Futility Closet - 331-The Starvation Doctor

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from Hawaiian dollars to backward art. This is episode 331. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. In 1911, English sisters Claire and Dora Williamson began consulting a Seattle fasting specialist named Linda Burfield Hazard. As they underwent her brutal treatments, the sisters found themselves

Starting point is 00:00:38 caught in a web of manipulation and deceit. In today's show, we'll tell the story of the Williamson's ordeal and the scheme it brought to light. We'll also catch a criminal by the ear and puzzle over a prohibited pig. Claire and Dora Williamson came from a privileged background. The daughters of a well-to-do officer in the British Army, the sisters had lost their parents at an early age, but grown up under the guardianship of an uncle in Australia. When they came of age, they inherited their grandfather's fortune and decided to leave Australia and spend most of their time traveling. Both were active and had generally good health, but they were interested in novel therapies and took to investigating natural cures in their travels.

Starting point is 00:01:28 In September 1910, they saw an ad in a Seattle newspaper for a book called Fasting for the Cure of Disease by Linda Burfield Hazard. Hazard believed that all disease arose ultimately from impaired digestion. Her solution was to rest the system by fasting, to let impurities pass out of the body. By this means, she claimed to have cured everything from epilepsy to lead poisoning. The sisters ordered the book and, in February 1911, met with Hazard, an imposing, charismatic woman of 43. They had feared that their complaints were so mild she might not accept them, but without even a physical exam, she declared that both sisters were in serious condition and must begin treatment immediately. She said she was building a sanitarium in a village called Olala west of the city across Puget Sound, but

Starting point is 00:02:15 it wasn't yet ready to accept patients. For the present, the sisters could stay in an apartment in the city, and they would move to the institute when it was ready. The Williamson's couldn't have known it, but Hazard had come to Seattle with a dark past. She had been born in western Minnesota and started as a nurse and osteopath in Minneapolis. There she developed a new therapy that combined fasting with aggressive massage and daily enemas. The first death of a patient under her care had occurred in 1902. The coroner had attacked her for it, but there were no laws against her methods and no criminal charge was made. In 1906,

Starting point is 00:02:55 she moved to Seattle, where she was allowed to practice as a fasting specialist thanks to a clause in the state licensing law that accepted certain practitioners of alternative medicine. She bought 40 acres of land in Olala, named it Wilderness Heights, and commuted by ferry to her practice in Seattle until the cabins were ready. Her book attracted interest among health faddists from as far away as England and Australia. Generally, she recommended that her patients ingest no solid food for several weeks, and they were given enemas and painful daily massages to help eliminate poisons from the body. At least eight patients had died under this regime, but Hazard also claimed many successes and insisted that the deaths were due to pre-existing conditions. Though a number of complaints were lodged against her, the State Board of Medical Examiners

Starting point is 00:03:38 said that she was entitled to practice her cure. That would have severe consequences for the Williamson sisters, who began their treatment in the Buena Vista apartment house in Seattle. cure. That would have severe consequences for the Williamson sisters, who began their treatment in the Buena Vista apartment house in Seattle. They were given two meals a day, each consisting of a cup of water in which asparagus or a tomato had been boiled. Sometimes orange juice was substituted. A visitor to the sisters' apartment saw Hazard giving massage treatments to Claire, pounding her fists into her thighs, stomach, back, and forehead. She said it promoted circulation. The sisters were also given daily enemas that could last for hours. Hazard told

Starting point is 00:04:10 them they would become well all of a sudden when the diet had driven the poison from their systems. A nurse whom Hazard had hired feared almost immediately for their health. A neighbor in the apartment house heard moans of pain due to the massages and later from the effects of starvation. But Hazard's commanding personality and insistence on the cure banished any thought of resisting. Dora said later, We firmly believed that we were getting better every day, despite the fact that we felt weaker, because we thought our systems were being cleansed. After two weeks, Dora was unable to walk and was experiencing delirium and fainting spells.

Starting point is 00:04:46 Hazard told her that her brain was affected. Soon, neither sister could leave her bed. They were kept in separate rooms and not allowed to see each other. During the treatments, Hazard began to inquire into the sisters' business and personal affairs. She offered to store their valuables in a safe in her office, and Dora found herself giving her land, deeds, and even the rings from her fingers. She said later, I did not know what I was doing. The weaker they got, the more completely Hazard controlled them,

Starting point is 00:05:13 and she warned them that it would be dangerous to stop the diet once it had been begun. When both women had fasted more than 30 days, Nurse Nellie Sherman told a neighbor that she thought they both might die. When Dora entered delirium, the nurse went to Seattle osteopath Augusta Brewer, who had once given Claire some spinal treatments. Brewer told her that the treatment was wrong and that the women must have food, but the nurse said that they were entirely under Hazard's sway. She had tried to give them some milk and raisins, but they wouldn't accept them.

