Give this girl the $1m as an educational grant.

[Lucianarchy]

Doctors themselves often pay visits to the girl. Several times Natasha disproved their final diagnoses. "There was once a lady who had been diagnosed with cancer. I looked at her and did not notice anything like it, just a small cyst. The woman however stated that she had just been diagnosed with cancer." Secondary examination however revealed that Natasha had been right.

"I would like to get into Moscow"s medical academy of Sechenov. However, I do not think that I will be able to pay for my studies- 70,000 rubles annually. Not even my gift can help me in these matters," says Natasha.

Natasha is right. Despite a number of experiments and thorough medical examinations, the girl's gift still needs to be backed up by scientific evidences and facts. Today, the girl hopes that scientists will notice her and conduct all the necessary experiments. "I have nothing to hide," says Natasha. "Let them experiment with me. Perhaps, they will be able to explain the nature of my secondary vision. Then I guess I will have a chance to study at the most prestigious medical school."

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11797_phenomenon.html

[Demigorgon]

I have super powers too! No, really! Give me the money so I can go to teh skool!!11!!

[Diogenes]

Give this girl the $1m as an educational grant.

No problem.. Just as soon as she completes the challenge...

Imagine the cost savings in a diagnostic center in lieu of MRI and X-Ray equipment... She shouldn't have any problem at all making a ton of money....


As always, any skill that would earn the million, could earn MUCH more if properly exploited....

[headscratcher4]

CLearly, this is the proof that we've all been waiting for. Now, we can just wrap it up and go home.

THe real question: what don't you believe? I have this bridge in the greater NY area...I'll sell it to you for $50K.

[Undodog]

Apparently, if you're to naive to know medical jargon such as 'HEART', you would say, "A tomato that resembles a bulls' heart."
Of course you would.

[Barkhorn1x]

The article is from English Pravda - ho, ho, ho.

Anyway, this - could - be accurate in the sense that we cannot disprove it.

So...get her to take the challenge. It really shouldn't be too hard for her to find someone w/ the rubles to pay for the trip. After all, $1 Million greenbacks would be a hell of an incentive.

Barkhorn.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Doctors themselves often pay visits to the girl. Several times Natasha disproved their final diagnoses. "There was once a lady who had been diagnosed with cancer. I looked at her and did not notice anything like it, just a small cyst. The woman however stated that she had just been diagnosed with cancer." Secondary examination however revealed that Natasha had been right.

Here's a question, and no I don't know the answer myself. Is all cancer, or even the majority of cancer something that can be visibly discerned? X-ray vision sure, but not microscopic vision. Can x-rays usually differentiate between cancerous tissues and cysts? If not then how can her "vision"?

[jimmygun]

Headscratcher4...I can get someone a bridge for only $10k, so why would they go to you?

[Suezoled]

yeah, well I can EVERYONE has stomachs. And tomatoes in their chests. And these bags that puff in and out. And beans. And long coiled tubes. And I can also see Barkhorn1x wears the same brand of bra I do. I want that million.

[epepke]

Originally posted by voidx

Here's a question, and no I don't know the answer myself. Is all cancer, or even the majority of cancer something that can be visibly discerned? X-ray vision sure, but not microscopic vision. Can x-rays usually differentiate between cancerous tissues and cysts? If not then how can her "vision"?

Cancer is usually diagnosed by having an oncologist look at it under a slide. It's frighteningly imprecise. A few cancers have blood tests, though.

Cancer is also sometimes diagnosed by feel. The original use of the word "cancer" was because malignant tumors are usually harder than benign ones. So, like a crab's shell. In German, it's still referred to as Krebs, meaning crabs, which is of course an entirely different kind of thing in English.

[c0rbin]

Not even my gift can help me in these matters

A human being with X-Ray vision has problems getting money?

Lucky, is it possible that there is a rolleye emoticon big enough for the crap you post?

[TLN]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Lucky, is it possible that there is a rolleye emoticon big enough for the crap you post?

He's not genuine, he just posts this stuff to rile everyone here.

[tracer]

Anothe thread in this forum about the Russian X-Ray Vision Girl[TM] (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33911).

