http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/sydney-naturopath-face-trial-over-alleged-raw-food-diet-advice/7734404

Sydney naturopath to face trial over alleged raw food diet advice for breastfeeding mother.

A Sydney naturopath will face trial over a raw food diet she allegedly devised for a breastfeeding mother, whose baby nearly starved to death.

Marilyn Bodnar, 60, has appeared in Campbelltown Local Court charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm and aiding or abetting failure to provide necessities of life to a child.

She is yet to enter a formal plea, however has indicated she will plead not guilty.

The prosecution alleges that in February 2015 a 33-year-old maternity ward nurse, who cannot be identified, went to the naturopath seeking advice for her baby son’s eczema.

It is alleged Bodnar told the woman, who was still breastfeeding, the eczema was caused by toxins, which needed to be eliminated.
—

dv said:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/sydney-naturopath-face-trial-over-alleged-raw-food-diet-advice/7734404

Sydney naturopath to face trial over alleged raw food diet advice for breastfeeding mother.

A Sydney naturopath will face trial over a raw food diet she allegedly devised for a breastfeeding mother, whose baby nearly starved to death.

Marilyn Bodnar, 60, has appeared in Campbelltown Local Court charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm and aiding or abetting failure to provide necessities of life to a child.

She is yet to enter a formal plea, however has indicated she will plead not guilty.

The prosecution alleges that in February 2015 a 33-year-old maternity ward nurse, who cannot be identified, went to the naturopath seeking advice for her baby son’s eczema.

It is alleged Bodnar told the woman, who was still breastfeeding, the eczema was caused by toxins, which needed to be eliminated.
—

Which toxins?

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-15/sydney-naturopath-face-trial-over-alleged-raw-food-diet-advice/7734404

Sydney naturopath to face trial over alleged raw food diet advice for breastfeeding mother.

A Sydney naturopath will face trial over a raw food diet she allegedly devised for a breastfeeding mother, whose baby nearly starved to death.

Marilyn Bodnar, 60, has appeared in Campbelltown Local Court charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm and aiding or abetting failure to provide necessities of life to a child.

She is yet to enter a formal plea, however has indicated she will plead not guilty.

The prosecution alleges that in February 2015 a 33-year-old maternity ward nurse, who cannot be identified, went to the naturopath seeking advice for her baby son’s eczema.

It is alleged Bodnar told the woman, who was still breastfeeding, the eczema was caused by toxins, which needed to be eliminated.
—

Which toxins?

Apparently they were eliminated.

Well that’s good.

Rule 303 said:

Well that’s good.

Yes. About time. Most people and certainly me want those alternative practitioners understand their responsibilities are no less than a medical practitioner advising a treatment that causes harm has ramifications.

The mother should be moved to a better understanding that just because something seems natural any treatment has risks and those risks should be best understood just the same as going to your GP.

monkey skipper said:

Rule 303 said:

Well that’s good.

Yes. About time. Most people and certainly me want those alternative practitioners understand their responsibilities are no less than a medical practitioner advising a treatment that causes harm has ramifications.

The mother should be moved to a better understanding that just because something seems natural any treatment has risks and those risks should be best understood just the same as going to your GP.

Matter of fact what could be helpful is a MIMMS and treatment list used for natural therapies in order to have a reliable resource for consumers to refer to about the risks of alternative treatments offered and their risks. If a treatment isn’t listed then let that be validation that the treatment suggested by Alternative practitioner is questionable and accepted with the Natural Medicine fraternity.

I think a large problem is not having enough reliable resources for consumers to go to whom may be interested in blending formal treatments with some natural therapies.

For example, some parents don’t find some medications prescribed to their children are more helpful than the side effects and therefore are tempted to try alternative therapies at times. There should be reliable resources available to refer to ensure an informed decision can be made.

monkey skipper said:

monkey skipper said:

Rule 303 said:

Well that’s good.

Yes. About time. Most people and certainly me want those alternative practitioners understand their responsibilities are no less than a medical practitioner advising a treatment that causes harm has ramifications.

The mother should be moved to a better understanding that just because something seems natural any treatment has risks and those risks should be best understood just the same as going to your GP.

EDITS

Matter of fact what could be helpful is a MIMMS and treatment list used for natural therapies in order to have a reliable resource for consumers to refer to about the risks of alternative treatments offered and their benefits (if any). If a treatment isn’t listed then let that be validation that the treatment suggested by alternative practitioner is questionable and NOT accepted within the Natural Medicine fraternity.