Starting point is 00:05:42 Dora said later, All this time we had not the faintest idea that we were not getting better every day. On April 21st, 1911, the sisters were ferried across Puget Sound to Wilderness Heights. The man who managed the boat said, I was very much surprised when I took one end of the stretchers. It seemed to me it was as though the girls didn't weigh more than 50 or 60 pounds at the most. They were so weak and so sick, neither one of them could stand up. The sisters had told no one where they were going because their family members had so often disapproved of their health experiments. When they arrived, they were separated again. Hazard said they were too sick to see one another and must focus on their treatment, and they were forbidden to write or receive letters. The starvation diet continued,

Starting point is 00:06:26 and Hazard kept up her close interest in their business affairs. Her attorney directed Claire to write a codicil to her will, making an annual donation to the Hazard Institute of Natural Therapeutics, and directing that her remains were to be cremated under Hazard's direction. At the beginning of May, Hazard brought Dora three traveler's checks to sign. Dora had remembered keeping these in a private box. Neighbors of the sanitarium could see that the patients were skeleton thin but didn't know how to help them. Many of the patients there didn't want aid. They believed that they needed Hazard's therapy to recover from their ailments and must follow her instructions. When Dora told Hazard that she wanted to leave the sanitarium and would be taking Claire, Hazard told her this wasn't acceptable. At that, Dora sent a telegram to

Starting point is 00:07:09 their childhood nurse, Margaret Conway, who was visiting family in Australia. Conway came immediately, but her ship didn't dock until June 1, 1911. She arrived to appalling news. Claire Williamson was dead, and Dora, she was told, was helplessly insane. Hazard told her that the sisters had come to her in a very bad state of health. The fasting was not to blame. She said that Claire had been given drugs in childhood that had shrunk her organs and caused cirrhosis of the liver. Conway found Dora at her cabin on the grounds. She said later, you could never imagine what she looked like. She presented the appearance of a skeleton with a blue skin over it. She did not look human. She was so emaciated that every shred of tissue had entirely disappeared. Her teeth protruded, her lips were set in a

Starting point is 00:07:55 horrible grin, and her eyes were sunk in hollow sockets. A doctor later testified that Dora would have died after even 48 hours more of such care. Conway was horrified at the life Dora was leading. She was too weak to chew even the few peas she was given to eat. She had to peel them one at a time. After Claire's death, Dora said, Hazard had frequently talked to her about ending her own life. She told her she was an imbecile and would probably remain one for life. Dora said, I asked her for food and she would not give it to me. I asked her for a book to read and she said I could not read because my brain was affected. After Claire died, Mrs. Hazard came to me and said it was my sister's wish that I remain at Olalla for the rest of my life. Conway found that Hazard had been appointed executor of Claire's

Starting point is 00:08:40 estate and Dora's guardian for life. She and her husband had withdrawn money from Dora's bank account using a power of attorney they had convinced her to sign. They claimed afterward that the funds had been redirected by mistake. After Claire's death, Hazard had opened Claire's trunks and helped herself to her clothing, household goods, and an estimated $6,000 worth of jewels. She even delivered to Conway a report on Dora's mental state while wearing one of Claire's robes. But the compelling power of her personality was evident even to Conway. She said later, she had such a will that when she placed food of an inferior quality on the table and told me it was the best, it immediately became, in my eyes, the best. Her

Starting point is 00:09:22 great power over people lies in her tremendous will plus mental suggestion. Conway managed to rehabilitate Dora to the point where she was strong enough to move. Hazard still forbade them to leave, invoking her power as Dora's guardian, but Conway managed to send a telegram to the sister's uncle in Portland, and he came to Olala to rescue the two women. Dora weighed 60 pounds. As they left, Hazard presented a bill for $2,000 and demanded payment before they could go. The uncle managed to negotiate a lower amount, and on July 22nd, Dora was carried aboard a steamer. She had been at the sanitarium for 93