[Ratman_tf]

And if tested, and if it turns out she doens't have the ability she claims, the rationalizations will come fast and thick. And the believers will continue to belive no matter wether she can or can't.

Ah well. Would be interesting to see her tested.

[Hannibal]

Despite a number of experiments and thorough medical examinations, the girl's gift still needs to be backed up by scientific evidences and facts.

Translation: She is talking bollocks and hasn't yet found a "tame" scientist to back her

[abramis]

"She once walked barefoot in the snow after sauna [Rus. banya]"

This is truely supernatural. :jaw:

[Ed]

IF Xray vision AND Casino Blackjack THEN No more Russian Winters

IF Russian Winters THEN Steaming Pile if *****

Failed Sniff Test(tm)

[KelvinG]

So Luci, are you willing to admit this girl may have no powers at all since scientific testing has not been done? Or, are you following your usual technique of believing every word of a paranormal occurence despite any lack of real evidence?

Any idea of what kind of test could be done to prove/disprove this girl's abilities? Who would oversee it, etc?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by abramis
"She once walked barefoot in the snow after sauna [Rus. banya]"

This is truely supernatural. :jaw:

It's just anecdotal, and doesn't mean that it actually happened. :p

[TruthSeeker]

An loosely related anecdote:

I have some lovely friends who own a secluded log cabin in northern Ontario. It is one of their routines to soak in the outdoor hot tub under the stars, surrounded by huge snow drifts, sometimes while it is snowing. And then, to get out of the hot tub and immediately jump into one of the snow drifts or roll around in it. It is one of the most invigorating sensory experiences I've ever had.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/11797_phenomenon.html
While it wouldnt be in my place to say anything yet, there seems to be a recurring trend in that these paranormal claims always wind up as nothing but a burn.

I'll remain a little less than enthusiastic for now...

[Lucianarchy]

OK, so no one can debunk the report. Interesting. It looks like this one could be genuine for a while, until the professional discreditation place.

[Starrman]

OK, so no one can debunk the report.

I can lift airplanes with my tongue, just not when anybody is looking. HA! None of you can debunk THAT either!

[Ladewig]

voidx-
Is all cancer, or even the majority of cancer something that can be visibly discerned? X-ray vision sure, but not microscopic vision. Can x-rays usually differentiate between cancerous tissues and cysts? If not then how can her "vision"?

Well, anyone who can see things right on down to the molecular level can surely see cancer cells.

From the article referenced in the other JREF thread-
Natasha is capable of distinguishing even the tiniest pathology on a molecular level in the deepest corners of a human body, which are usually left undetected by regular ultrasound. "It's like having double vision. I can switch from one to the other in no time if I need to know a person's health problem," says the teenager. "I see an entire human organism. It is difficult to explain how I determine specific illnesses. There are certain impulses that I feel from the damaged organs. The secondary vision works only in daytime and is asleep at night."

It looks like this one could be genuine for a while, until the professional discreditation place.

I might, if I tried incredibly hard, get myself to believe that it is possible that there is the tiniest of chances that this claim may have the thinest sliver of truth to it. However, the claim that she can make no money from this gift is beyond my belief system.

I'm calling the whole thing leprechaun droppings.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, so no one can debunk the report.As an analogy, how could anyone "debunk" the famous Benveniste paper, even by reading the entire original text? It was sent to several referees who said, they could find nothing wrong with it, but they still didn't believe it.

It was only when Prof. Maddox et al actually went to the laboratory and watched the method on the ground, that he realised the non-blinding of the cell counting team, and the potential for (in that case) unconscious bias.

Similarly, nobody can debunk a written report which doesn't contain every single tiny detail and may not even be telling the truth. It is necessary to test the claims under controlled conditions.

Cue Luci et al to complain that we accept newspaper accounts of all sorts of things at face value all the time, and (sob, sob,) why do we apply so much higher a hurdle to paranormal claims?

Get real. You are in effect asking us to accept your assertion that you travel to work by flying saucer just as readily as we would your assertion that you caught the train or drove in your car. Not going to happen. Might well believe someone who was usually truthful and had no reason to lie that he travelled by car or train. But even he would have to provide proof if the question was asked in the context of a murder enquiry, and no matter how unimportant the enquiry, anyone is going to have to produce the flying saucer before they have a ghost of a chance of being believed.

