Alternative woo may Seriously Damage your health

[Scazon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7520756.stm

The court heard Mrs Page, from Faringdon, near Swindon, claimed Mrs Nash told her to drink large amounts of water and reduce her salt intake when she started the diet in October 2001.

She told the High Court when she started vomiting Mrs Nash told her it was a normal part of the detoxification process.

Less than a week into the regime, mother-of-two Mrs Page had to be taken to Princess Margaret Hospital in Swindon after suffering a severe epileptic fit. Doctors diagnosed low salt levels in her body.

She has been left with "cognitive deficit" which she says has forced her to give up work as a conference organiser.

Her husband Geoff, 54, said: "Her life has been seriously affected, perhaps ruined, by this fad-type way of losing weight, which I can only say is a dangerous method of weight loss."

[SezMe]

from Faringdon, near Swindon
Are there really so many Faringdons in the local vicinity that the one near Swindon needs to be called out?

[Vorpal]

Could be, but more likely to be the opposite--Faringdon being a town small enough, and therefore obscure enough, that the reporter put in the nearest large city to give the readers some reference as to where it is. Or so would be my guess.

[Acleron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7520756.stm

And the usual wonderfully balanced reporting from the Beeb

Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George's Hospital in Tooting, told the BBC: "As a dietician I frequently see people who have been given the wrong information by nutritionists or nutritional therapists and we deal with the consequences," she said.

But others believe detoxing can beneficial if done properly. Ellie Kopiel, 55, detoxes about once a year by limiting her food intake, eating lots of fruit and vegetables and drinking about two litres of water a day.

Ms Kopiel, a reflexologist from London, told the BBC News website: "I do it when I'm feeling a bit clogged up.


That's Catherine Collins, a registered dietician. In the UK only people who have taken and passed at least a four year graduate course are entitled to call themselves dieticians.

As against Ellie Koppel, someone who believes that pressing on the foot can cure disease. :eye-poppi

[Furi]

Are there really so many Faringdons in the local vicinity that the one near Swindon needs to be called out?

There are a couple of Farringdons, including one in Nodnol, and as we are currently in the midst of teh dumb plague, peops might get confused

[leon_heller]

Mrs Page sued and got £400,000 in damages.

Leon

[Tumblehome]

She told the High Court when she started vomiting Mrs Nash told her it was a normal part of the detoxification process.That reminds of a book I once read on fruitarianism. The author wrote that some time after you start a fruit-only diet, boils will appear on your skin that will open and release a puss-like substance. This was nothing to be afraid of, he said--it was just the body's way of getting rid of toxins. :eye-poppi


And the usual wonderfully balanced reporting from the Beeb

That's Catherine Collins, a registered dietician. In the UK only people who have taken and passed at least a four year graduate course are entitled to call themselves dieticians.

As against Ellie Koppel, someone who believes that pressing on the foot can cure disease. :eye-poppi


That's all part and parcel of being objective. It isn't the news media's job to make judgements and sway their readers, but to give both sides their say. Abandoning that principle would as easily result in stories in favour of woo as well as reason, depending on the whims of the reporter and editor.

[SezMe]

Could be, but more likely to be the opposite--Faringdon being a town small enough, and therefore obscure enough, that the reporter put in the nearest large city to give the readers some reference as to where it is. Or so would be my guess.
Aha, hadn't thought of that. Good point.

[blutoski]

That's all part and parcel of being objective. It isn't the news media's job to make judgements and sway their readers, but to give both sides their say. Abandoning that principle would as easily result in stories in favour of woo as well as reason, depending on the whims of the reporter and editor.

There's some disagreement among skeptics about whether pandering to kooks is the same thing as 'objective'.

My opinion is that a reporter is being objective by putting her personal opinions aside when conducting an investigation, following the facts and testimonies to a best effort of underlying truth, and reporting these findings.

A reporter is not being objective when they decide to 'introduce balance' to a story by distorting the facts by scraping up some crank to talk gibberish. My opinion is that when reporters give disproportionate exposure to cranks, they are not being objective, but probably indulging in their personal prejudice to promote these views despite the lack of factual support.


I remember an episode of Blackadder where they're lost at sea with Captain Rum:

Edmund: Look, there's no need to panic. Someone in the crew will know how to steer this thing.

Rum: The crew, milord?

Edmund: Yes, the crew.

Rum: What crew?

Edmund: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew.

Rum: Opinion is divided on the subject.

Edmund: Oh, really? [starting to get the picture]

Rum: Yahs. All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't.

The passage is to illustrate that the invention of 'divided opinion' where none exists is injecting untruth to a report. A journalist would have to be sacrificing objectivity to do this.

[luchog]

There's some disagreement among skeptics about whether pandering to kooks is the same thing as 'objective'.

My opinion is that a reporter is being objective by putting her personal opinions aside when conducting an investigation, following the facts and testimonies to a best effort of underlying truth, and reporting these findings.

That's why crap like Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is complete nonsense. Being objective means setting aside personal preferences and attempting to get at the truth through all available credible evidence. It does not mean treating some nutjob as if their opinion carried the same weight as solid scientific study.

[Acleron]

That's why crap like Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is complete nonsense. Being objective means setting aside personal preferences and attempting to get at the truth through all available credible evidence. It does not mean treating some nutjob as if their opinion carried the same weight as solid scientific study.
Wikipedia's NPOV is not quite as bad as you might think. It doesn't allow idiots to have their say if anyone else disagrees. The only Wikipedia articles I've been involved in are about homeopathy and while it took some time the final resolution was in favour of rationality.