I think a large problem is not having enough reliable resources for consumers to go to whom may be interested in blending formal treatments with some natural therapies.

For example, some parents don’t find some medications prescribed to their children are more helpful than the side effects and therefore are tempted to try alternative therapies at times. There should be reliable resources available to refer to ensure an informed decision can be made.

Interesting.

monkey skipper said:

Rule 303 said:

Well that’s good.

Yes. About time. Most people and certainly me want those alternative practitioners understand their responsibilities are no less than a medical practitioner advising a treatment that causes harm has ramifications.

they don’t have the oath

> A raw food diet … baby nearly starved to death.

I completely fail to see any connection between those two phrases.

Many breast-feeding babies in Australia nearly starve to death, that’s why the Tresillian Family Care Centres were invented. Even miss mollwollfumble had that problem.

> Marilyn Bodnar

Huh? That’s a familiar name from somewhere. Oh, different spelling. I know a Marilyn Bodinnar.

mollwollfumble said:

> A raw food diet … baby nearly starved to death.

I completely fail to see any connection between those two phrases.

Many breast-feeding babies in Australia nearly starve to death, that’s why the Tresillian Family Care Centres were invented. Even miss mollwollfumble had that problem.

> Marilyn Bodnar

Huh? That’s a familiar name from somewhere. Oh, different spelling. I know a Marilyn Bodinnar.

My understanding with babies is that they usually drink milk

as their stomachs are not ready for raw food,

so most nutrients do not get absorbed as easily as in adults

The mother is a maternity ward nurse

well she should know about milk and what babies can eat and not eat

“The court was told the naturopath devised a raw food diet for the woman, before advising her to subsist solely off water and watermelon for three days.”

i.e. the mother was not providing necessary nutrients to her baby via breastmilk because she wasn’t receiving nutrition herself.

Were the Toxins made up?

it seems that way, how would any naturopath know what the toxins are?

do they have a lab and the equipment to find out?

that is deceitful

and to run a practice on deceit is reckless

What’s worse is the naturopath allegedly telling the mother that the baby’s weight loss and vomiting were the body’s way of ridding toxins. However the article doesn’t mention if the baby’s eczema disappeared.

Divine Angel said:

“The court was told the naturopath devised a raw food diet for the woman, before advising her to subsist solely off water and watermelon for three days.”

i.e. the mother was not providing necessary nutrients to her baby via breastmilk because she wasn’t receiving nutrition herself.

great, though in some dehydration as well

not a very good maternity ward nurse

CrazyNeutrino said:

The mother is a maternity ward nurse

well she should know about milk and what babies can eat and not eat

lucky there is so little conflicting information out there about this sort of thing

Divine Angel said:

What’s worse is the naturopath allegedly telling the mother that the baby’s weight loss and vomiting were the body’s way of ridding toxins. However the article doesn’t mention if the baby’s eczema disappeared.

the eczema would have remain untreated

she should have gone to a regular doctor

>>>that the baby’s weight loss and vomiting were the body’s way of ridding toxins.

The natropath is making things up, that is reckless.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Were the Toxins made up?

it seems that way, how would any naturopath know what the toxins are?

do they have a lab and the equipment to find out?

that is deceitful

and to run a practice on deceit is reckless

Naturopaths all seem to run the same spiel about toxins, gluten, etc
Big pharma are the competition so they love to claim it’s all about money for them when they are wanting some of that money for themselves

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

What’s worse is the naturopath allegedly telling the mother that the baby’s weight loss and vomiting were the body’s way of ridding toxins. However the article doesn’t mention if the baby’s eczema disappeared.

the eczema would have remain untreated

she should have gone to a regular doctor

>>>that the baby’s weight loss and vomiting were the body’s way of ridding toxins.

The natropath is making things up, that is reckless.

A lot of alternate people hold to the “Getting rid of toxins” theory.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

“The court was told the naturopath devised a raw food diet for the woman, before advising her to subsist solely off water and watermelon for three days.”

i.e. the mother was not providing necessary nutrients to her baby via breastmilk because she wasn’t receiving nutrition herself.

great, though in some dehydration as well

not a very good maternity ward nurse

I think that is a pretty harsh assessment… It’s tough for new mothers… I really believe that most new parents try their utmost best to provide the best care they can for their babies… problem is it’s easy to swayed by people that speak with conviction around certain topics – especially when the parents desperately want to believe that they are seeking the best advice.