Rolfe.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, so no one can debunk the report. Interesting. It looks like this one could be genuine for a while, until the professional discreditation place.

Can't afford a plane ticket to Russia to check her out personally.

Unless you're treating? :D

[Darwin'sGoat]

Originally posted by Starrman


I can lift airplanes with my tongue, just not when anybody is looking. HA! None of you can debunk THAT either!

I can. I know that you're lying because I saw you do it. I know that you can't lift airplanes with your tongue when anyone but me is looking.

[Schizobunny]

I can talk to the dead. They just don't talk back. I need to go to college in four more years so give me money.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Starrman


I can lift airplanes with my tongue, just not when anybody is looking. HA! None of you can debunk THAT either!
I can also do it when there are witnesses, they just need to have an open mind.

[Lothian]

My understanding is that the Paranormal challenge is tightly controlled (as the money is not Randi’s) . Randi can’t therefore just give it away as a grant. It needs to be won.

I think the easiest thing by far would be for one of the true psychics, dowsers or lottery predictors (who claim not to be interested in the challenge because they don’t need the money) to spend a few hours of their time to win the challenge and they can then grant some of the winnings to Natasha and all the other gifted children out there.

Are you not a lottery predictor Luci ? If you really cared about poor uneducated Natasha you would do it. Or are you totally uncaring as well as being an innumerate plagiariser.

[kookbreaker]

So Luci, should you become ill I take it you will go running to this child and put your life in her hands?

That's what you seem confident of.

[TLN]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
So Luci, should you become ill I take it you will go running to this child and put your life in her hands?

That's what you seem confident of.

Sorry, Luci doesn't answer direct questions that arise from his claims. That might make him honest.

[LW]

Originally posted by abramis
"She once walked barefoot in the snow after sauna [Rus. banya]" This is truely supernatural.

Wow, I hadn't realized that my girlfriend has supernatural powers. The sauna of her parents' home is in a separate building on the other side of the yard, and she always walks there barefooted, no matter the temperature. Also, when she walks to visit me after a snowfall, she occasionally takes her shoes and socks off and walks several hundred meters barefooted in the clean snow. And that's without going to sauna before.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LW


Wow, I hadn't realized that my girlfriend has supernatural powers. The sauna of her parents' home is in a separate building on the other side of the yard, and she always walks there barefooted, no matter the temperature. Also, when she walks to visit me after a snowfall, she occasionally takes her shoes and socks off and walks several hundred meters barefooted in the clean snow. And that's without going to sauna before.

Isn't there something like a "300 degree" club in Antarctica, where you have to go from the Sauna at 200 degrees and then run outside into -100 degree cold? (all temperatures Fahrenheit)

I realize it is fairly extreme temperatures, but that is what makes the club exclusive...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
My understanding is that the Paranormal challenge is tightly controlled (as the money is not Randi’s) . Randi can’t therefore just give it away as a grant.

Not so.

Randi has already offered the $1m as an educational grant to the University of Arizona.

Of course, when it came to the crunch, it was all gum flapping and hot air, as usual. The JREF didn't't even go to the University to review the data and Randi refused to respond anymore. :rolleyes:

I don't even believe there is any money any more, and I am skeptical of the fact that there is no independant adjudication / arbitration. As for the fact that Randi has a background of hustling rubes at carnivals, well, excuse me, but that one completely discredits and subjects such a 'challenge' to extreme skepticism. It is funny how so many so-called skeptics seem to be falling for it! Have you given the 'fund' any cash? :D

So there we are.

A prime candidate for offering the grant, yet all we hear is crickets.

Skeptical? You bet!

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Randi has already offered the $1m as an educational grant to the University of Arizona.
Of course, when it came to the crunch, it was all gum flapping and hot air, as usual. The JREF didn't't even go to the University to review the data and Randi refused to respond anymore. :rolleyes:


When push came to shove, Randi was under no obligation to go running into conditions dictated by Schwartz at Schwartz's beck and call. It was also Schwartz who failed to keep his promises about the data, not Randi.

