Slashdot Mirror


North Carolina Threatens To Shut Down Nutrition Blogger

vvaduva writes "The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle... the state diatetics and nutrition board decided [Steve] Cooksey's blog — Diabetes-Warrior.netviolated state law. The nutritional advice Cooksey provides on the site amounts to 'practicing nutrition,' the board's director says, and in North Carolina that's something you need a license to do." If applied consistently, I think this would also clear out considerable space from the average bookstore's health section. (And it could be worse; he could have been offering manicures.)

382 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Practicing nutrition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"

    1. Re:Practicing nutrition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Citizen, don't you know that you're incapable of doing anything without government oversight?

    2. Re:Practicing nutrition? by zero.kalvin · · Score: 1

      Can't he just move the hosting of his site to another provider ( one that is outside of the US ) and then tell them to go fuck themselves ? Oh wait, I am talking about the US, how silly of me! But seriously, wouldn't that solve it ?

    3. Re:Practicing nutrition? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Can't he just move the hosting of his site to another provider ( one that is outside of the US ) and then tell them to go fuck themselves ? Oh wait, I am talking about the US, how silly of me! But seriously, wouldn't that solve it ?

      Not if he's charging for his services and receiving the money in NC. If he's operating his business in NC then he's going to be subject to NC laws.

    4. Re:Practicing nutrition? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      That's not a problem, and something we should all be doing. However, when you start offering advice to others concerning medical conditions the situation changes. In the UK there are umpteen people advising that, for example, cancer can be treated with high doses of vitamin C. Gullible people read these things and pass on visiting a doctor because they've found a "natural" solution. The kicker is that it isn't a solution, and people have died as a result. Giving medical advice isn't something "just anyone" should be allowed to do, it can be akin to shouting fire in a theatre.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    5. Re:Practicing nutrition? by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      If you haven't noticed, doctor's don't really have a good way of dealing with most cancers either. I would personally choose to go to MDs because they're methods have a greater basis in evidence, but they are not perfect. Other's might believe taking medicine is a sin or something like that. I think that is dumb, but so be it... so is overmedication.

    6. Re:Practicing nutrition? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      In the UK there are umpteen people advising that, for example, cancer can be treated with high doses of vitamin C. Gullible people read these things and pass on visiting a doctor because they've found a "natural" solution. The kicker is that it isn't a solution, and people have died as a result.

      But we are talking about adults, right? And no one put a gun to their heads and forced them to take the advice, right? So why should the fault fall on the person who gave the advice, and not the gullible idiot who took it without doing their own research?

      It's called personal responsibility. Take it and stop blaming the rest of the world for your* own stupidity.


      * not directly referring to parent, but rather as a general term for society.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Practicing nutrition? by swb · · Score: 1

      In the UK there are umpteen people advising that, for example, cancer can be treated with high doses of vitamin C.

      Isn't that because you can get ascorbic acid now, over the counter, but an appointment with a NHS oncologist is 6 months out?

    8. Re:Practicing nutrition? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"

      This law was sponsored by the Big Corn lobby and McDonalds.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    9. Re:Practicing nutrition? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Could that mean we can jail almost all the Vegans out there, who give us a hard time, for those who actually eat meat."

        Very valid point. This should not have been labeled "troll" this is the sort of thing you'd expect to see come up in court should this go that far.

      (Try to ignore the emotional component and concentrate on facts of the matter when moderating)

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    10. Re:Practicing nutrition? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      The thing is though, there's no such thing as a homogenious "cancer" it's a condition where cells grow without limit and there's many different kinds. And what we've learned recently is cancer cells get their energy directly from glucose not adenosine triphosphate like human cells do.

      Now, vitamin C used to be made as the last of four biochemical steps. There was a mutation many million years ago where the last step mutated and made fat instead of C. This gave us the evolutionary advantage that we didn't have to hunt every day as long as we got external vitamin C.

      Now go look at a diagram of a molecule of glucose and a molecule of C. Notice how they're quite similar? That's not a coincidence.
      So, what happens is tumor cells take in C instead of glucose and it doesn't give them the fuel they would have got from glucose. If the level of C in the blood is high enough and glucose is low enough, some cancers will starve to death and go away. How could they not, their food source has been taken away.