The biggest mistake these parents made was to not seek other opinions…

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The mother is a maternity ward nurse

well she should know about milk and what babies can eat and not eat

lucky there is so little conflicting information out there about this sort of thing

Some nursing person co-wrote a paleo book for babies, suggesting bone broth was an excellent substitute for formula. So yeah, people see an “expert” and believe all sorts of crap.

Plus the mother may have been suffering PND which may have impaired her judgement.

Cymek said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Were the Toxins made up?

it seems that way, how would any naturopath know what the toxins are?

do they have a lab and the equipment to find out?

that is deceitful

and to run a practice on deceit is reckless

Naturopaths all seem to run the same spiel about toxins, gluten, etc
Big pharma are the competition so they love to claim it’s all about money for them when they are wanting some of that money for themselves

The federal government should apply science to naturopathy

I think its time for some reform

Divine Angel said:

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The mother is a maternity ward nurse

well she should know about milk and what babies can eat and not eat

lucky there is so little conflicting information out there about this sort of thing

Some nursing person co-wrote a paleo book for babies, suggesting bone broth was an excellent substitute for formula. So yeah, people see an “expert” and believe all sorts of crap.

Plus the mother may have been suffering PND which may have impaired her judgement.

Perhaps it may bring regulation to the industry

Divine Angel said:

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

The mother is a maternity ward nurse

well she should know about milk and what babies can eat and not eat

lucky there is so little conflicting information out there about this sort of thing

Some nursing person co-wrote a paleo book for babies, suggesting bone broth was an excellent substitute for formula. So yeah, people see an “expert” and believe all sorts of crap.

Plus the mother may have been suffering PND which may have impaired her judgement.

Being a new parent is not easy…

my problem with this is the Toxins

what toxins?

and if they are making it up

that is malpractice

diddly-squat said:

Divine Angel said:

diddly-squat said:

lucky there is so little conflicting information out there about this sort of thing

Some nursing person co-wrote a paleo book for babies, suggesting bone broth was an excellent substitute for formula. So yeah, people see an “expert” and believe all sorts of crap.

Plus the mother may have been suffering PND which may have impaired her judgement.

Being a new parent is not easy…

No and unless the mother is shown to be out rightly negligent its the person who gave her medical advice that should take the responsibility.

CrazyNeutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

> A raw food diet … baby nearly starved to death.

I completely fail to see any connection between those two phrases.

Many breast-feeding babies in Australia nearly starve to death, that’s why the Tresillian Family Care Centres were invented. Even miss mollwollfumble had that problem.

> Marilyn Bodnar

Huh? That’s a familiar name from somewhere. Oh, different spelling. I know a Marilyn Bodinnar.

My understanding with babies is that they usually drink milk

as their stomachs are not ready for raw food,

so most nutrients do not get absorbed as easily as in adults

Oh wait, you mean the naturopath devised a raw food diet for the baby. I assumed it was a raw food diet for the mother.

Then the so-called baby must have been old enough to wean, more than 12 months old. Right?

CrazyNeutrino said:

my problem with this is the Toxins

what toxins?

and if they are making it up

that is malpractice

I think so, supposedly our bodies can’t get rid of toxins without a special diet or detox regime, the liver/kidneys, etc for some reason isn’t up the job, but if it was true we’d all probably die

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Divine Angel said:

Some nursing person co-wrote a paleo book for babies, suggesting bone broth was an excellent substitute for formula. So yeah, people see an “expert” and believe all sorts of crap.

Plus the mother may have been suffering PND which may have impaired her judgement.

Being a new parent is not easy…

No and unless the mother is shown to be out rightly negligent its the person who gave her medical advice that should take the responsibility.

well I’m not entirely sure that is correct either… It may not be easy being a new parent but I think the onus on you are a parent is to seek out the best advice and that may mean asking for a second or third opinion.

mollwollfumble said:

Oh wait, you mean the naturopath devised a raw food diet for the baby. I assumed it was a raw food diet for the mother.

Then the so-called baby must have been old enough to wean, more than 12 months old. Right?

The article says the mother was placed on a raw food diet before being advised to only have water and watermelon.