Of course, you've had this explained to manmy times, but you prefer to warmth of your happy lie to the harsh truth about your hero Schwartz.


I don't even believe there is any money any more, and I am skeptical of the fact that there is no independant adjudication / arbitration. As for the fact that Randi has a background of hustling rubes at carnivals, well, excuse me, but that one completely discredits and subjects such a 'challenge' to extreme skepticism. It is funny how so many so-called skeptics seem to be falling for it! Have you given the 'fund' any cash? :D

So there we are.

A prime candidate for offering the grant, yet all we hear is crickets.

Skeptical? You bet!

She is welcome to apply. What is stopping her?

BTW, nobody has given any money to the challenge prize. Several have pledged it, should it be won, and the money is backed up at Goldman & Sach. (Something you could confirm youself , but you are too much of a coward to do so).

Arbitration is not needed, as the rules say clearly that no judging will be required. This is just more excues for cowardice.

As for Randi's background, that's just typical Luci hand waving and ad hominem.

Luci, can you ever tell the truth?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy




I don't even believe there is any money any more, and I am skeptical of the fact that there is no independant adjudication / arbitration.

Then you are lazy or dumb or both:
http://www.gs.com/our_firm/media_center/articles/media_center_919660.html

Go there, make one phone call, ask about the million, and you shall have the truth on the matter.

You may have to tell them you're writing an article or something, but who cares...

[Lothian]

Lunaci,

I thought I was on your ignore list.

Care to comment on the fact that you are an innumerate plagiariser.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
Lunaci,

I thought I was on your ignore list.



You are.

[LW]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

Isn't there something like a "300 degree" club in Antarctica, where you have to go from the Sauna at 200 degrees and then run outside into -100 degree cold? (all temperatures Fahrenheit)

I'd say that you should be quite certain of your health before going for that extreme temperature changes. The highest temperature difference for me has been from +200 to -15 (also in Fahrenheit).

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Randi has already offered the $1m as an educational grant to the University of Arizona.

Of course, when it came to the crunch, it was all gum flapping and hot air, as usual. The JREF didn't't even go to the University to review the data and Randi refused to respond anymore. :rolleyes:


You know, I wish prospective funding agencies would come visit me offering me money for my research. Instead, I have to do annoying things like apply for the grants.

If it were only as simple as to demonstrate that the phenomenon I claimed to be studying actually existed.

If you were interested, I was the one who suggested to Randi that he offer the funds as a research grant. I was getting tired of Schwartz claiming that he wasn't doing it for the money. So I told Randi to offer it as a research grant. Basically, if Schwartz can demonstrate that he is studying something real, then JREF would give him $1 mil in unrestricted funds (if I were Randi I would allow Univ of Ariz to withhold a negotiated amount as indirect costs; this is common practice for external research funding).

He can claim he is not in it for the money, but no legitimate research faculty could in any way turn down the opportunity to obtain $1 mil in unrestricted research funds, especially one with the only requirement that they are investigating a real phenomenon.

And yes, to obtain most research grants, it is commonly necessary to provide results of previous studies to demonstrate potential success.

If Schwartz claims he is not interested in trying to get the money, he is either stupid or lying. Every research program can use a million dollar grant. And the guidelines only require that he demonstrate that he is studying something real...

The reason Randi wants to have the Univ of Arizona in the loop in this is because the granting of funds will be handled through their office of scientific research. Also, to let the Univ of Arizona know that they have a faculty member who is unwilling to try for a million dollar grant with minimal application requirements (aside from that dreded requirement that it be a real phenomenon). I'd like to hear the Dean of Research's response to that?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


When push came to shove, Randi was under no obligation to go running into conditions dictated by Schwartz at Schwartz's beck and call.

To follow up my last post, I should note that in everything I've seen, the funding agencies dictate the guidelines for granting research money, not the applicant.

And some are extremely particular about how it gets (right down to the font size of the print).

