FRAUDULENT AND EXAGGERATED CLAIMS
“There is a syndrome called IDIOPATHIC ANAPHYLAXIS .


When I see these patients, I define the word "idiopathic" to mean that the doctor is an idiot and the patient is pathetic.

But really it means ‘unknown’.

People have anaphylaxis that are not allergic to anything.

This may be the case with a few of these people.

They may have eaten something that had the allergen in a food in large amounts that we don't know.

It may have been pure coincidence.

In some of these people, the problem is anxiety.

One of the difficulties in diagnosing anaphylaxis is that many of the symptoms are similar to an anxiety attach; the shortness of breath, the wheezing, and so on.
It is a difficult issue and I think that everybody is different.

Each of these people has got some other reason, but my point is that, in none of these cases has there been confirmation that the exposure was the result of somebody touching the food they ate with a high allergen content block.

That is just not there”, said one medical expert on allergies at a medical forum on rubber allergies in the USA.

This article is on the subject of fraudulent and exaggerated claims and how the media of the internet can help to squash such claims.

Although there is potential for abuse by pornographers, fraudsters and the like, the internet is a very useful tool and contrary to some scaremongering, it is not a threat to privacy, but a means of ordinary people to offer information about themselves by way of chat-rooms, blogs, photographs,etc.

Most users access the internet to shop or to send emails and to network. There are a few drawbacks, though.

For instance, an email is a private correspondence written to someone else, similar to a letter.

However an email message is like a holiday postcard sent through the ordinary mailbox, which can be read by the postman delivering it.

So the internet service provides (ISP) can read it because it is a file on the server and can be accessed by the ISP even after you delete it on receipt.

To prove an email was actually sent by the alleged sender one would have to prove this in court and the bill for this can run into millions of pounds, as in the famous Zubilake v. UBS Warburg, a United States case.

There is no precedent in the United Kingdom.

The US is decades ahead of the UK in this respect.and in the US, it is acknowledged that electronic discovery is one of the most prominent issues confronting the legal industry today.

The increasing trends of storing electronic data and using software applications that maintain potentially discoverable information have rendered the process of obtaining and producing discovery a monumental task.

As a result, litigants have sought guidance through the courts, and various legal organizations have developed standards, such as the Sedona Guidelines on the Management of Electronic Information.

The Sedona Guidelines come from the Sedona Conference (www.thesedonaconference.org), which is a United States institute dedicated to the advancement of law and policy.

Amendments have been proposed to the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to electronically stored information , and the amendments will be adopted on 1st Dec.2006.

Many experts say these amendments, which have been in the pipeline for more than five years, will have revolutionise the legal landscape.


Some of these proposed US amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules are-
Rule 26(b)(2)-reasonably inaccessible” data does not have to be produced;
Rule 26 (b)(5)-claims of privilege can be asserted after inadvertent production, and
Rule 26(f) which directs the parties to discuss issues of privilege when preparing their discovery plan.

However, everyone is aware, especially since the creation of the search engine Google, that once posted to the internet, personal information and actions are perpetuated and therefore very useful in pre-action protocol and the discovery process.

There are two types of personal information on the internet, from one’s own website and on such sites as Facebook.

People today are becoming insensitive to their own privacy and this is illustrated by their own actions.

Anyway, the UK has no privacy law.

Some individuals even post nude photographs of themselves on the internet .

Prospective employers may access Google and find such nude photos on MySpace, for example, and choose to offer them a job or not. Similarly, this information can be accessed and used in court.

In the US the only Federal Statute that governs Internet privacy issues is the Children’s Online Protection Act.

Children have always been protected from sexual exploitation, especially incest, in most countries in the world because incest, historically, was practiced ever since the Ptolemies as far as we know.

In Babylonian law incest was punished by death or exile according to its heinousness. Formerly, incest was not generally treated as a crime in England, although it became punishable by death in 1650.

Since the Restoration, it had been releged to the “feeble coercion of the spiritual courts”.

In 1883, it was stated that incest in its very worse forms was not a crime by the laws of England because it was classed as an “ecclesiastical offence”.

But in 1908, incest became a criminal offence in England through the enactment of the Punishment of Incest Act 1908.

In other respects, privacy norms are dependent on the culture and law of the particular country.


Here is a hypothetical example of how the internet can be useful in combatting fraudulent and exaggersated claims of personal injury.


A hypothetical woman who works as a dentist, claims that she is allergic to latex in the gloves she must wear at work and so crafts a hefty final-salary pension from the United Kingdom National Health Service, her employer.

Suppose someone who knows of her puts up blogs on the internet stating that her live-in partner owns a chain of sex shops which retail many products made of latex and that the video camera in the shops have recorded the woman happily assisting in the shop.

Suppose the woman dentist quickly goes to her solicitor, allegedly shocked that the fact that she has a pornographer partner, who runs a sex retail business, has been told to all. She proceeds to sue the NHS for personal injury, claims an early retirement on health grounds from the NHS, claims disability benefits from the State and receives all of these, then gains employment as a Personal Injury Advisor..

To recap, the professional dentist claims disability benefit , alleges that she has become a nervous wreck and that she has had a mental breakdown because of the latex allergy.

She sues the blogger for defamation, sues her employer , exaggerated her work record which is partly overseas and cannot be easily verified and claims a huge pension for an exaggerated injury.

After she has won her many unjust enrichments, she suddenly stops having allergic shocks, and she admits to being well on one website, stating that she has recovered from the allergy she had previously claimed to be dying from.

Her mental breakdown is not recorded by anybody but her parent who called for an ambulance and said her daughter was distressed.

She is found to have written on a personal injuries website where her photo is displayed as one of the Personal Injury Business advisors.

She herself has written on allergy blogs, all these writings being of anecdotal substance.

What are real however, are these facts - the retail sex shop she was photographed in is in the public domain, the partner’s retail sex-shops are registered at Companies House, his directorships are in the public domain. The shops are open to the public- their telephone numbers and fax numbers therefore public information.


She cannot feign shock at being associated with sex products when she had helped in the sex shop herself.

This is all information that should be have been discovered in the personal injuries pre-action protocol before any claim can be brought.

To argue that a photographed person’s privacy was violated and her reputation damaged through being on a certain website would be unsound and unbalanced and an emotional response.

She was in a public place [the sex shop] and the fact that someone took a picture of her there is not an invasion of privacy since she was not behind closed doors.

Such a ‘professional’ woman should have realized that her actions of assisting in a sex shop, have consequences.

Whether she was paid by her partner or was an unpaid assistant is not relevant.

What is relevant is that she was claiming to be sick from latex allergy, yet was in a retail shop among latex retail products.

This is an extremely immoral and legally serious matter.

Lies have been told in documents by several parties.

Perjury has been committed and the case should be brought again to the court in order to whistleblow on this professional person ‘s exaggerated claim.

When whistleblowers reveal the truth about such fraudulent personal injuries cases , they often are ostracised – they are hounded out of this fraudulent culture of British society.


Casey v Cartwright is a recent English case that comes to mind.

Sometimes UK judges are in a world of their own.

Let us have prescriptive law.

The world’s search engines such as Google will be here for the foreseeable future and in time, ‘the truth will out’.