criticism from other paranormal investigators, particularly believers.
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 appendix, 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 radiology. 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.
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.
Criticism of the test
Unfairly high expectation
Critics of the test point out that, despite the bar set in the test, the probability of correctly matching four hidden ailments among seven subjects is much lower than even odds, 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.
Assessment of abilities
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 newspapers, Internet 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 appendectomy and esophageal 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.
The appendectomy candidate
Among her false diagnoses was to find the candidate who had had an appendectomy. Demkina's choice had an abdominal 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.
Demkina later protested that she could not have identified a subject missing an appendix, as the surgery would leave scar tissue 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.
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.
Furthermore, some point out, the location of the appendix within the body can vary, and this can cause difficulty in diagnosing appendicitis, even by medical experts.
Inconclusive conclusion
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 negative proof. Other scientists, particularly physicist and paranormal believer Brian David Josephson, 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.
Other irregularities and questions
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 emotional stresses 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.
Defense of the test
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.
Level of blindness in study
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 glasses with opaque lenses, to avoid providing eye 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 clothing, 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 sight and hearing. 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 lung, 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 artificial hip. During the test, Demkina correctly identified the candidate with the artificial hip. Whether or not the canididate had any visible irregularity in walking 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 heart condition and related staples 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 scalp 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 supernatural ability, or even medical knowledge, but on cold reading techniques widely used by psychics, astrologers, and other fortune tellers -- with the help of the selection bias 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 Clever Hans effect.
References
- 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
- Hyman, R. (2005) "Testing Natasha". The Skeptical Inquirer 29 (3),28-33
- Hyman, R. (2005) "Statistics and the Test of Natasha." Online supplement to Skeptical Inquirer 29 (3),28-33
- Skolnick, A. "Natasha Demkina: the girl with very normal eyes." LiveScience, January 28, 2005
- Skolnick, A. (2005) "Natasha Demkina: the girl with normal eyes." The Skeptical Inquirer 29 (3),34-37
- Julio Siqueira's critique of the CSICOP/CSMMH investigation of Natasha Demkina
- CSMMH's report of the testing
- One of the test Cards
- The agreed-upon test rules
- Drawing the wrong conclusion
- Article in Pravda
- Summary in The Guardian
- Brian Josephson's critique on the CSMMH/CSICOP research
- Why Natasha Demkina can sue the debunkers who ambused (sic) her
- How NOT to do an experiment
- CSMMH answers critics of the test