The National Science Foundation will return proposals unreviewed if they don't have the titles of the articles cited in the work.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by LW


I'd say that you should be quite certain of your health before going for that extreme temperature changes. The highest temperature difference for me has been from +200 to -15 (also in Fahrenheit).

I knew a Fin would have something to contribute here.

How was the 215 degree change? How long did you stay outside?

The problem is just that it wasn't cold enough at the time! That's why it is more of an Antarctic thing.

[LW]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

How was the 215 degree change?

Not too bad. The way we do it usually is that we go out, jump into the snow, roll all over for a while, get up and head back in. The skin will prickle nicely once back in.

The main problem is that feet lose their sense of touch quite quickly and then you have to be careful of where you walk. I've managed to pierce my feet on sharp ice a couple of times without realizing it before seeing the bloody footsteps once back inside.

How long did you stay outside?

Several minutes.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


To follow up my last post, I should note that in everything I've seen, the funding agencies dictate the guidelines for granting research money, not the applicant.

And some are extremely particular about how it gets (right down to the font size of the print).

The National Science Foundation will return proposals unreviewed if they don't have the titles of the articles cited in the work.

Indeed. If your were to try and treat the NSF the way Schwartz says he'd treat Randi you'd never get a grant again.

"Hey, NSF? About these forms and data. Stuff you, I don't wanna type and stuff, so just come down here to my University and I might show you some of my data. Oh, and I get to shove a video camera into your face while you're looking at my 'data'. Oh and you can try to interview my cronies and toady underlings I used as 'unbiased test subjects'".

Didn't I read somewhere that even the woo-woo-esque jounrals have had enough of Schwartz's nonsense and are rejecting his 'papers'?

[Undodog]

If some guy can make millions with such a useless paranormal skill as bending a spoon, I would have thought that someone with molecular-level x-ray vision could rake it in easily.
Apparently not.

The rules of the prize sound very simple to me.
If you can do something paranormal go to the JREF, prove it and go home with $1000000.
If you don't want the money, give it away.
I have got that right, havn't I?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Not so.

Randi has already offered the $1m as an educational grant to the University of Arizona.

Of course, when it came to the crunch, it was all gum flapping and hot air, as usual. The JREF didn't't even go to the University to review the data and Randi refused to respond anymore. :rolleyes:

I don't even believe there is any money any more, and I am skeptical of the fact that there is no independant adjudication / arbitration.

There you go again - rattling on and on - untroubled by facts.

I suspect that in your bizarro world - you look upon us as a bunch of fools - too sad really.

C'mon, Embrace Reality, you may find it refreshing!

Barkhorn.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:

I don't even believe there is any money any more, ! Lunaci,

You are in a win win situation.

You go to the JREF proves you have supernatural powers and wins $1,000,000 or
You go to the JREF proves you have supernatural powers and finds out there is no money. You can then expose James Randi and the JREF as a bunch of crooks something you and many others would love to do.

As I said you can’t lose… oh wait perhaps.. no surely.. can’t be… you mean you haven’t got supernatural powers…..

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Lothian
You go to the JREF proves you have supernatural powers and wins $1,000,000 or
You go to the JREF proves you have supernatural powers and finds out there is no money. You can then expose James Randi and the JREF as a bunch of crooks something you and many others would love to do.



I've always wondered this same thing. Even if folks like Sylvia don't care about the money, given the crap that Randi has given them over the years wouldn't the satisfaction of knowing that they have completely humiliated him be reason enough to go ahead and win the challenge? If nothing else, it would shut him up.

I asked Randi about this once, and he said he told Sylvia that exact thing. She said she didn't need the money, he said it was an opportunity to make him look foolish. You'd think she'd be all over it...

if she were actually psychic.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
Lunaci,

You are in a win win situation.

You go to the JREF proves you have supernatural powers and wins $1,000,000 or
You go to the JREF proves you have supernatural powers and finds out there is no money. You can then expose James Randi and the JREF as a bunch of crooks something you and many others would love to do.



