Woman wins £800,000 from woo-woo practitioner for brain damage

[Croydon Bob]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23519006-details/Mother+wins+800%2C000+payout+after+%27four+pints+o f+water+a+day%27+detox+diet+leaves+her+brain+damag ed/article.do

I note that all the news reports say that "Barbara Nash has a diploma of natural nutrition gained from the College of National Nutrition in London." A quick interweb search suggests that no such place exists...

[Matt]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23519006-details/Mother+wins+800%2C000+payout+after+%27four+pints+o f+water+a+day%27+detox+diet+leaves+her+brain+damag ed/article.do

I note that all the news reports say that "Barbara Nash has a diploma of natural nutrition gained from the College of National Nutrition in London." A quick interweb search suggests that no such place exists...

"No admission of liability" So a shameless quack then.

[Jack of Kent]

I suspect it's lousy journalism, Bob. It probably is the College of Natural Nutrition.
http://www.natnut.co.uk/

I think "Natnut" is appropriate....

[seren]

...as opposed, of course, to the college of Unnatural Nutrition. ::)

[Admin]

I note that all the news reports say that "Barbara Nash has a diploma of natural nutrition gained from the College of National Nutrition in London." A quick interweb search suggests that no such place exists...

It doesn't really matter whether she has such a qualification or not. It means the same thing!

It's concerning enough that people trust these quacks to begin with but if the woman had started feeling ill, why did she keep on drinking the water?

Yes, it says that she asked the quack for advice but if something's making you ill, surely you would stop? :undecided:

I find this to be similar to stories about nasty psychics who take people's £35,000 life savings off them etc. - the 'victim' is culpable too because of their own gullibility.

I'm not too sure whether people should be given compensation in these cases. Anyone who willingly goes on handing thousands of pounds over to psychics or continues to force water down their throats when it's making them ill gets harmed by their own stupidity.

Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh, but we shouldn't overlook the role of the 'victims' in these cases.

[Mongrel]

Bah - hate the way they've worded that >:-)

She was awarded damages from the practitioner, she didn't enter a competition.


/nitpick.

[Jack of Kent]

But you do win a case (or can lose a case)...

[JJM]

John,

I understand your point about personal responsibility. However, I do not think it is so simple. Psychics aside, professionals can find it difficult to separate quackery from legitimate methods.

Several years ago, I saw a TV show debunking quackery. One of the doctors (I don't recall the name) said he became interested in sCAM when he had a terminal patient who wanted to try any "promising" clinical trial. He found her a study run by a "respected" clinician. As it happened, the clinician had turned quack, the study was bogus and ill-used his patient. He was furious.

If an MD, not given to magical thinking, can be fooled- what defense do we have?

[Admin]

John,

I understand your point about personal responsibility. However, I do not think it is so simple.

Well when it comes to someone, say, suffering a stroke after a chiropractic manipulation then I wouldn't say the victim was culpable, but when I see a case like this you've got to ask yourself what the woman thought she was doing.

I suppose it depends where you want to draw the line between being a victim and of being culpably stupid.

It hasn't happened in this thread but I've seen similar cases before and everyone condemns the practitioners/perpetrators - but the 'victim' does have a role to play and I just think that some of them play a more active role than simply being a passive victim.

[Pebble]

Well when it comes to someone, say, suffering a stroke after a chiropractic manipulation then I wouldn't say the victim was culpable, but when I see a case like this you've got to ask yourself what the woman thought she was doing.

I suppose it depends where you want to draw the line between being a victim and of being culpably stupid.

It hasn't happened in this thread but I've seen similar cases before and everyone condemns the practitioners/perpetrators - but the 'victim' does have a role to play and I just think that some of them play a more active role than simply being a passive victim.

Not sure I agree. People have been awarded damages after microwaving their pets, or burning their hands on McDonald's coffee, so when a 'healer' tells you that your symptoms are a natural part of the therapeutic process you ought be in a position to believe them. Otherwise chemotherapy is stuffed. The problem here really is the tolerance of Quacks, rather than the gullibility of the public (incurable). A few more cases like this is the best solution to alternative medicine.