      There are tens of thousands of people who have cancer go into lifelong remission because of this - and others where it didn't help. Hell, Linus (Pauling) himself died of cancer (albeit at 96). So, there needs to be some explanation how these people's cancer went away, possibilities are: it went into spontaneous remission (why? too many to be a coincidence), a miraculous event happened (unlikely) or, it worked.

      One of my old friends had doctor certified bowel cancer 20 years ago, that he cured with some herbal shit and diet. We can't just ignore these and say they never happened. Given the abysmal rate we have curing cancer we should at least be looking at these, not sticking our heads in the sand, saying "psuedoscience" and ignoring it.

      Ironically, when the efficacy of C was first discovered the exact same thing happened. Jacques Cartier got stuck in Canada unexpectedly over the winter and his men began getting scurvy and were near death. They showed some Indians the men, they shook their heads, made some pine tea and said "drink this you idiots" - they did and got better almost immediately. When they got back to Yurrup and explained what happened, medical "science" such as it was in the seventeenth century, said, literally "we have nothing to learn from savages" and it took another 300 years to figure out what C was and why we needed it. That's what's happening here, although hopefully it won't take 300 years this time.

      This is easy to prove to yourself: next time you have an infection, take 6 grams of C, and gram every hour or so for a day. Now look at that infected thing the next day. It's kinda dramatic. There is no practical LD for C, it's found in the body anyway and has no side effects. It's safer than anything you can get from a pharmacy.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    11. Re:Practicing nutrition? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Most of us are "gullible idiots" when it comes to medicine, and I'm including doctors in that. We all rely on a huge bank of knowledge built up over decades/centuries - if you go to a doctor with some odd symptoms there's every chance s/he will have no idea what it is, but with the aid of some tests and textbooks they can work out what it is and how to treat it.

      The point is there's a knowledge base out there that is truly remarkable at healing people, so when somebody recommends that you avoid using it they better have a damn good backup for their claims.

      "Nutritionists" fall into two categories in the UK. The first is perfectly sensible, people who advocate a balanced diet to promote all-round health, this is a good and proper thing. The second is those who claim that real medical solutions to real disorders are unnecessary and can be substituted with a change in diet, for example eating algae as it "produces oxygen in the bloodstream". This is clearly nonsense, and is akin to a mechanic telling people they can disconnect their brakes as long as they're using a particular fuel additive.

      Yes, there needs to be some personal responsibility, but as a society we've generally tried to protect the gullible from those who prey on them - if you get drunk and then get mugged you could argue that drinking was a factor, but it doesn't make the mugger innocent.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    12. Re:Practicing nutrition? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Cancer survival rates are astounding compared with just twenty years ago. Chemo and radiotherapy can be highly effective in many cases. I'd call that "pretty good" at least.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    13. Re:Practicing nutrition? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Most of us are "gullible idiots" when it comes to medicine, and I'm including doctors in that. We all rely on a huge bank of knowledge built up over decades/centuries - if you go to a doctor with some odd symptoms there's every chance s/he will have no idea what it is, but with the aid of some tests and textbooks they can work out what it is and how to treat it.

      I suffered from gallbladder disease for 10 years; every doctor I went to, save one, failed to run even a single test on me. Instead of doing their jobs and attempting to diagnose the cause of my suffering, they instead threw drugs at the symptoms; when one drug failed to have the desired effect, they just put me on something else. It was hell going through all the side effects of all these drugs, especially now knowing that I didn't need a damn one of them.

      Therefore, I find the concept that modern doctors are anything more than glorified drug dealers to be quite specious.

      The point is there's a knowledge base out there that is truly remarkable at healing people, so when somebody recommends that you avoid using it they better have a damn good backup for their claims.

      Or at least, make it abundantly clear that they are not medical professionals... such as by putting the disclaimer, "in fact I have no medical training whatsoever" in their materials. Which this person did.

      "Nutritionists" fall into two categories in the UK. The first is perfectly sensible, people who advocate a balanced diet to promote all-round health, this is a good and proper thing. The second is those who claim that real medical solutions to real disorders are unnecessary and can be substituted with a change in diet, for example eating algae as it "produces oxygen in the bloodstream".

      Again, unless the second group are touting themselves as trained medical professionals, then by US standards they are doing nothing wrong. See Christian "Science" for reference.

      This is clearly nonsense, and is akin to a mechanic telling people they can disconnect their brakes as long as they're using a particular fuel additive.

      There's your difference; you have good reason to believe a trained, certified mechanic when he tells you something about your auto. If Cooksey were representing himself as a medical professional, he would clearly be in the wrong.