CrazyNeutrino said:

my problem with this is the Toxins

what toxins?

and if they are making it up

that is malpractice

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

This woman isn’t a nutritionist anyway, she’s a quack.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Being a new parent is not easy…

No and unless the mother is shown to be out rightly negligent its the person who gave her medical advice that should take the responsibility.

well I’m not entirely sure that is correct either… It may not be easy being a new parent but I think the onus on you are a parent is to seek out the best advice and that may mean asking for a second or third opinion.

I was thinking along the lines that if the mother was suffering from PND or self blame and it was obvious then they naturopath took advantage of it

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

Yes, but you are on the record as saying quite a lot of silly stuff.

No offence intended :)

mollwollfumble said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

my problem with this is the Toxins

what toxins?

and if they are making it up

that is malpractice

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

One does not need science to starve a baby, just ignorance, neglect?

I think the naturopathy industry needs reform

toxins, made up to suit the moment, not good enough

I’m wondering why, a former registered nurse, distrusted the medical profession so much she chose to use alternative therapy.

Divine Angel said:

I’m wondering why, a former registered nurse, distrusted the medical profession so much she chose to use alternative therapy.

all that information

pushed aside

I’m all for alternative therapies

but not when they make up stuff

then it becomes deceit and malpractice

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

I’m wondering why, a former registered nurse, distrusted the medical profession so much she chose to use alternative therapy.

all that information

pushed aside

Conversion by a religious organisation that doesn’t like medical intervention perhaps

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

No and unless the mother is shown to be out rightly negligent its the person who gave her medical advice that should take the responsibility.

well I’m not entirely sure that is correct either… It may not be easy being a new parent but I think the onus on you are a parent is to seek out the best advice and that may mean asking for a second or third opinion.

I was thinking along the lines that if the mother was suffering from PND or self blame and it was obvious then they naturopath took advantage of it

Maybe I just think better of people, but I doubt that a nutritionist would deliberately take advantage of someone if they believed them to be suffering from a mental illness…

The thing is, these people are in these industries because they believe that their particular brand of hocus pocus is real…

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m all for alternative therapies

but not when they make up stuff

then it becomes deceit and malpractice

Most alternative therapy does seem to be going against what people see as a corrupt medical/scientific system, some of that may be true as yes it does come down to can it make money but the alternative therapies claim they are altruistic but really its also about money for them.

CrazyNeutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

my problem with this is the Toxins

what toxins?

and if they are making it up

that is malpractice

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

One does not need science to starve a baby, just ignorance, neglect?

I think the naturopathy industry needs reform

toxins, made up to suit the moment, not good enough

One does not need either ignorance or neglect to starve a baby. As various informed people have said: “mother nature is a bitch”, and that includes starving her children.

The whole nutrition industry needs reform, starting with a complete revamp of the university courses.

Toxins tend not to be made up to suit the moment, but instead adapted from newspaper hype.

I agree, the naturopthy industry needs regulation.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I agree, the naturopthy industry needs regulation.

staving a baby over something that’s made up

thats unethical

anyone can see they need some regulation

The medical industry is regulated and they still can’t agree on stuff.

Divine Angel said:

The medical industry is regulated and they still can’t agree on stuff.

the Naturopthy industry needs regulation

making stuff up about toxins is not professional

there are problems all over this

Divine Angel said:

The medical industry is regulated and they still can’t agree on stuff.

They are pretty much in agreement that breastfeeding mothers need a non-zero calorific intake.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

The medical industry is regulated and they still can’t agree on stuff.

the Naturopthy industry needs regulation

making stuff up about toxins is not professional

there are problems all over this

There needs to be validation and consistency across all Naturopthy treatments.

Just like validation and consistency with pharmaceutical drugs

the other issue is their training

to what level or standard?

the Federal government needs one

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

Yes, but you are on the record as saying quite a lot of silly stuff.

No offence intended :)

miss mollwollfumble says the same thing. She says I am either spot on or completely off target.
I happened to confirm that while navigating through New York.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’m on record as saying that nutrition isn’t a science, and hasn’t been since 1929.

Yes, but you are on the record as saying quite a lot of silly stuff.

No offence intended :)

miss mollwollfumble says the same thing. She says I am either spot on or completely off target.
I happened to confirm that while navigating through New York.

How often did you get lost?