[Admin]

There are various degrees that we can become victims from pure bad luck, by holding nonsense ideas and beliefs (and acting on them), through to sheer stupidity.

It's easy to dichotomise things like this into 'nasty alt. meddler' and their 'innocent victim' but both play a part in these things.

I'm sure many people become unwitting victims of stuff like this (not realising that chiropractors are quacks, for example) but every now and then you're going to come across people who willingly hand over all their money to psychics over a period of months and people who are going to force themselves to do things like ram water down their necks even though it is clearly making them ill.

What I'm saying is - don't overlook the role of the 'victim' in such cases. They may be more a victim of their own actions than anything else.

I know many skeptics love to see these stories as they're great examples of the harm that woo-practitioners can cause. But we really ought to be considering the fuller picture.

[ZERO]

I agree with John here, people do need to (or rather should) take responsibility for their own actions.

We all agree that a rational approach to things is a good idea but if someone wants to go blindly about is it fair they are rewarded when they step in it?

Of course this in no way lessens the culpability of the woo profiteers but a little critical thinking goes a long way.

[Blue Wode]

John Jackson wrote:

I'm not too sure whether people should be given compensation in these cases. Anyone who willingly goes on handing thousands of pounds over to psychics or continues to force water down their throats when it's making them ill gets harmed by their own stupidity.

-snip-

I'm sure many people become unwitting victims of stuff like this (not realising that chiropractors are quacks, for example) but every now and then you're going to come across people who willingly hand over all their money to psychics over a period of months and people who are going to force themselves to do things like ram water down their necks even though it is clearly making them ill.
I’m curious as to why you seem to find it acceptable that people (“unwitting victims”) can be taken in by chiropractors (“not realizing that chiropractors are quacks”) when chiropractors are known to tell patients who are experiencing a deterioration in their symptoms that they are ‘retracing’ and that it’s important that they continue with their potentially life-threatening manipulative treatments…

Chiropractic patients occasionally experience the phenomenon of retracing. Retracing is the re-experiencing or re-awakening of pain or other symptoms…

-snip-

Patients going though a particularly intense retracing pattern may feel as if they've had a serious relapse or are perhaps even getting worse.
Although retracing experiences usually last a short time and often pass relatively quickly, patients have been known to terminate their care as a result of them. During this period it is especially important that the patient tell the doctor what is going on. Patients who terminate their care as a result of retracing symptoms will be cheating themselves of a healing experience.

http://www.phlanetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/search.cgi?category=1&keyword=CA+Lynne&page=5 (http://www.phlanetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/search.cgi?category=1&keyword=CA+Lynne&page=5)

…yet you consider that the woman in this story is “harmed by her own stupidity” despite the fact that she

“…contacted the nutritionist about the side effects, but was assured that vomiting was a normal part of the detox programme.”
IMO, both are victims of quack practitioners who masquerade as figures of authority.

[Matt]

Well of course there's nothing intrinsicly suspect about a nutritionist. I've visited a nutritionist on the NHS and recieved sensible helpful advice on how I should be changing my diet to cope with Diabetes. She even coped with my snarking skeptical questions (If mashed potato has a higher GI than boiled potatoes are you telling me not to chew my food?)

When a main terestrial TV channels gives regular air time to fake Doctor Gillian McKeith, your idea of what contitutes sensible nutritional advice may be understandably skewed, especialy when supposed impartial advice and numerous advert expound the virtues of drinking more water.

In encountering her first symptoms she did the sensible thing and contacted the qualified professional under whose care they had been placed.

No, I can't find it in myslef to blame the victim.

Clearly the lesson in this case is to bring to greater public awareness the harm some chemicals can do. Ban Di Hydrogen Monoxide!

[Admin]

OK, this is a subjective issue so we're not necessarily all going to converge on an agreement.

But I'll try to clarify my thinking a bit better than I have done so far.

