Almost a year ago, exactly on December 1, 2004, I sent an email to Dr. Yale Rosen regarding his comments on a drawing allegedly made by Natasha Demkina, as presented at this link. I sent another email to him on the next day, but never got a reply. I also sent copies then to both Professor Brian Josephson and Mr. Andrew Skolnick (the latter, executive director of the CSMMH).

This month (November 2005) I was prompted once more to try to get some feedback from Dr. Yale Rosen on this very same issue, this time because of Skolnick's weird and unsocial conduct in a public internet forum, "The Museum of Hoaxes" (on the thread at this link; I joined the forum some weeks ago, and my messages appear on it now, starting from page 15 on). At this forum, trying to labor through Skolnick's twisted reasonings and bent views has been like rowing up "rocky" creek without a paddle... One of his wildest "gems" was: "Julio Siqueira feels he can argue with even the highest authorities in science. One of the most ridiculous example is where he tried to correct the conclusion of one of the world's leading authorities on what sarcoidsoses look like -- even though the only thing Siqueira knows about sarcoidosis is how to spell it. The distinguished scientist didn't bother to answer the kook's email." (at this link). Skolnick was fully aware that he was not telling the truth, and that actually I had been most respectful and humble while addressing Dr. Rosen. Despite that, he carried on with his questionable tactics.

I was quick in my response. What I did was to try once more to get a feedback from  Dr. Yale Rosen. This time, I was glad to receive a reply. So I present below both my email to him and then his most informative and kind reply.

My Email:

From: Julio Siqueira [mailto:juliocbsiqueira@terra.com.br]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:41 PM
To: yrosen@optonline.net
Subject: Andrew Skolnick's Use of Your Feedbacks...

Dear Mr. Yale Rosen,

Sometime ago I sent you an email regarding an inquiry made to you by the "Comission of Scientific Medicine and Mental Health" (CSMMH) about the russian girl Natasha Demkina, who they have nicknamed "the girl with X-Ray eyes".

You did not answer.

Despite that, CSMMH, via Andrew Skolnick, is now using your "non-answer" as a way to discredit the very question that I adressed you. So again I direct the same question to you (I reproduce below the email that I sent before) and let you know the kind of thing that is being said by CSMMH's members regarding that, despite the fact that I was very polite in my request to you (and also very precise in my technical doubts). Skolnick's words: "Julio Siqueira feels he can argue with even the highest authorities in science. One of the most ridiculous example is where he tried to correct the conclusion of one of the world's leading authorities on what sarcoidsoses look like -- even though the only thing Siqueira knows about sarcoidosis is how to spell it. The distinguished scientist didn't bother to answer the kook's email.". Link for this quote:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/483/P400/

My previous email to you:

Dear Mr. Yale Rosen,

I am a Brazilian clinical microbiologist (I don't work as such) and I have some interest in possible "paranormal" issues, both for the possible benefits that it might bring if it happens to be true, but also for the very many hazards that it can surely bring whenever it is untrue.

I came across a statement from you that has been published on the CSMMH site (Comission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health). They are using your opinion to discredit the 17-year-old Russian girl Natasha Demkina, the alleged "girl with x-ray eyes". So far, so good, for I agree with CSMMH that Natasha may not be what is claimed about her, and topmost, she may issue many false positives and false negatives in her "diagnoses", that may lead thousands of people into danger.

But as to her drawing that they asked you to comment on (it is presented at this link, together with your opinion about it), I have a technical question. I did find it to resemble sarcoidosis. I have absolutely no expertice in this. But I did find it very much to resemble the macroscopic appearence of a whole lung with sarcoidosis. And the photo of a lung with sarcoidosis that I found similar to Natasha's drawing is a photo that is at your site! (Atlas of Granulomatous Disease, especially this link, where a Honeycomb Lung with Emphysema in the upper part of it is shown).

It so happens that, contrary to what CSMMH says, this girl is absolutely nowhere to be shown claiming to be able to see either at the molecular level or at the cellular level. She is also nowhere to be shown claiming to be able to see at the microscopic multicellular tissue level either. The smallest scale that either me or the CSMMH people have proof of her claiming to be able to see at is at things as small as 2 centimeters from a distance of three meters at most.

So, most likely, that drawing refers to a big macroscopic structure. Anyway, CSMMH people never bothered to ask her about it. And the Discovery Channel program clearly indicates that the doctor did not use that drawing to identify sarcoidosis. The guy from Russia, allegedly with sarcoidosis, never said that. He clearly stated that he only showed the drawing to the doctor after she looked into the microscope, and after she herself said it was sarcoidosis. And from his report, it seemed quite possible that the doctor didn't even care about the drawing that much.

So my question is: do you think that drawing migh somehow look any similar macroscopically to a lung with sarcoidisis (honeycomb lung with emphysema in the upper part of it). Natasha's drawing is at this link. The photo at your site is at this link.

Thank you very much beforehand for any feedback.

Sincerely,
Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros.
MA Clinical Bacteriologist.
_____________________________

Thank you very much for your kind attention, I apologize for any inconvenience, and, nevertheless, hope that this time you will answer my email.

Julio Siqueira
M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology (non-practicing biologist)
_______________________


Dr. Rosen's Reply (on November 15, 2005):

Dear Mr. Siqueira:
 
The reason that I did not respond to your previous e-mail is that I never received it.
 
In reply to your question:
 
1- I don't believe that any physician who looked at that drawing could come to the conclusion that it represents a honeycomb lung with emphysema or, for that matter, any other specific type of lung pathology.
 
2- The findings of honeycomb lung with emphysema depicted in that photograph are completely non-specific and could represent an end-stage of many disease processes including sarcoidosis. Any physician looking at that photograph might be able to come up with a differential diagnosis of all of the diseases that could produce that appearance but would not be able to say that the lung belonged to an individual with sarcoidosis.
 
3- ? Resemblance of drawing to website photo: I believe that it would be a stretch of the imagination to think that this drawing resembles the website photo and an even further stretch of the imagination to think that any physician would conclude that this drawing represents a diseased lung, let alone a lung involved with sarcoidosis. 
 
 
With best wishes.
Yale Rosen, M.D.
___________________________