I can't remember if it's you or Hannibal on ignore, but never mind that now, I certainly d'not want to do that. I have said many times, I think Randi is a great performer and a great filter and exposer of some scams, paranormal or not. I am just skeptical of the 'challenge', that's all.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I can't remember if it's you or Hannibal on ignore, but never mind that now, I certainly d'not want to do that. I have said many times, I think Randi is a great performer and a great filter and exposer of some scams, paranormal or not. I am just skeptical of the 'challenge', that's all.

No but if you honestly believe this girl has powers, why doesn't she accept for this reason. If her powers are obviously true she will either walk away 1,000,000 richer, or expose the challenege for the fraud you seem to think it is. You should encourage her to take the challenge, not sit there and make up illogical reasons for why she won't.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I can't remember if it's you or Hannibal on ignore, but never mind that now, I certainly d'not want to do that. I have said many times, I think Randi is a great performer and a great filter and exposer of some scams, paranormal or not. I am just skeptical of the 'challenge', that's all. Probably both.

If you are skeptical you can prove it. Most skeptics are in situations where we can't prove something one way or the other. We normally just opine (is that a word?) whether someone else has provided proof. You on the other hand can prove if the money is there. You claim to be able to predict lottery numbers (therefore you can easily afford any airfare) you can then go and pass the challenge and prove the Randi's million dollar claim to be true or false.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Lothian
Probably both.

If you are skeptical you can prove it. Most skeptics are in situations where we can't prove something one way or the other. We normally just opine (is that a word?) whether someone else has provided proof. You on the other hand can prove if the money is there. You claim to be able to predict lottery numbers (therefore you can easily afford any airfare) you can then go and pass the challenge and prove the Randi's million dollar claim to be true or false.

And do something far more important than win a million dollars. Give skeptics (and the scientific community) the evidence they're asking for.

Or.

Expose Randi if the challenge is indeed bogus or slanted. I never understood this myself, the challenge is clearly worded and the reward is objectivley confirmable. Unless 'psychics' are trying to make up another excuse... ;)

[davidhorman]

X-Ray girl will be appearing on This Morning on ITV1 in the UK. If previous shows have been anything to go by, they go woo-woo at around 11am.

David

PS It's just vaguely possible that they were talking about a different girl with X-ray eyes.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by davidhorman
X-Ray girl will be appearing on This Morning on ITV1 in the UK. If previous shows have been anything to go by, they go woo-woo at around 11am.

David

PS It's just vaguely possible that they were talking about a different girl with X-ray eyes.

No. Natasha is here in the UK now, it's the same girl.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No. Natasha is here in the UK now, it's the same girl.

Quick, Luci - get her signed up for the $1 Million - it should be a slam dunk for a person w/ her - err - abilities.

Barkhorn.

[davidhorman]

Although she seemed impressive when tested with a group of volunteers on This Morning, it seems she failed utterly when it came to diagnosing Doctor Chris. She told he had kidney stones, a small bladder, and something wrong with his liver. He's just come back from a barrage of tests (Ultrasound, MRI, EBT) and he's got none of things. But he does lymph nodes (I think he said they were on his hepatic port?), which Natasha failed to spot.

They let slip on the day of the test that Natasha was in the same room as the volunteers for some time that morning, but that the language barrier would have been sufficient to stop her picking anything. Didn't mention her translator though.

David

[Lothian]

Originally posted by davidhorman
Although she seemed impressive when tested with a group of volunteers on This Morning, it seems she failed utterly when it came to diagnosing Doctor Chris. She told he had kidney stones, a small bladder, and something wrong with his liver. He's just come back from a barrage of tests (Ultrasound, MRI, EBT) and he's got none of things. But he does lymph nodes (I think he said they were on his hepatic port?), which Natasha failed to spot.

They let slip on the day of the test that Natasha was in the same room as the volunteers for some time that morning, but that the language barrier would have been sufficient to stop her picking anything. Didn't mention her translator though.

David So he had something wrong with him, She said there was something wrong. A clear hit. As Lunacy said give her the $1,000,000 now.

[Lucianarchy]

[The Doctor actualy said: “I thought I had no injuries until she mentioned a hernia scar.”

He added: “I am impressed. She really has been spot on.”

[davidhorman]

He added: “I am impressed. She really has been spot on.”