I don't see victims as all being equal as there can be many ways in which a person can contribute to their becoming a victim. I'll break it down into 3 categories:

Unfortunate victim of circumstance - This is where any one can end up being mugged, the victim of a sophisticated scam, car crash... anything where the outcome could not be foreseen.
.
Victims of avoidable circumstance - This is where people can becomes victims of things that they could have avoided. I include being 'victims of belief' in this category so things like being a victim of MLM schemes, or chiropractic neck manipulations would count. This is where people can get taken in by things but if they'd bothered to check things out, they could have avoided it.
.
Victims of their own negligence/stupidity/etc. - This is where people end up being harmed by things where they really should have known better due to obvious warning signs, previous harm from the same thing and such like. i.e. the fact that they are being harmed should be blatantly obvious yet they still continue doing what's harming them.

Of course you could always make more categories and find counter-examples or extenuating circumstances but that's a reasonable framework to use.

As skeptics, I think we're used to dealing with beliefs that would put people into category 2. That is, those things that many people believe in but they do not actually work and often carry associated risks.

I would put someone who went to a chiropractor and ended up suffering a stroke into category 2 as it's something they probably believed to be a real and worthwhile treatment (due the promotion of it, perceived authenticity, etc.) but if they'd looked further they would have known better.

But this one where the woman was on this weight-loss detox thing and it was making her ill then at that point yes, category 2 - but even after this point (yes and after further bogus advice) she continued on this course of action well after the point that it must have been blatantly obvious that it was harming her - category 3.

Now I baulk at category2! I still think that people who get harmed by things like MLM schemes etc. are culpable due to their lack of skepticism (isn't protecting oneself from such things a major benefit of skepticism?) but at least it is understandable. But category 3 - to me, they are as much victims of themselves as of anyone else.

[Matt]

OK, this is a subjective issue so we're not necessarily all going to converge on an agreement.

Well that at least I can agree with ;)


But I'll try to clarify my thinking a bit better than I have done so far.


I don't see victims as all being equal as there can be many ways in which a person can contribute to their becoming a victim. I'll break it down into 3 categories:
Unfortunate victim of circumstance - This is where any one can end up being mugged, the victim of a sophisticated scam, car crash... anything where the outcome could not be foreseen.
Victims of avoidable circumstance - This is where people can becomes victims of things that they could have avoided. I include being 'victims of belief' in this category so things like being a victim of MLM schemes, or chiropractic neck manipulations would count. This is where people can get taken in by things but if they'd bothered to check things out, they could have avoided it.
Victims of their own negligence/stupidity/etc. - This is where people end up being harmed by things where they really should have known better due to obvious warning signs, previous harm from the same thing and such like. i.e. the fact that they are being harmed should be blatantly obvious yet they still continue doing what's harming them.


That certianly does clarify things a bit. I'm happy with those categories.

Obviously subjectively I differ on a number of points.

Yes she was a victim of avoidable circumstance. The tragedy could have been avoided if she checked things out. It would be stupid not to and any harm coming to her for not doing so is directly attributable to her.

However how do we know that she didn't check things out? On the contrary we do know that she contacted the professional she had hired with her concerns. We don't know that she didn't take things further.

I just googled "amazing hydration diet" and after filtering out any reference to Barbara Nash or Dawn Page I got nada.

So I went on to Google "drinking pints of water cut out salt"

The first hit should be a concern Man Dies after drinking 17 pints of Water in 8 hours (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1032795/Man-dies-water-overdose-drinking-17-pints-hours-soothe-sore-gums.html) but can we blame her for not running scared of a Daily Mail Article. Besides which she was on 4 and then 6 pints of water in 24 hours - far less.

From then on all is good news. She gets reference (http://www.janbrumfitt.co.uk/criesforwater.htm) to Dr. Batmanghelidj's book, "Your Body's Many Cries for WATER" She gets three (http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080312034538AAJUaCa) forums (http://www.calorie-count.com/forums/post/85949.html) where (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6967) people are talking about the benefits of drinking plenty of water including people who recommend 4 to 6 pints a day and claim to be fine on that amount.