      But he's not. It's more akin to if your cousin, who isn't a mechanic and clearly states that he has no mechanical training, told you you can disconnect your brake line and be just fine. Knowing that your cousin is untrained and thus unqualified to give such advice, but taking his advice anyway, is totally on you. Your cousin still has the right to be wrong.

      Yes, there needs to be some personal responsibility, but as a society we've generally tried to protect the gullible from those who prey on them

      Hence the need for medical professionals to be certified. That doesn't mean non-medical professionals aren't allowed to discuss medicine and their personal experiences with it, does it?

      On another note, who protected the people who got snookered into home loans they ultimately couldn't afford? Who protects consumers from hospitals that charge outrageous rates for simple procedures, up to and including $100 bill for the damn sharpie they use to make the body for surgery? Who protects simpletons from the late night "get rich quick" infomercials that are obvious scams to those of us possessing cognitive faculties? Nobody, that's who.

      if you get drunk and then get mugged you could argue that drinking was a factor, but it doesn't make the mugger innocent.

      Strawman - ignored and burnt extra-crispy.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Practicing nutrition? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of that particular one, but it seems to suggest a good to very good improvement for just over half of the cancers studied, and little to no change on a minority (compared with the 70s), so yes, that's fairly remarkable work in my book. Maybe we should fund them more and deal with the remainder, seems to be the lesson.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    15. Re:Practicing nutrition? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"

      Some caution might be in order. People can go to jail for comments like the above too. States take almost as much exception to citizens practicing law without a license as they take to citizens practicing nutrition without a license.

      Even when the advise is being given to yourself.

      That does give one an idea about how to sort out the lawyer overabundance problem..... states should stop issuing licenses to practice law, then there can be no more lawyers.

    16. Re:Practicing nutrition? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it, it is modern Liberalism.
      If there is a hint of conservativism then it must be wrong, and there are only two reasons why someone would post something conservative.
      1. They are an idiot
      2. They are just trolling to get people angry.

      The idea that their viewpoint may be wrong, or too extreme is too much for them to handle. As they judge intelligence on their ability to say everyone is wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    17. Re:Practicing nutrition? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      BTW: That was a troll.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    18. Re:Practicing nutrition? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Or at least, make it abundantly clear that they are not medical professionals... such as by putting the disclaimer, "in fact I have no medical training whatsoever" in their materials. Which this person did.

      He accepted money for medical advice. That makes him a medical professional. So he should be up on charges of false advertising and fraud, in addition to all the current charges.

    19. Re:Practicing nutrition? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      He accepted money for medical advice. That makes him a medical professional.

      *sigh*

      No, it doesn't. It might make him a crook and a fraud, but only education and certification can 'make' a person a medical professional.

      If Billy Mays had sold diet pills on his infomercials, would you consider Billy Mays a "medical professional?" What if he had a disclaimer on the infomercial explicitly stating that he had no medical training or education whatsoever (as Cooksey did on his blog)? If you are a reasonably prudent, the obvious answer is "of course not."

      If you are not a reasonably prudent person, well, may $deity have mercy on your dumb ass.

      So he should be up on charges of false advertising and fraud, in addition to all the current charges.

      False advertising (if indeed what he advertises is false) and fraud I accept and agree with, because he was charging money for a "life-coaching" service and I personally find all life-coaching to be fraudulent. However, the charge of practicing medicine without a license is pure bullshit intended to intimidate and harass a private citizen that the ADA has determined to be their enemy, and should not be tolerated as it is a mockery of our legal system to even entertain the notion that a fucking blog contains any valid medical advice whatsoever.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:Practicing nutrition? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So your issue is with the ADA and protecting people from themselves in general, and the facts of this specific case are irrelevant to your stance. At least knowing that, I can just give your posts the attention they deserve.

  2. he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTFA:
    "After the meeting he handed out a couple of business cards pointing people to his website.

    Three days later, he got a call from the director of the nutrition board."


    once you go into the real world and hand out business cards you are operating a business, it's no longer free speech. Title is misleading.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So handing out business cards is the definition of a business transaction? Is there some sort of a law that says you can't use business cards for personal use?

      What happened to a business transaction being the exchange of money for a service or item?

      What's next, needing a license to hand out free pamphlets?

    2. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      once you go into the real world and hand out business cards you are operating a business, it's no longer free speech.