Starting point is 00:09:58 days. When word reached him of what had happened, the British vice consul in Tacoma, Lucian Agassiz, took up the case. He charged that Hazard had imprisoned the Williamson's case, Agassiz thought that the plan had been to murder Claire, whose inheritance would pass to Dora, who would remain a prisoner for life at Olala under their guardianship. The Hazards could plunder her fortune as they pleased. Agassiz moved to have Hazard removed as Dora's guardian and contested her appointment as executor of Claire Williamson moved to have Hazard removed as Dora's guardian and contested her appointment as executor of Claire Williamson's will. Hazard claimed that Claire had given her money willingly and had pressed Hazard to assume the power of attorney and to care for Dora in her remaining

Starting point is 00:10:55 days. She lost that fight. A court voided the guardianship, and on August 5, 1911, Hazard was arrested for the murder of Claire Williamson. The trial attracted worldwide attention. Hazard proclaimed that it was her method of treatment that was really on trial. She was a successful woman who threatened conventional medicine. But the prosecuting attorney called her a financial starvation specialist and proved that it was she herself who had signed Claire's will, and the judge refused to allow Hazard's former patients to speak on her behalf. The jury reached its verdict in 20 hours.

Starting point is 00:11:28 Hazard was guilty of manslaughter. She was sentenced to hard labor at the penitentiary at Walla Walla, and the Washington State Board of Medical Examiners revoked her license, citing the need to protect society from her heinous and malicious crimes. Attorney Frank Kelly told the Seattle Daily Times, This case will, I believe, be a death blow to quack medical and healing individuals and institutions throughout the country. There is not, and never was, a basis for the statement that the practitioners

Starting point is 00:11:54 of legitimate schools of medicine were in any way connected with this prosecution. For reasons that aren't clear, Linda Hazard was pardoned by the governor after two years in prison on the condition that she leave the country. Her medical license was not reinstated. She and her husband moved to New Zealand, where she earned enough money to return to Olala in 1920 and build a sanitarium. Since she was no longer licensed to practice medicine, she called it a school of health and her patients students, but she continued to supervise fasts there until the school burned to the ground in 1935. Three years later, after facing repeated charges that she was practicing medicine without a license, she took to bed and stopped eating. She died in 1938 after

Starting point is 00:12:36 weeks of eating only broth, a poetic victim of her own therapy. In episode 291, I talked about how in the 1990s, several U.S. states that generally prohibited gambling decided to authorize casinos, but only on operational riverboats. Due to various issues over the years, state legislatures started compromising with riverboat casino owners so that instead of cruising on a waterway, the boats could instead be stationary, such as moored to docks, or floating on a constructed pool of water, with different states enacting different specific requirements. a constructed pool of water, with different states enacting different specific requirements. Matt Hangoltz-Hetling, who sent very appreciated pronunciation help for his hyphenated last name and noted that it's a name that incidentally does not fit into some digital forms, which has caused my wife and I many headaches, sent an interesting follow-up on Riverboat Casinos. Hi, Greg and

Starting point is 00:13:42 Sharon. I was just catching up on a backlog of Futility Closet podcasts and enjoyed episode 291, in which Sharon talks about the odd ramifications of the tradition of casinos that are only allowed to operate on rivers. As Sharon noted, some states have softened their regulations over the years so that casinos are allowed to rest in a few inches of water in enormous river-adjacent pools. A few years ago, I wrote a feature article for the Weather Channel that looked at the unexpected effect of these legacy requirements. At the same time the government is trying to discourage development in river-adjacent floodplains, casinos are legally chained to those flood-prone areas,

Starting point is 00:14:19 which has cost the riverboat casino industry hundreds of millions of dollars in flood damages. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of floods, this problem is only getting worse, to the extent that casinos are having a difficult time purchasing flood insurance. Thanks so much for the great work. I find the podcast to be an uplifting and inspiring examination of our wondrous world. And Matt sent a link to his 2017 article on riverboat casinos in Missouri, which explains that Missouri legalized gambling only on riverboats back in 1994. But an increasing problem with river flooding over the past decades makes it questionable that a river is the best place to put a casino. dramatic example of this that Matt covered in his article occurred on April 4, 1998, when the Mississippi River was rising quickly toward what would be the first of three historic flood-level

Starting point is 00:15:10 crests that year. That evening, on a permanently moored Casino Riverboat named the Admiral, were 250 staff and 2,100 patrons, when a nearby tugboat named the Ann Holly lost some of its barges as they broke away in the floodwaters. Three of the barges struck the Admiral with such force that they broke eight of its ten mooring lines and tore off the riverboat's gangways, meaning that the passengers, some of whom were now injured from the collision, had no way to exit the boat. The Admiral didn't have a radio or phone lines or even a way to power itself, and the staff didn't include any