She even finds her own government (http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/menandfood.pdf) setting a lower limit of at least 6 to 8 cups of water a day for men.

There are almost limitless places where she coud find confirmation that this detox regime wasn't harmful. I can't accuse her of failing due dilligence unless I know what steps she did take. It may well be that she tried her best to find out but was just unlucky not to find the information that would have saved her.

There is a stage however when I'd have expected her to visit her GP. I find it unlikley that she did so, as I would expect the GP to determine the cause of the problem and stop the detox regime. It's that failing that makes me agree with putting her in category 2.

I subjectively differ in classing her in category 3. The vomiting alone should have been an obvious sign that something was wrong. Ignoring that would have been negligent. However she didn't ignore it. Her crime wasn't ignoring the vomiting but accepting the explanation that it was perfectly normal and would pass. Her crime wasn't ignorance but trust in counterknowledge supplied by a specialist. Knowing something that's wrong is much harder to fight than simply not knowing anything at all.

Many people have a similar reaction to chemo, I don't know how many simply trust their specialist telling them that the reaction is to be expected and how many turn seek a second opinion. However I wouldn't place those that don't in category 3.

Finally I differ in holding even category 3 people to blame for their faults. Perhaps I'm a snooty elitist but I don't expect much better from the world at large and consider it a duty of the strong (or wise) to protect the weak (or naive.) Preferably by helping the weak or naive to become strong and wise. (You know make a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night but set a man on fire and he'll be hot for the rest of his life or something like that (http://www.amatecon.com/fish.html))

Of course I do agree that it's all subjective and don't wish to criticise your opinions but what I think I've highlighted is a need for something like a "Detox Kills" campaign. Lobbying to get nutritionist as a regulated profession so that I can't just download a certificate off the internet and charge for my wacky diet advice. Accessible information about the scientific benefits of detox (or lack of them in most scenarios) or the truth about hydration.

[Mongrel]

There is a stage however when I'd have expected her to visit her GP. I find it unlikley that she did so, as I would expect the GP to determine the cause of the problem and stop the detox regime. It's that failing that makes me agree with putting her in category 2.



I subjectively differ in classing her in category 3. The vomiting alone should have been an obvious sign that something was wrong. Ignoring that would have been negligent. However she didn't ignore it. Her crime wasn't ignoring the vomiting but accepting the explanation that it was perfectly normal and would pass. Her crime wasn't ignorance but trust in counterknowledge supplied by a specialist. Knowing something that's wrong is much harder to fight than simply not knowing anything at all.

Personally I think it's the failing to go to the GP after vomiting and the other symptoms is what bumps her from cat 2 to cat 3.


Many people have a similar reaction to chemo, I don't know how many simply trust their specialist telling them that the reaction is to be expected and how many turn seek a second opinion. However I wouldn't place those that don't in category 3.
The first specialist will counsel, before it happens, that nausea and vomiting may be one of the side effects and that there are drugs that can control that. If a second opinion is sought then the information given will be the same, from the same source (within sensible boundaries).

[Admin]

Well I guess in this instance I'm arguing from limited knowledge from an account published in the media - and there's always danger in doing that! In fact it's something I go on about not doing!!! :-[

But what was on my mind is that we do see a lot of this type of thing - normally things like widows handing over their life savings and then trying to re-mortgage their home to give money to a psychic etc...

And I do think that at times skeptics can get a little blinkered in seeing what they want to see (nasty psychics, nasty quacks...) and forget that the victim could, and probably is, culpable for their own misfortune to some degree.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this exonerates the psychics/quacks/etc. to any degree - what they're doing is still wrong - but I find it hard to accept that the victims in these cases are simply passive victims.

[Croydon Bob]

John, if one widowed OAP gave her life savings to a psychic and another gave her life savings to a dodgy builder to fix a roof that didn't need fixing; would you see the first as more culpable than the second, or not?

[Admin]

John, if one widowed OAP gave her life savings to a psychic and another gave her life savings to a dodgy builder to fix a roof that didn't need fixing; would you see the first as more culpable than the second, or not?