      Uh... not a Constitutional scholar, I take it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by honkycat · · Score: 1

      Yes, that. And providing one-on-one advice for a small fee... and quite a few other pretty clear violations.

      I'm strongly inclined to agree with NC on this one.

    4. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      So every time I give out business cards to friends so they have my contact info, it's a business transaction?

    5. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee. "

      He was selling his services. Yes, he was practicing without a license. That's not blogging, that's not free speech. I can't offer one-on-one personal legal advice for a small fee because... wait for it.... i'm not an attorney.

      “But if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”

      Then start a life coaching website and charge for that. Just like I can't start a legal blog and charge $197 a month "to listen" and then claim "it's life coaching!"

      I'm all for free speech, but this guy with clearly trying to practice without a license and when he got busted he cried "free speech! I have a disclaimer!" Come on, this guy gives free speech a bad name.

      Advice is free. Charging for advice, now you're running a business and you should have a license.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    6. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      So false advertising is protected speech now?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If the context is to sell them something, the yes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by zero.kalvin · · Score: 1

      Didn't read the article. But doesn't depend on what he was advertising ? If at no point he said or insinuated that he is an expert, there shouldn't be any problem, right ?

    9. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      once you go into the real world and hand out business cards you are operating a business, it's no longer free speech. Title is misleading.

      Really? The word for "business card" in my native tongue could be translated back into English as "visiting card". Does that make the act of giving it to someone a form a social call or something? Or does it create a legal obligation to pay a visit? Just following your linguistic "logic" there...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No but giving nutrition advice is protected speech. Otherwise you'd not be able to make a video to tell viewers, "You really should stop eating sugar," without getting drug to court by the Carolina government for talking w/o a license. The professor who posted the youtube video "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" would now be a criminal.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    11. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So handing out business cards is the definition of a business transaction?

      No, but handing out cards advertising services that you offer in return for compensation sure makes it look like one.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    12. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Let me preface my remarks with "IANAL", since I'm not.
      What does the business card say? Is his web site for profit?
      A card that fits in your wallet doesn't mean you're providing professional services. It's not a business card if it isn't promoting a business. If he's doing this for profit, then I see where North Carolina has a valid issue. If he's doing it to solely express his opinion, without compensation, then I don't see where they have a case.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    13. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>>He was selling his services. Yes, he was practicing without a license. That's not blogging, that's not free speech.

      So if I help someone fix their computer over the phone, or via video chat, and then charge 1-2 hours for my time, I've commited a crime of practicing engineering without a license?!?!?

      God damn. You can't even open your mouth w/o tripping over some damn law & having the full weight of some government full upon you. Witness the poor UK citizen who is being drug out of his homeland into the Soviet Union of the USSA because he posted a link to piratebay and isohunt.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by ttyRazor · · Score: 1

      maybe not incorporated, but he is collecting money for his "services". This guy is going beyond saying "this worked for me!" and is pushing it on other people, treating his own anecdotal experience as a one size fits all cure for anyone with diabetes.

    15. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      So handing out business cards is the definition of a business transaction?

      No, but handing out cards advertising services that you offer in return for compensation sure makes it look like one.

      Is he actually getting compensation? I read the article and I didn't see anything stating that. I didn't see anything on his web site about compensation, but now it's down, so I can't take another look right now.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    16. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      I asked a similar question elsewhere, but why should he need a license?

        If anything the license makes him more dangerous if he is a quack. He just needs to pass some test that is most likely BS and pay the government money, now he seems like a legit expert to people.

    17. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I'd say this is more of a grey area. I'm guessing that the card-bearing person did not assert he is a professional anything and is certainly not asking for any money in any form at all.

      Having skimmed the article myself, I can see why the blogger was pretty upset. Carbs are horribly bad for the organs associated with diabetic disordered. This is especially true in the case of processed starches and grains. Evolutionarily speaking, the ability to eat grains at all is an extremely recent development where chimpanzees, our nearest related species, lacks the enzyme we developed while learning to survive in other environments. The real problem with the carbo-diets and diabetes is that these starches turn into sugar almost immediately resulting in reactions quite similar to consuming too much sugar in a more raw form. The idea of telling people they should eat starches while battling a diabetic condition is... well, shocking.

      "Low fat" has little to do with the diabetic condition as fats aren't consumed the same ways as other foods. I think it's important to distinguish the difference between fruits/vegetables and grains. They are as different as fruits/vegetables and trees. We know humans can't eat trees and we know why. Humans can eat grains, but it's not "easy" for the human body to do so when compared to fruits/vegetables.