Starting point is 00:15:45 trained Marine crew. The riverboat began rotating in the water, which snapped a ninth of the 10 mooring lines. Fortunately, the captain of the Anne Holly maneuvered to pin the Admiral to the riverbank, which prevented the final mooring line from giving way and held the Admiral in position until emergency responders were able to evacuate the passengers. The formal marine accident report noted that had the riverboat broken free, it would very likely have struck a bridge that lay a bit downriver, and that that could have been catastrophic because it could have resulted in the sinking or capsizing of the vessel, which would have placed more than 2,000 lives in jeopardy. In Matt's article, he says that due to incidents like this

Starting point is 00:16:26 one, the same industry executives who had spent $15.7 million petitioning the state of Missouri to legalize gambling so they could get on the river began petitioning to get off of it. While the state did end up allowing the casino boats to leave the river, they were still required to be within a thousand feet of it, which resulted in a number of what are called boats in moats, or casinos that are floating in giant constructed bowls next to the river. Unfortunately, requiring these casinos to be so near the river puts them right in the floodplain, both putting the businesses at risk and potentially making flooding worse, as any development in floodplains can. Floods not only threaten physical damage to a casino, but can also cause large income losses by cutting off customers,

Starting point is 00:17:10 even if a casino isn't directly damaged. Missouri has been experiencing an increase in the frequency and severity of floods in the last decades. This increased risk of flooding, coupled with heavy payouts to casinos for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, caused insurance providers to either discontinue offering coverage in certain areas or significantly limiting the coverage they will offer, coupled with dramatically increased premiums, leaving the casino operators either seriously underinsured or deciding to not even carry flood insurance, meaning that as flooding has been increasing, it has been increasingly costly to the Riverside casinos. This has led to some casinos deciding to close down altogether,

Starting point is 00:17:50 a less than happy decision for the state of Missouri that they have sometimes fought against, as the state doesn't want to lose the lucrative tax revenues the casinos can provide, although they are the ones requiring the casinos to have to stay in the floodplains in the first place. But I guess, yeah, the idea of allowing casinos onto dry land is still politically controversial. Yeah, it seems that some people really are sort of against the idea of gambling, and somehow this seems to be some kind of a funny compromise that somehow it's okay if you constrain it in this one particular way. In episode 322, I talked about how there are several physical features besides fingerprints that can reliably identify individuals, even between so-called identical

Starting point is 00:18:33 twins. And these include ears. One of our German listeners, Fritz Ulrich Sievert, wrote, Hello, since in episode 322, ears were mentioned as individual characteristics, I think you're interested in hearing that ear prints have been successfully used in solving Hello. Since in episode 322, ears were mentioned as individual characteristics, I think you're interested in hearing that earprints have been successfully used in solving crimes. Some burglars press their ears on doors to listen if someone is at home, leaving their earprints on them. If the police catch a suspect, comparing his ear with the print on the door gives the burglar away. Although in court, this evidence isn't counted as reliable as fingerprints, as I have heard. Best wishes and thank you for your wonderful podcast. And Fritz sent a link to an article from 2012 in Spiegel International that reports that German police said they had solved a series

Starting point is 00:19:16 of 96 burglaries by identifying the culprit using the earprints he had left at the scene while listening at doors, and quotes the police as saying, earprints are of similar value as fingerprints in terms of evidence, although they did mention that they had also found the suspect's fingerprints and DNA at the crime scenes. I think this might be the first time that I'd heard of using earprints being used to identify criminals, and that might be because apparently the use of earprints forensically is more common in Europe than in the U.S., although there have been at least some cases of their use here. As far back as the 1890s, the French criminologist Alphonse Bertillon was advocating using ears for personal identification,

Starting point is 00:19:56 and Wikipedia credits Fritz Hirschi as being the first to use ear prints to identify a criminal suspect in Switzerland in 1965. Research into the forensic use of ear prints is still ongoing, and it isn't quite robust enough yet for the use of this identifier to generally be seen as being on par with fingerprint or DNA evidence in court, although ear prints do at least have the advantage of being harder to plant, at least currently. At this time, there is a lack of standardized systemization in both the collection and analysis of ear prints, and there isn't even yet definitive evidence that ear prints are indeed unique to individuals. While it doesn't seem to be disputed that

Starting point is 00:20:35 individuals' ear structures are unique, uniqueness in three-dimensional, pliable ears doesn't necessarily translate to the same uniqueness in two-dimensional prints made by them. And due to factors such as how hard the ear was pressed to a surface or how long the ear was in contact with it, even two prints of the same ear may not be exactly the same. So probably not the best idea to leave your ear prints at a crime scene, but the field does still have a little ways to go. I'm trying to think how you could listen at a door without leaving an earprint on it. I'm wondering if you put like pantyhose over your ear to mask the features of it somehow or smoosh it down in a funny way. Or bring a stethoscope. Yeah, there you go. Bring a stethoscope.

