Natasha Demkina can
sue the 'ambush experimenters' for some $2 to $5 million in damages. Why?
"Every person has a fundamental legal right to have her/his reputation
protected." International Covenants on Human Rights and Civil Law.
(N.B. HEREINAFTER are just some of the legal and equitable
issues to be raised against the 'experimenters' - it is
by no means a full and exhaustive list of illegalities.
It is drafted for the layperson).
17 year old Natasha, a gifted 'medical intuitive', was invited
to New York by CSICOP to participate in an experiment to
test whether or not she is truly psychic.
Critical issue: Objective empirical observation
shows that debunkers (experimenters) produced a documentary
and subsequent media comments which tried to humiliate,
annihilate and ruin the brilliant international reputation
of Natasha Demkina, a gifted Russian teenage psychic. There
would be at least some 50 negative imputations made against
closed minded debunkers Prof Richard Wiseman, Prof Ray Hyman
and A Skunkick and CSICOP.
Close content analysis of the Discovery Channel program
shows that throughout the documentary continuous 'illegalities' and negativity
were being heaped onto Natasha. There was continuous direct and indirect bombardment
with imputations that Natasha is likely to be:
a fraud, a hoax,
incompetent and unskilled, not what she claims to be, deceptive, one who cheats
and lies, takes money under false pretences, superstitious, not to be trusted,
a person not to be associate with, devious, deceitful, dishonest and conniving;
person who should not be respected by the international community;
that the planners of the documentary had a duty to expose her. Conduct shows the
debunkers tried to bring Natasha:
- into international disrepute so
the public will never trust her again and
- that her good name, excellent
reputation and character will be permanently destroyed.
The designers of the experiment falsely represented
to the viewers that they were the world's 'top' objective, impartially unencumbered
'scientists' and that Natasha would be subjected to legitimate "scientific
scrutiny". Throughout the documentary this claim was repeated to the extent
that the average viewer would accept that Natasha was tested by professional scientists
of top caliber who had nothing to gain, nothing to lose.
The experiment was NOT designed by an objective scientist
but, we are informed, primarily by A Skunkick, a debunking
journalist who is a close associate of the slippery, perennially
negative hard core debunking closed minded extreme skeptic
Skolnick shows his lack of scientific objectivity on his webpage and that
he is negatively prejudical where he states he is "Proud to be one of the
pledgers of the more than $1.1 million prize that can be claimed by anyone able
to prove the existence of any paranormal phenomenon."
the CV on his webpage he is not qualified to design or to administer any scientific
testing. Omission to wilfully milsead- the viewers were not told the truth about
the man who planned the experiment.
He was assisted, he says, by two fellow
(debunkers) who are psychologists.
Natasha and the American viewers (and
wherever the show was viewed) - were willfully and knowingly 'misled', misdirected,
by a hard core debunking skeptical journalist who misrepresented himself as a
2.0 Legal failure to show 'due diligence'
the issues are so critical and fundamental for Natasha who was traveling from
Russia to the US (the program itself acknowledged that failure could ruin her
life) the organizers had a duty to show the mandatory 'due diligence" and
make FULL disclosures about who they really are, the numerous bitter fights they
had with psychics over the decades and the 'negative' reputations of themselves
and those who were responsible for organizing the experiment, including:
never ever in their professional lives found in favor of the paranormal,
because of their record they would not find in favor of psi,
- that if Natasha succeeded (in fact she did by international
statisticians' standards) she would have been a prime
candidate for the James Randi ALLEGED '$1 million prize'
sponsored in part by Skunkick,
- that a psychic under similar experimental
situation has complained that he was misled and lied to by Wiseman,
these experimenters actively promote and crusade for closed-minded skepticism,
under certain circumstances, the negative experimenter Wiseman's psi reputation
could be destroyed by a positive result in the experiment and that he would
lose funding (if shown improprietery in scientific method).
- that it is
questionable whether Wiseman is properly qualified to conduct psi tests. As a
debunker he does not have experimental impartiality to perceive psychic phenomena
with empirical equanimity - and therefore cannot produce impartial results when
it comes to psi experiments.
- that there is such a thing as the 'Experimenter
Effect' - which would grossly and inevitably increase the chances that results
by Wiseman would find negative psi,
- that debunker Wiseman has a reputation
of changing protocol without notice (see the Chris Robinson psychic detective
- that the subjects could be friends of and have close connections
with the debunkers,
- that there was no independent control to ensure that
the subjects did indeed have the conditions they claimed and were being truthful.
Presumption of dominance hitherto unrebutted
Conduct of the matter
shows there was no equality in the bargaining power of Natasha with CSICOP in
the contract. Clearly she did not have access to informed independent legal advice.
No sane informed lawyer would have advised Natasha to go through with the experiment
with the closed minded American skeptics or if she did, there would have to be
severe modifications to the planned experiment.
Especially when Wiseman
claims that she told him, "design your own test" something that Natasha
would NOT have stated had she been briefed by an independent professional. Natasha
is clearly seen on the video protesting about the test.