      This article pretty much spells out what I understand about the business of carbs and fat and all that. (So before you call me a quack, go read this sensible, main-stream article on the subject.) The short of it is this: Low-fat is good... low-carb is good. "No carb" is bad.

      Sugars and substances like high fructose corn syrup are really bad. But things that turn into sugars are ALSO bad and people simply don't hear this information. They think of grains and food from processed grains are "vegetables" and don't really understand what a problem it actually is. So I feel for this discriminated blogger in that conventional nutritional messages are quite often wrong and even dangerous.

      It's interesting that the food industry is doing everything it can to push grains for human consumption. It's also of interesting note that the adaptation in humans which enable the consumption of grains probably saved humans from becoming extinct and certainly enabled the spread of the species across the planet. So I'm kind of torn on the topic of grains... on one hand, it's bad... on the other hand, it probably enabled human survival.

    18. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      If wherever you are requires a licence for fixing computers then yes you did. I don't know of any places that do.

    19. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by vlm · · Score: 2

      If at no point he said or insinuated that he is an expert, there shouldn't be any problem, right ?

      That is the problem, you should not require a license or permission to provide dietary advice. They are selectively enforcing it only on him as an individual. Almost all "health oriented" marketing advertisements of all kinds are in violation unless the person who wrote the ad copy purchased a license from NC to be permitted to exercise free speech in NC. Also most restaurant reviewers, cooking TV shows, are illegal in NC. The only reason he is being selectively punished is merely because he's one dude who publicly humiliated some moron in power, who now wants to get even with him. What a disgusting government NC has.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    20. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      If he's doing this for money, then yes, NC has a case if they require licensing for nutritionists, but IANAL, so I could be wrong.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    21. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by OFnow · · Score: 1

      You do know that the stores sell blank cards and you can print anything on them (even how to contact you!) and pretty much whatever you print it's still called a business card? So yes, no matter what you print on a card it's pretty much still free speech.

    22. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      You do not have to be incorporated to operate a business. If you use your real name, you don't even have to register (although you still need to comply with licensing and tax laws). See sole proprietorship.

    23. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, you'd see he offers 1-on-1 services for a fee, so yes, he's collecting cash.

    24. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SirWhoopass · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Is he collecting cash?"

      Yes.

      Obviously we don't know all the details...

      Except that we do. Especially if we read the state board's findings linked from his site and the article (6.3MB PDF).

      The state board provides a print-out of his site with annotations. People write in with symptoms, he assess their situation and provides specific advice. The board makes it clear that his is counseling, which requires a license. The note that he could describe what he did (meals, fitness, etc), but soliciting questions and advising is what crosses the line.

      In addition, he offered consulting services ranging from $98 to $197 per month. These services included phone consultation and email Q&As.

      The state board didn't just drop the hammer out of no where. They reviewed his site and advised him that he could not offer nutrition consulting services without a license. Which is clearly what he was doing. He has chosen to ignore them and cry "free speech!".

    25. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I asked a similar question elsewhere, but why should he need a license?

      If anything the license makes him more dangerous if he is a quack. He just needs to pass some test that is most likely BS and pay the government money

      I see you managed to answer your own question nicely....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    26. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SkimTony · · Score: 1

      Business cards in the US are used very differently than they are in, e.g., Japan. I understand that there, effectively everyone has a card, and they're used to communicate names and other social details when you meet someone. In the US, giving out a business card implies that you're attempting to establish a business relationship (although many do use them for convenience, such as handing your business card to a family member or friend who needs your phone/e-mail because it's already printed on them).

            Not that I necessarily agree with the parent poster's comment on free speech, but it's important to note that the activity described (handing out business cards) has a bit more to do with (at least attempting) to set up a profitable enterprise than it does elsewhere in the world.

    27. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      How does opening a business mean that one loses his free speech rights?

      This is the same kind of nonsense that Nancy Pelosi is trying to push right now in her attempt to amend the Constitution. The so called Peopleâ(TM)s Rights Amendment would deny people the right to free speech if those people incorporate.

    28. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by honkycat · · Score: 1

      It's one of those things that, while it doesn't automatically make you a business, it is business-like activity. When determining whether you're operating as a business or not, your overall activities will be considered. So I'd say the OP isn't strictly correct, but non-commercial bloggers don't often hand out cards to drum up interest, so it certainly increases the appearance that this is a commercial endeavor.