Starting point is 00:21:19 And speaking of unique biometric identifiers, I happened across a story about how a team at the Royal College of Art in London has developed a mouth wearable that you can use to identify you based on the patterns of folds in the roof of your mouth, which is apparently unique to each individual. Unlike with fingerprints or eye scans, which others could possibly obtain and copy without your knowledge, it would be a lot harder for someone to copy the roof of your mouth. The team have applied for a patent for their technology, and they're hoping to get a startup going in the near future, so something to possibly watch out for. And I have a quick update to episode 328. A listener had written in about a song that was very similar to a lateral thinking puzzle we had done. The song was called Luther, and the listener credited the song to Tony Melendez, who turned out to be a rather interesting person to learn about in any case. Neither the listener nor I had been able to find the song, but a few of our other listeners knew about it. For example, Dan Nolan wrote, Sharon mentioned in the most recent episode that she was unable to find a performance by Tony Melendez about a man named Luther who preferred quarters

Starting point is 00:22:25 to dollars, as in the lateral thinking puzzle in episode 319. I am also unable to find this particular performance, but it is almost certainly a cover of the song Luther by Boxcar Willie from the 1983 album Not the Man I Used to Be. Wikipedia helpfully informs me that the album ranked 35th on the U.S. country chart, and as a single, Luther made it to 69th. And Dan and some others sent very helpful links to a YouTube video of Boxcar Willie performing the song, as well as to pages containing the lyrics, and we will of course have some of those in the show notes. So one small mystery cleared up at least. Thanks so much to everyone who writes to us. We always appreciate your comments and follow-ups,

Starting point is 00:23:06 so if you have any to send to us, please send them to podcast at futilitycloset.com. And as always, I also appreciate pronunciation tips. It's Greg's turn to try to solve a lateral thinking puzzle. I'm going to give him an odd-sounding situation, and he's going to try to guess what's going on, asking yes or no questions. We got a version of this puzzle sent to us by both Powell Shops and Stuart Baker. One episode of the popular British children's animated TV show Peppa Pig was banned in Australia. Why?

Starting point is 00:23:48 You said one episode? One episode. Australia. And it's made in Britain. Yes. Okay. Okay. Banned in Australia.

Starting point is 00:24:01 Is that what you said? Yes. Was this... Where do I even start with this? Do I need to know about the show, like about the characters or plot or anything? In general, no. Yeah, I mean, was this to do with a situation? Would you say a situation on the show as opposed to say a specific word or action or something

Starting point is 00:24:18 that's more specific? Can you answer that? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Well, I guess they wouldn't have banned one. Well, they might have. Yeah, it was one specific episode. I mean, the show is shown generally in Australia. All right.

Starting point is 00:24:30 Was this to do with language, an objection about language on that episode? Not if I understand what you probably mean. Like that they found a word to be profane or rude or something. Yeah, that's not it. That'd be pretty straightforward, I guess. I don't know the show. Is that a problem in solving it? Not really.

Starting point is 00:24:48 It's just an animated children's show. Would the same objection potentially have arisen in, say, an adult's show? Hmm. Not as likely, but possibly. Was it banned because people then thought that there was some that it was inappropriate for children not inappropriate for children not in the way that you probably mean um you know as opposed to like it's r rated instead of g rated you mean something like that as inappropriate yeah it's nothing to do like that um would would centering it to some extent have obviated the problem i guess it would have been

Starting point is 00:25:26 difficult for this episode really yeah so it's not like they could have bleeped out one word it's not one specific little fleeting thing correct okay um gosh where do you even start with this okay was this uh it wasn't to do with language. And I have to say, like, for example, I believe this show is shown in the U.S., although I don't know for sure, but this probably wouldn't have been a problem, for example, in the U.S. They probably wouldn't have balked over this episode. Really? It's specific to Australia. Well, it might be to other countries, too, but. Was the fear that it would be offensive?