Wiseman & Hyman and CSICOOP exploited her and most unconscionably took advantage
of her immaturity and her definitively weak bargaining position. This alone would
be sufficient to make nugatory all results.
There are several other relevant
incidents that show devious manipulation to elicit negative results. For example,
it would have been prudent for the experimenters to engage an independent informed
party to access all medical records for confirmation of the patients' alleged
problems. Whilst this was one of the conditions in the contract, there was no
evidence given of an independent adjudicator appointed to examine the health records.
4.0 Malicious intent
Relevant to malicious intent was
when debunker Wiseman falsely imputed that parapsychologists who do find in favor
of psi are "soft options" and less professional than the designers of
"Natasha hasn't gone for the soft option of going
to believers, she has come along to the scientists
is most inequitable, willfully malicious misrepresentation, insulting and most
ridiculous for any allegedly professional to state. By giving himself higher status
than open-minded investigators who perceive psi with empirical equanimity, Wiseman
tries to indirectly and maliciously belittle, to reduce and negate their professionalism
- imputing incompetence.
5.0 Inequitable subjective benchmark
to increase indirect malice and intentional misrepresentation, the experimenters
have deliberately chosen a benchmark for success which is way above that used
in other areas of science.
By asking that Natasha score more that 4/7 they
are presenting to an unsophisticated audience the impression that she could score
3 or 4 out of 7 by chance alone.
Yet the odds of scoring 4 out of 7 by
chance on the experiement they designed are 1 in 50. Whereas the experimenters
state Natasha 'failed' the test, other statisticians state that Natasha's results
were significant. Recent experiments on telepathy conducted by a British scientist
with a team from 20/20 Productions were hailed as a success when the odds against
chance as an explanation were 1 in 19. It also has to be remembered that Natasha
scored an amazing 5 out of 6 in the first test.
Updated 13th November
04 : NATASHA SCORES 5 OUT OF 7. Further, when Natasha is properly advised
she would not concede that she attained only 4/7. Since at least one additional
hit is in dispute there has to be a presumption that Natasha was right regarding
the issue of the appendix scar. This is because she did identify a woman with
a scar on the tummy and the experimenter willfully failed to show Natasha the
medical record of the subject to compare it with what she stated about the scar
on the subject. Accordingly Natasha can legitimately claim she scored FIVE out
6.0 Willful malicious omission to denigrate
was further unfair and intentional omission to effect negative perception of Natasha;
there was blatant, wilful misreprentation to fool the viewers and Natasha that
there is not such thing as 'medical intuition.' At no time in the video was it
mentioned that a great many other people have successfully demonstrated "medical
intuition" - exhibiting skills similar to Natasha - including a former NASA
scientist, and that a number of respected scientists and doctors have found evidence
that illness can be detected in the human energy field up to two years before
it appears in the body - same as Natasha found.
Instead there was an intentional
and malicious attempt to associate Natasha's ability with primitive superstition
and religious rituals with film of her immersing herself in cold water during
a time when it was stated she became religious.
7.0 More malicious fundamental
At no time in the video was it mentioned that Natasha had
been tested by highly qualified doctors in other countries and found to have a
8.0 Unfair, unjust, inequitable and unreasonable: willful
malicious pressure and stress to reduce performanceRunning the
tests before the she had time to acclimatize and get over jet-lag,Against
her wishes having the subjects wear ominous looking sun-glassesHaving all
the subjects in the second test sitting together and not allowed to move unless
by permission,At the last moment removing her mother and sister from the test
room (something fundamental she specifically objected to)Insisting that she
attempt to diagnose conditions she was uncomfortable withMaking the subjects
sit down when Natasha usually examines them standing upReplacing her usual
interpreter at the last moment with one chosen by CSICOPIntroducing a new
method of analysis which Natasha had never done before
Hyman, on behalf
of the experimenters deliberately and knowingly says it is their intention to
"put her under pressure" being well aware that long experience of investigation
of psychics shows that they do best in relaxed and homely surroundings which have
a lighthearted and positive atmosphere.
Relaxation for Natasha is most
critical and most fundamental. Inexorably, there would be diminution of psychic
power if Natasha is put under stress. The experimenters knew that- they had the
knowledge of cause and effect - and they willfully, knowingly and maliciously
unfairly increased significant stress immediately before the experiment.
of the things they chose to do would have significantly interfered with her psychic
functioning during the experiment including (not exhaustive):
9.0 More malice and
Content analysis of Wiseman's voice over shows a
deliberate attempt to negatively influence the viewers - something which a more
professional empiricist or someone who did not want to be malicious would not
Even before the experiments were shown, throughout the video
Wiseman systematically and maliciously used a Neuro-Linguistic Programming technique
known as "planting embedded commands" a technique for "planting"
the idea that Natasha was a fraud, was lying, was pretending, beneath the audience's
conscious awareness. When said by a person of presumed authority in a strong tone
it leads people hypnotically in the direction the speaker wants them to go; people
forget the qualifying words. Three examples:
could be fooling other people
there is a fascinating psychology of deception
and self deception going on."