    29. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by vlm · · Score: 2

      I've seen that video (coincidentally its in the same vein more or less as the OP's website), and he could be charged in NC.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    30. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      1. The web site is for profit - it contains commercial advertising.

      2. Some of the articles dispute advice given by organizations like the American Diabetics Association. Therefore it is likely harmful.

      This is clearly not a case of censorship. It's a case of a guy giving out potentially harmful medical advice for a profit.

      It's disgusting and should be illegal. If somebody gets sick and dies (and yes diabetes is a life threatening disease) this jerk should be brought up on murder charges.

    31. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Its called a business license, and you're almost certainly in violation unless you have one.

      Also depending on where you made the phone call, you might or might not be in violation of property zoning laws.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    32. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      What kind of retarded logic is that?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    33. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Giving health advice without an appropriate license is NOT protected speech.

      The right of free speech does NOT override the State's interest and right to protect the general public.

      Here's a similar case from Texas.

      http://www.casewatch.org/board/dent/kelley/appeal1.shtml

    34. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      What how about the local Channel 11? I don't pay them a penny for their services, they are only paid by advertisers. Just like this guy.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    35. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So false advertising is protected speech now?

      How do you know it's false advertising if you haven't actually seen one of his cards?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    36. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      About 100 years ago 'calling cards' were common with the 'high society' crowd (e.g. Lady Astor and all her snob friends).

      I have never seen them used in my lifetime. Then again 'high society' is now a porn magazine.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Lemonade stands get shaken down over this very sort of thing in some jurisdictions.

      No joke.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    38. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That was the original purpose of a "calling card" in the US.

      It's somewhat out of favor now but not entirely so.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    39. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      The right of free speech does NOT override the State's interest and right to protect the general public.

      So, which article and/or amendment states that the government has a right to silence speech they don't agree with in order to "protect the general public?" Besides, there is a difference between actual harm and perceived harm, and from what I've read in TFAs the gentleman in question has caused no actual harm. In fact, his mission appears to be quite the opposite.

      I know it's a popular theme here on /. to insist that anyone making any statements you disagree with be silenced, but, what part of "Congress shall make NO LAW" are you having trouble comprehending?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    40. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Some people are better adapted to eating grains than other people. There are certainly some people that should completely avoid wheat entirely because of this. It's not a problem with grains across the board and modern industrial food practices aggravate these issues for some people.

      Like any other real world population, humans have some degree of diversity and can't really be treated as if they came off the same Foxconn assembly line.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    41. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      If you don't know enough about a profession to even know the most basic laws (such as licensing requirements) involving that profession, you don't know enough to practice said profession.

    42. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 2

      So, under your analogy, you watching the news constitutes a business transaction, the speech contents of which can be regulated by the state?

      Eek.

    43. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      It's about offering services. You can't offer services in restricted fields - like medicine, public accounting, engineering, and - apparently - nutrition, without being licensed.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    44. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      Ever notice how "I'm all for free speech, but" sounds an awful like "I'm not a racist, but" in terms of what comes after?

    45. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      I don't see where the source of compensation is relevant; if Steve Cooksey is trying to make money off of his advice, then professional licensing applies. On a side note, if local Channel 11 (if they are in NC) puts on an advertisement for a weight loss product that isn't NC State Government approved, are they breaking this law?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    46. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you really that uninformed regarding the Constitution?

      The US Supreme Court has long held that many forms of commercial speech are not protected. This is clearly such a case.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech

    47. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      He did not write a book, etc. He is providing a service. If you read a book and find your symptoms in it and decide to do what the book says, that is YOU making your own diagnosis and treatment plan. It may be stupid, but it is not illegal. However, in this case, people would go to his website and enter their symptoms, and HE would make a diagnosis and treatment plan. The two are not the same.

    48. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Although he's not a licensed nutritionist, he IS an accredited biochemist, and that lecture was given to a room full of biochem students, not people seeking medical advice.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    49. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I asked a similar question elsewhere, but why should he need a license?