Starting point is 00:26:02 No. To the audience? No. That's not it? That's not it. That's not it. It's nothing to do with anything like that. Because that's what you think of. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:26:10 Australia, does that have to do with commerce in some way? No. Copyright? No. Powell actually sent a hint that I could give you a hint that the concerns about the show were due to the message that it might send to children. To Australian children. To Australian children, yes.

Starting point is 00:26:28 Does this have to do with Australian history or culture? No. No. No. And you say this wouldn't have... Like, I don't know. I don't imagine this would have had the same objection in the US or several other countries I can think of.

Starting point is 00:26:44 But it was a problem with the episode for Australia specifically. Was it thought to violate a law in Australia somehow? No. Was it some technical objection that made it difficult to air somehow? No. I don't know how that would be the case.

Starting point is 00:27:03 I remember Powell said it's due to the message that it was sending to children or it might send to children. But it's not to do with history or culture. No. The message it would send to Australian children. Yes. Does this have to do with... Well, you wouldn't ban it.

Starting point is 00:27:17 Banned by the government? I don't know specifically. It was just thought not to be a good idea to show this episode in Australia. So they pulled it from being shown. Would you say this is controversial? No. Did it have to do with current events at the time? No.

Starting point is 00:27:41 Okay, let's say they did air this. Yeah. And that this worried effect actually happened. Yeah. I think there was a concern about maybe safety issues. Children would watch it and emulate something they'd seen? Possibly, yes. But only Australian children.

Starting point is 00:27:57 Well, it might be true for other countries, but yes, this would be a problem in Australia as opposed to in Britain where the show originated. Because it's something that the kids in Australia could do that the kids elsewhere couldn't? No. Kids could do it elsewhere, but it would be more dangerous in Australia. Does it have to do with other living creatures? Yes.

Starting point is 00:28:21 Animals? Yes. Someone does something with an animal on this episode. Yes. And other kids who saw this might emulate it. Yeah. And come to harm. Yes.

Starting point is 00:28:31 But I want to say then that it was some Australian native creature that's not, just doesn't exist in the U.S. That's not quite right. Is it a domesticated creature like a pet or something? No. Something, some animal that just lives in Australia? And also lives in Britain and the U.S. Why?

Starting point is 00:28:49 So then the question is, why Australia? I feel like I'm close to the answer. Would it help me to figure out what the animal is? I don't know. I was hoping you could just guess it more in general. Like, what would the issue be that would be different between the countries? That might be just too hard to guess though. Well, it's not language.

Starting point is 00:29:10 No, no, no. It's hard to guess without knowing. Is the animal a mammal? Yeah, no. I mean, maybe this is just too hard for you to guess it specifically. It's that the episode, which was titled Mr. Skinny Legs, gave the message that spiders are friendly. And in Australia, that's not necessarily the case. According to an article in The Guardian, the characters on the show are depicted picking up a spider,

Starting point is 00:29:37 tucking it into bed and offering it some tea after Daddy Pig tells Peppa that spiders can't hurt you. But unfortunately, there are several species of venomous spiders in Australia. And The Guardian says that between 2000 and 2013, 12,600 people were admitted to the hospital there for spider bites. So you definitely don't want to pick up a spider and put it to bed. So they just thought it was safer not to do this. Not to show the episode at all with Daddy Pig saying spiders can't hurt you. And while I was reading up for this puzzle, I came across another article in The Guardian about an Australian spider that

Starting point is 00:30:09 was so large that it actually dragged a good sized mouse up the outside of a refrigerator. Amazing photo of that. So the lesson of this puzzle is do not underestimate Australian spiders. Thanks so much to both Powell and Stewart for that puzzle, which hopefully wasn't fatal for anyone. And if you have a puzzle that you'd like to send in for us to try, please send that to podcast at futilitycloset.com. Futility Closet really relies on the support of our listeners. If you'd like to help us keep bringing you your weekly dose of the quirky and the curious, please check out our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset or see the support us section of the website at futilitycloset.com. If you become a member of our patron community, you'll also get outtakes, more discussion on some of the stories, extra lateral thinking puzzles, and peeks into some of what goes on behind the scenes of the show.

Starting point is 00:31:02 and peeks into some of what goes on behind the scenes of the show. At our website, you can graze through over 11,000 compendious amusements, browse the Futility Closet store, learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the podcast, with links and references for the topics we've covered. If you have any questions or comments for us, you can email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. All our music was written and performed by the exceptional Doug Ross.

Starting point is 00:31:28 Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.

Futility Closet - 331-The Starvation Doctor

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.