The other possibility is that she
is simply lying to us. She is simply pretending that yes indeed, she can look
inside someone else's body"
"The test is designed to eliminate
lots of the problems which may lead us to think that Natasha is psychic when
that's not the case."
10.0 Willful misrepresentation
The experimenters willfully and maliciously misrepresented Natasha's results in
the first experiment to the world as a failure leading the average viewer to (incorrectly)
conclude that the experiments had proved Natasha had no psychic gifts and that
Natasha should not deserve to retain her high status, and excellent international
Yet earlier we had learned that 5 out of the 6 subjects "were
impressed by her diagnosis". Statistically, the results were brilliant. We
saw Natasha tell one patient that he had arrhythmia of the heart; he confirmed
that she had "pinpointed" his condition and was "spot on".
We saw her tell another patient that he had problems with the liver- he said "I
was surprised and happy". We saw her tell a third that she had vascular problems-
headaches in the front of her head and the patient confirmed that she suffered
Yet Wiseman totally fobs off these results saying "During
the reading Natasha only mentioned the right ailment to one of those people".
He then, in a willfully malicious way, tries to explain away her successful results
by saying "she's throwing out a huge number of options."
was not borne out in the videos of her working with the patients in the test or
in Russia or by the fact that he himself said she arrived at her diagnoses in
minutes. It was not checked out or confirmed by the subjects. A reasonable conclusion
is that clearly this was a response that could be used no matter how accurate
Natasha was- in other words this test was designed so she couldn't possibly win.
Coercion, unfairness and more negative conduct
In pressuring Natasha
into a methodology for the second experiment that she was not happy with, together
with asking her to diagnose conditions which she had already expressed discomfort
with diagnosing (she was seen in the video protesting about both) the experimenters
were using their economic power coercively, insidiously, unfairly and inequitably.
Willful misrepresentation of the results to injure, and to cause permanent damage
totally misinterpreted to the audience the significance of the results that Natasha
did achieve in the second test and in the experiments overall. Because of the
complexity of the task the probability of her getting the results she did by random
guessing would be 1 in 50.
The commentator of the show says "Odds
of 1 in 50 may seem impressive but the scientists are not convinced." On
what objective authority?
In any experiment of the efficacy of a drug
results of 50 times the probability of chance would be lauded as a miracle! Wiseman,
'cheating' Natasha of proper mathematical assessment says to the world "She
had the claim, we tested it, she didn't pass the test."! and "nothing
psychic is going on" and "she has no gift".
may be entitled to say that she didn't meet his subjective, arbitrarily imposed
standards but he cannot say that she has not demonstrated that she had psychic
Further, whether or not she had agreed as to what constitutes
"a pass" in the contract, Natasha would not have agreed to that if she
were properly advised by an independent professional. It is well established at
law that a contract under psychological pressure or coercion as this was, is not
13.0 Unconscionable contract
The alleged contract
shows the parties were CSICOP/CSMMH with a combined collective debunking closed-minded
skeptical experience of more than a 100 years and the other party was the teenager
Natasha - with just five years of successful psi performances.
shows how one-sided the unconscionable contract was. Half of the conditions stipulated
by the dominating party, CSICOP/CSMMH would have had to be negotiated to make
the contract certainly more equitably balanced.
The contract was unilaterally
drafted to give unqualifiedly, full control and full advantage to CSICOP/CSMMH
and to completely dominate the much weaker teenager Natasha.
a duty to inform Natasha to take the contract to an truly independent, psi informed
lawyer to make sure Natasha understood the contract and to advise Natasha of her
legal rights. Natasha should have also been warned and advised - because she was
under legal age and for other reasons, to seek informed guidance from an objective
expert in psi to advise her of all possible extraneous variables relating to her
experiment which would likely to interfere with her usual performance. Natasha's
conduct clearly shows nothing like this was done.
14.0 Willful misrepresentation
of the results to hurt and injure
Deeply negatively entrenched Wiseman
stated inter alia:"
it's the first time that claim has been tested."
That is simply NOT true. It is a malicious attempt by Wiseman to misrepresent
and mislead and to negatively manipulate the viewers to think that this was Natasha's
In fact Natasha was on British television where she was seen
being tested by highly qualified medical and highly skeptical doctors and where
she brilliantly excelled as a gifted psychic. In Neuro-linguistics this is also
called 'deletions.' There is a tendency for a negatively prejudiced experimenter
to delete anything fundamentally inconsistent with his own cherished negative
Wilful exploitation to defeat - equitable principles
the scientific community and society generally expect experimenters, empiricists
and scientists and administrators to be honest, to have integrity, to have the
decency to present to the world empirical objectivity so that there can be more
scientific progress to assist mankind, it is most sad to see throughout history
the debunking skeptics exploiting their privileged position to mislead- directly
or by imputations as the only way to score a few cheap points, deluding themselves
they have won anything. The response from average decent informed folk -historically
- is that some closed minded debunkers are leaving a legacy of dishonesty, bigotry
and colossal injustice - and making too many people lose confidence in science
as an objective discipline. Victor Zammit October 2004
Return to Index