That reminds of a book I once read on fruitarianism. The author wrote that some time after you start a fruit-only diet, boils will appear on your skin that will open and release a puss-like substance. This was nothing to be afraid of, he said--it was just the body's way of getting rid of toxins. :eye-poppi





That's all part and parcel of being objective. It isn't the news media's job to make judgements and sway their readers, but to give both sides their say. Abandoning that principle would as easily result in stories in favour of woo as well as reason, depending on the whims of the reporter and editor.

No, that is not being objective. While it is not the media's job to sway opinion, but they try to do it, it is surely their job to appraise us with the facts. Now the actual data is probably beyond most of the public but the conclusions are not. To try and balance a well qualified and very experienced dietician with an an unqualified idiot who believes that all diseases can be cured by pressing on a part of the foot is ... well it's pretty stupid :boggled:

[GreyICE]

Wikipedia's NPOV is not quite as bad as you might think. It doesn't allow idiots to have their say if anyone else disagrees. The only Wikipedia articles I've been involved in are about homeopathy and while it took some time the final resolution was in favour of rationality.

No, that is not being objective. While it is not the media's job to sway opinion, but they try to do it, it is surely their job to appraise us with the facts. Now the actual data is probably beyond most of the public but the conclusions are not. To try and balance a well qualified and very experienced dietician with an an unqualified idiot who believes that all diseases can be cured by pressing on a part of the foot is ... well it's pretty stupid :boggled:

The media can include the quote, in my opinion. They just have to put it in context.

Cite medical studies on the effectiveness of whatever flavor of woo it is this week (inevitably, they don't work). Quote a doctor saying they don't work. Quote a crazy person saying they do.

Crazy person looks crazy. That's all. More information just needs to be added to the picture.

[Tumblehome]

There's some disagreement among skeptics about whether pandering to kooks is the same thing as 'objective'...

No, that is not being objective. While it is not the media's job to sway opinion, but they try to do it, it is surely their job to appraise us with the facts. Now the actual data is probably beyond most of the public but the conclusions are not. To try and balance a well qualified and very experienced dietician with an an unqualified idiot who believes that all diseases can be cured by pressing on a part of the foot is ... well it's pretty stupid :boggled:


Okay, after rereading the story, I have to change my mind. :o Your points are well taken. There was no reason objectively to tack on the three paragraphs at the end from someone who wouldn't know squat about it. I didn't read the story carefully enough the first time. As penance, I'm going to send an email to the BBC.

This forum is a good place for keeping you on your toes.

[Acleron]

Okay, after rereading the story, I have to change my mind. :o Your points are well taken. There was no reason objectively to tack on the three paragraphs at the end from someone who wouldn't know squat about it. I didn't read the story carefully enough the first time. As penance, I'm going to send an email to the BBC.

This forum is a good place for keeping you on your toes.

Surely that's not a penance (http://xkcd.com/386/). :)

[PixyMisa]

That's all part and parcel of being objective. It isn't the news media's job to make judgements and sway their readers, but to give both sides their say. Abandoning that principle would as easily result in stories in favour of woo as well as reason, depending on the whims of the reporter and editor.
It's really more a case of abdicating objectivity. Don't bother to report the facts, just find a contrary opinion.

[Darat]

And the usual wonderfully balanced reporting from the Beeb



That's Catherine Collins, a registered dietician. In the UK only people who have taken and passed at least a four year graduate course are entitled to call themselves dieticians.

As against Ellie Koppel, someone who believes that pressing on the foot can cure disease. :eye-poppi

This is one area where the law does need to be altered and pretty damned quick. Try asking people you know what a nutritionist is and what a dietician is and I bet you'll be surprised as I was i.e. most think nutritionists are the trained ones and dieticians are the "fad pushers" (as someone explained it to me).

In the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist and start peddling absolute nonsense and often not just nonsense but harmful nonsense. This needs to be stamped on. The best way I think would be for dieticians to claim the word nutritionist and it become a protected title (as dietician already is).

[Tumblehome]

Surely that's not a penance (http://xkcd.com/386/). :)

Yes, that's hilarious. :D Someone here has that in their signature and I laughed out loud when I read it.

It's really more a case of abdicating objectivity. Don't bother to report the facts, just find a contrary opinion.

I agree completely. The first time I (mis)read the story, I wasn't paying attention to the names and thought she was Barbara Nash defending herself, which I wouldn't object to. On second reading, when I realized it was someone who had nothing to do with the story, it was head-slapping time, for both myself and the BBC.

[geni]

That's why crap like Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is complete nonsense. Being objective means setting aside personal preferences and attempting to get at the truth through all available credible evidence. It does not mean treating some nutjob as if their opinion carried the same weight as solid scientific study.

Person A the leading acedemic in the field says Y pointing to a decade of scientific research. Person B says Z pointing to their tea leaves.

Totaly NPOV. Represents all major viewpoints and the evidence that cite to back them up.

[Eos of the Eons]

Freaking marooons don't even know that the huge increase in intake of water to the human body requires more electrolytes (like salt) to keep the body, well, in an actual balance. Balance is a word that woo woos LOVE to throw around, but ironically have no clue what balance means to human bodies. I don't get why people listen to maroons who have no clue how the body works. Buyer beware, buyer is not aware, buyer is hurt.

Change the law??? Change the law??? What??? And trample on HEALTH FREEDOM!!!

Come on, buyer beware means that buyers not aware are fairly duped by fake titles of people with dangerous, er um, natural wares to peddle.

[Pixel42]

Ben Goldacre makes, as you would expect, some excellent points about this case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/controversiesinscience

[borealys]

Ben Goldacre makes, as you would expect, some excellent points about this case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/controversiesinscience

Very good points indeed. This is why I fully support, for instance, Sandra Nette's lawsuit (http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=72421) against the Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors and the Alberta ministry of Health and Wellness.

Going after the individual quack won't accomplish much in the big picture. Going after the system that aids and abets the quackery just might.