That was when she was viewing the volunteers, who she had previously viewed and been in the same room with before the programme. When it came to the one person she presumably hadn't met prior to the live broadcast, she got one thing right out of, what, four or five guesses?

Another thing I thought was that back problems was a likely guess for a well built woman who looked about 6' tall. That, and the shoulder problem another patient had, would both have visible symptoms too.

And maybe the guy who had a kidney removed went to the loo a lot ;) Just kidding - like I said, on the face of it, it looked impressive, but let's wait until she's tested by people who can at least get her name right (Phil and Fern are still calling her Natalya four days later).

David

[Undodog]

Who to believe.. Luci's account taken from a sensationalist tabloid or someone who actually saw the programme?

(I'm related to Phillip Schofield. Now I'm even more ashamed.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[The Doctor actualy said: “I thought I had no injuries until she mentioned a hernia scar.”

He added: “I am impressed. She really has been spot on.”

Source please.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Source please.

It came from the same source that leaked the Hutton Report this week, The Sun.

Dr Steele volunteered to be one of her guinea pigs. He was sceptical but decided to see a doc after she correctly identified a hernia scar on his abdomen that he had forgotten about.

Tests were carried out urgently and the 58-year-old doctor - a favourite on the show - is now awaiting results.

Dr Steele said: “I was shaking when I read the results. I actually had a bit of a shock. I’m very concerned, they have said this needs further investigation. It could be something serious.”

An insider said: “If this is bowel cancer, it has been caught in the early stages so the prognosis is good.”

Natasha, back in Moscow, said: “I am so sorry to hear about Dr Steele. He is such a nice man.”

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


It came from the same source that leaked the Hutton Report this week, The Sun.

Dr Steele volunteered to be one of her guinea pigs. He was sceptical but decided to see a doc after she correctly identified a hernia scar on his abdomen that he had forgotten about.

Tests were carried out urgently and the 58-year-old doctor - a favourite on the show - is now awaiting results.

Dr Steele said: “I was shaking when I read the results. I actually had a bit of a shock. I’m very concerned, they have said this needs further investigation. It could be something serious.”

An insider said: “If this is bowel cancer, it has been caught in the early stages so the prognosis is good.”

Natasha, back in Moscow, said: “I am so sorry to hear about Dr Steele. He is such a nice man.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2001320029-2004042431,,00.html

This story appears to be the source of the above quotes.

Don't you think it is just slightly misleading (or perhaps utterly dishonest) to miss out this bit:

"her diagnosis turned out to be wrong — but the scan did show up enlarged lymph nodes in his abdomen"

So not only was her diagnosis wrong, she completely failed to diagnose what was actually wrong with him.

A failure of quite spectacular proportions I would say.

[LTC8K6]

Can you see a hernia scar on an x-ray?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet



A failure of quite spectacular proportions I would say.

Hardly. The guy only went to get panned and scanned because of the girl picking up serious problems within his body. Let's hope this leads now to the prevention of an otherwise unalerted to potential catastrophy. She may just have saved his life.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Hardly. The guy only went to get panned and scanned because of the girl picking up serious problems within his body. Let's hope this leads now to the prevention of an otherwise unalerted to potential catastrophy. She may just have saved his life.

Yup - in Luci's world - when she's wrong, she's right!

Luci you are an utter FOOL if you fail to see what is wrong w/ your reasoning here.

Barkhorn.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Hardly. The guy only went to get panned and scanned because of the girl picking up serious problems within his body. Let's hope this leads now to the prevention of an otherwise unalerted to potential catastrophy. She may just have saved his life.

No he went to get scanned as part of an experiment to see if she could do what she claimed she could do.

She claimed she could see inside his body and identify what was wrong with him.

She gave a reasonably sizeable list of things that could well be wrong with a man of his age.

She got every single one of them wrong with the exception of him having a hernia scar. (Did she actually specify hernia scar or was it "a scar from an operation" so that it would include appendix etc, etc.) All of her indications that he actually had something wrong with him were incorrect.

Not only that but she failed to identify the one symptom he did have that indicated there might be something wrong.