Under what circumstances would these be played out?

They could be similar under some circumstances and different under others!

[Cuddles]

While I generally agree with John about those categories, I'm not sure I agree in this particular case. Obviously I'm only going from the news articles so I don't know all the details, but it seems that everything she was told is just a standard part of the advice everyone is told to follow - drink enough water and stop eating as much salt. Of course, what is important is the extent to which you do this, but without knowing the details of the case, it's impossible to know what she was doing either before or during this. The point is, there is really no reason for her to have been suspicious. Even after she became ill, if she looked in to it she would have found information all over the place saying that people need to drink more water and eat less salt, which is exactly what she was doing. Maybe she was doing it too much, and certainly she should have gone to see a GP, but I don't think the woman can be blamed too much here, and I suspect this is also why there was no admission of liability - it may simply be that she actually had good advice but was naturally at risk, or even simply unlucky.


Besides which she was on 4 and then 6 pints of water in 24 hours - far less.

Not quite. She was on 4 and then 6 extra pints of water. Without knowing how much she drank usually, that could have put her to the recommended amount of water or she could have been drinking far too much already. It's also important to remember that it was not just the water that was the problem, it was the lack of salt as well. It may take 17 pints of water in 8 hours to kill you normally, but you'd need far less than that if you cut out salt at the same time.

[Croydon Bob]

Under what circumstances would these be played out?

They could be similar under some circumstances and different under others!

Hmmm... OK. I'll try a different approach.

What you have said could be interpreted as implying that a widow trying to re-mortgage her home to give money to a psychic is more culpable than a person ripped off by a non-woo con-artist. How does the belief in something non-scientific play a part in the culpability of your category 2 victims as compared to the victims of other non-woo scamming activities.

If the victim thinks that they're going to get more money for their money were they any more or less culpable than if they thought they were going to get magic healing for their money?

I still don't think I've made my point very clearly but do you see what I'm trying to get at?

[Admin]

What you have said could be interpreted as implying that a widow trying to re-mortgage her home to give money to a psychic is more culpable than a person ripped off by a non-woo con-artist.

Well I had started answering your question but it really does depend on the circumstances put forward (interpretation, assumptions, etc.) but I'm always dubious of answering questions that contain assumptions as people will interpret the question and the answer in different ways.

Yes, it could be argued that someone taken in by a con merchant posing as a psychic is more culpable than someone taken in by one posing as a builder as at least we know that there are genuine builders who can actually do what they claim.

On the other hand, they could be equivalent if they're both promising results and not delivering yet the victim keeps on handing money over well beyond the point that it's obvious that they're being ripped off.

So it depends upon the circumstance of the con rather than the method used really.

[Admin]

I find people's reactions to stories like this very interesting. I've briefly asked around, especially people who are non-skeptics (not meaning woos by that, just ordinary people who don't analyse things like we do), and everyone blames the practitioner but interestingly, most people also blame the patient to some degree for being so gullible. I haven't looked around alternative medicine forums to gauge their reaction though.

I suspect that prior belief would be a big factor in how this case was interpreted. If I was doing a qualitative study to assess how blame/culpability was apportioned in this case my research question would be something like: Skeptics and people who oppose alternative medicines would mostly blame the practitioner; Alternative medicine practitioners/supporters would tend to blame the patient.

My thinking is that alt. medicine practitioners wouldn't be so ready to condemn the sort of practises they use and would probably reason along the following lines: OK, the treatment wasn't working for this patient (i.e. this patient is an exception to the rule), and she had a responsibility to stop the treatment when it was clear that she should have stopped.

Like I say, I haven't looked around to get evidence to support this (been far too busy) but I do think that one's prior stance on alternative medicine would be a major factor in how blame is attributed.

There's an interesting mixture of responses in the comments section here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1037220/Mother-awarded-800-000-pints-water-day-detox-diet-left-brain-damaged.html

[Matt]

http://cectic.com/176.html

http://cectic.com/comics/176.png

Too good not to share...

I think on this occassion the victim deserves plenty of blame....