        If anything the license makes him more dangerous if he is a quack. He just needs to pass some test that is most likely BS and pay the government money, now he seems like a legit expert to people.

      then he can't claim that he didn't know that he was a quack.

      if he gets licensed properly, maybe gets some mandatory training and education - then when someone dies it's his fault and that he should have known better is easily shown.

      this guy though, I'd bet 20 bucks that he wasn't paying taxes and other dues either.. because he does't think he's practicing a profession - HE IS LIVING THE LIFE OF GOD WARRIORRR, err diabetic warrior.

      feck, the guy ate fast food for dinner and lunch and claims it's just the that carbs gave him diabetes - and that the official advice given to diabetics will cause diabetes more because it has carbs.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    50. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Good call, I wasn't terribly clear.

      Channel 11 == business (Making money off advertising, held to the appropriate accountability (in theory, anyway) for their industry.)
      This guy == business (Making money off advertising, the govt. wants to hold him the the appropriate accountability for his industry.)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    51. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I don't see where the source of compensation is relevant; if Steve Cooksey is trying to make money off of his advice, then professional licensing applies.

      Well, it is dependent. If he is only making money from AD revenue on a website, then no...I don't think the licensing is applicable. However, and I don't know if this is true...if he is charging directly for advice, then I think you might be on to something with the licensing.

      But just running a site giving advice or spouting your views on anything....shouldn't be restricted just because you run some ads too and generate revenue that way....if that's the case, a LOT of things could potentially be shut down. The ads pay for the traffic to the site...not the advice itself....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    52. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      As I just posted to another reply, sorry, I wasn't clear & apparently I misunderstood you too - I agree source of compensation is irrelevant. He is being compensated for this, it is a business (and therefore licensing applies).

      As to your side note, IANAL, but unless they have some protection for being press, yes, IMO they should be held to the same standard when providing advice (and likely, when they do a piece on nutrition they are careful to have a credentialed professional in that segment). As far as an advertisement is concerned, aren't you supposed to tell the most outlandish lie possible when advertising something purporting to have health benefits?

      ;)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    53. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by gnick · · Score: 1

      Revenue from ads on the page he was advertising is kind of a mixed bag. Charging for private phone consultations I would say certainly qualifies.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    54. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Never heard of either the FTC or the FCC have you?

    55. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Are you really that uninformed regarding the Constitution?

      The US Supreme Court has long held that many forms of commercial speech are not protected. This is clearly such a case.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech

      Generally, the United States Supreme Court defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction."

      So, unless his business/calling card was a proposal for a commercial transaction (i.e., a coupon), than it does qualify as protected speech. And since you haven't actually seen the card in question, you can't honestly claim that his business/calling card violates the law. For all any of us know, the card could have simply stated his name, website, and contact info. Innocent until proven guilty, after all.

      Interestingly, in the state of North Carolina your post would likely violate the same professional licensing laws they are trying to prosecute Cooksey under... that is, unless you really are a lawyer.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    56. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      FTC/FCC != state agency.

      Strawman noted and promptly torched.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    57. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I use calling cards. It has my name, personal website and email. Nothing more. Nothing less. No company info. The website does link to my professional website. It's a calling card and not a business card because it does not mention nor advertise the company I'm currently working for.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    58. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      A Fox affiliate station won a court decision saying their news no obligation to actually be factual.

      SCOTUS has ruled that money, in the form of millions in political donations, is not only free speech/expression, but could remain anonymous to avoid consequences (which is NOT how free speech works--you are free to speak, but aren't protected from consequences and actions by the people, as long as they're legal. Only the government is restricted from taking action against you. All in theory, of course).

      If false advertising isn't already protected speech now, it surely will be within 10 years.

    59. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the web site. He was offering to give nutrition advice for a fee on a page that he has since taken offline.

      DOH!

      And as far as my statement, where the hell did I give legal advice? Are you nuts?

    60. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      "It clearly states that all powers now explicitly given to the federal government belong to the citizens and the states."

      No it doesn't. The 10th Amendment does NOT contain the word explicitly. This was actually a bone of contention at the time of adoption of the Constitution and was left out after much discussion. This is an extremely important fact as it allows the federal government to use powers IMPLICIT in various parts of the Constitution including the Commerce Clause.

    61. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 1

      > >> So if I help someone fix their computer over the phone, or via video chat, and then charge 1-2 hours for my time, I've commited a crime of practicing engineering without a license?!?!?

      You don't even have to charge anyone.

      From last year: North Carolina DOT has a man investigated for "engineering without a license" because his documentation was too good.

      http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/964781/citizen-activist-grates-on-state.html

    62. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Is he actually getting compensation? I read the article and I didn't see anything stating that.