You appear not to think this is a failure. Perhaps you would explain what would have qualified as a failure in her reading of the Doctor? Obviously missing what was wrong with him and making up things that were not is not enough.

What makes her dangerous is that if she guesses that there is nothing wrong with someone, they may not seek real medical attention. Are there not laws about giving medical advice without being properly licenced?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


What makes her dangerous is that if she guesses that there is nothing wrong with someone, they may not seek real medical attention. Are there not laws about giving medical advice without being properly licenced?

:rolleyes: She works with medics. So she helps a bunch of people and gets a GP to get scan done, which looks like it might save his life. And you want her locked up.

:rolleyes:

Has she actually done anything which has caused complaint from anyone she has 'seen'?

No.

Wait until she gets tested or find evidence of deception.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I can't remember if it's you or Hannibal on ignore

I'm being ignored? Why didn't somebody tell me? Oh yeah...cos they're ignoring me...

I question WHY I am being ignored though - possibly something to do with raising pertinent questions at inconvenient moments. Never mind Luci - you just retreat into your deluded little world and mabe the nasty questions will go away. Just like the "Larsen list" which you STILL categorically fail to address at any stage.

And this "hit" by the way is utter tosh. She was WRONG in her diagnosis. The fact that he had something else wrong with him was pure fluke. I am not denying it was fortuitous, but supernatural? Come on Luci even you can't be that desperate to prove yourself right that you cling to even the flimsiest of coincidence... No, sorry - I forgot about Ladybrook

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:rolleyes: She works with medics. So she helps a bunch of people and gets a GP to get scan done, which looks like it might save his life. And you want her locked up.

:rolleyes:

Has she actually done anything which has caused complaint from anyone she has 'seen'?

No.

Wait until she gets tested or find evidence of deception.

Evidence of deception - how about giving an incorrect diagnosis of a number of problems and missing what was actually wrong?

If a real doctor did that, they would be liable to be struck off.

I note you still have not retracted your lies on the other thread or answered this question from my previous post:

Perhaps you would explain what would have qualified as a failure in her reading of the Doctor?

[Hannibal]

I note you still have not retracted your lies on the other thread or answered this question from my previous post:

Yep, that'll be about right

Perhaps you would explain what would have qualified as a failure in her reading of the Doctor?

Good luck on that one too! Add it to the "Larsen list" and get in the waiting line!:D

[Hannibal]

Maybe Luci needs a reminder...here you go:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Are you an idiot?

Diogenes asked "what part of [...quote by Ersby or David Horman] do you have a problem with". Ersby has not substantiated the claim behind that quote, so the 'problem' is an unsubstantiated claim which you posited as a rebutall to the fact that the Dr has been published as saying that she was "spot on", and that he didn't think of any injuries until Natasha mentioned his henria scar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm happy to leave it to others to judge if I am an idiot or you are a liar.

I didn't posit anything as a rebuttal to anything. I asked you for your source so that the quotes could be seen in context.

First post (in full):

"Could you provide the source where you have taken these quotes from so they can be viewed in context?

I have to say that to get one guess (hernia scar) out of the number she made right (lets face it if there had been anything wrong with his liver, kidneys or bladder it would be claimed as a hit) is hardly evidence of special vision. How unusual is a hernia scar in a man of the doctors age? "

Second post (in full):

"Hate to repeat myself, but any chance of a link to where you took those quotes from?"

Nothing in there refers to posts by anybody except you (as your previous posts were quoted). Can you highlight the part where I "rebut" the Doctor having been published saying what you claim? If you can't do so, please admit that you lied when you claimed I had relied on another members opinion as a source.

For info, I saw the broadcast in which she "diagnosed" the doctor so I know that she made a considerable number of claims - liver, start of kidney stones (particularly in right kidney) etc. I do not recall her mentioning a hernia scar but that may be due to my faulty memory. I did not see the follow up after the tests.

Finally, as you claim the Doctor has been "published" saying she was "that she was "spot on", and that he didn't think of any injuries until Natasha mentioned his henria scar", could you provide a link to where this was published or sufficient details that I can trace this publication.



Now listen for the crickets........

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Hannibal
Now listen for the crickets........

Still no reply - I'm so surprised.