      "The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee."

    63. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Why would it be his fault that someone listened to him?

    64. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The ADA is NOT pushing high carb low fact diets. That is just another part of the problems with this site.

      Read it and you will see... this guy is actually advocating reducing carb intakes to the point of ketosis.

      I'd rather play Russian Roulette.

    65. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Great but nowhere in the post I replied to mentioned a 'state agency'. You mentioned 'the government' and 'Congress'.

    66. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the web site. He was offering to give nutrition advice for a fee on a page that he has since taken offline.

      That would seem a legitimate reason for the complaint, however if you look at what the ADA submitted, it seems they aren't so concerned with what he said on the topic, but rather that he's speaking about the topic period, without their permission. Since the site is no longer available, I think they'll have to drop that part of their complaint.

      And as far as my statement, where the hell did I give legal advice?

      The statement

      The US Supreme Court has long held that many forms of commercial speech are not protected. This is clearly such a case.

      could, under the same law Mr. Cooksey is being prosecuted under, be considered giving legal advice without a license... which brings an interesting question to mind: is it illegal in NC to invoke the right of self-representation unless you're a lawyer?

      Are you nuts?

      Quite possibly, but that's immaterial.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    67. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Which is fine, but let's apply this same standard to all the people pushing faith healing, homeopathy, psychic cures, ec all for giving medical advice without a license.

      Further, couldn't this same standard be held against people giving construction advice (This Old House, etc.) in the state, as they are not licensed contractors?

      Etc infinity for everything in the state that requires licensure.

      I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this.
      I'm sick of everything having to go through the government, as if the government is really all that competent or capable. OTOH, I'd like very much to know that the doctor I'm seeing actually has a license.

      --
      -Styopa
    68. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!

      Unlike the site under discussion which is full of such actionable recommendations.

    69. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Great but nowhere in the post I replied to mentioned a 'state agency'. You mentioned 'the government' and 'Congress'.

      Constitutional rights extend to the state level: see Incorporation of the Bill of Rights for more info.

      On a related note, I thought about your post and something dawned on me: you're right about the FTC and FCC having a say in the matter... if, that is, Mr. Cooksey has done anything wrong.

      I find the silence of those federal agencies regarding this matter rather telling.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    70. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      What if, instead of him providing a personal diet based on symptoms, it was a computer program based on Checkboxes; completely automated? What then?

      This is right up there with the FDA ruling that Walnuts are a "drug", but only if the people marketing them put DOCUMENTED health benefits on the packaging.

      The way that I see this going is that only UNHEALTHY food stuffs will be allowed, and anything that is healthy will be illegal because it is actually good for you and thus ... a drug.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    71. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Please cite the study on which you are basing your fear that paleo diets may be deadly to diabetics.
      Where does he advocate going ketotic?

    72. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Desler · · Score: 1

      What does that link have to do with what I said? Yes, I know about incorporation. Once again, the post I responded to only mentioned the Federal government not a state agency like you were blasting me about.

    73. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Its called a business license, and you're almost certainly in violation unless you have one.

      Also depending on where you made the phone call, you might or might not be in violation of property zoning laws.

      And is that not completely ridiculous, and the point of the GPP by analogy to this situation?

      Should we go after all the teenagers mowing their neighbors' laws for $5 next? (zomg child labor too in that case!)

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    74. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      "The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee."

    75. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      This is worth repeating in more detail:

      In the 1960s, William D. Kelley, D.D.S. (1925-2005) developed a program for cancer patients that involved dietary measures, vitamin and enzyme supplements, and computerized "metabolic typing." Kelley classified people as "sympathetic dominant," "parasympathetic dominant," or metabolically "balanced" and made dietary recommendations for each type. He claimed that his "Protein Metabolism Evaluation Index" could diagnose cancer before it was clinically apparent and that his "Kelley Malignancy Index could detect "the presence or absence of cancer, the growth rate of the tumor, the location of the tumor mass, prognosis of the treatment, age of the tumor and the regulation of medication for treatment." In 1970, Kelley was enjoined from practicing medicine without a license after witnesses testified that he had diagnosed lung cancer on the basis of blood from a patient's finger and prescribed dietary supplements, enzymes, and a diet as treatment. In 1976, following unsuccessful court appeals, his Texas dental license was suspended for five years. He never resumed dental practice but continued to promote his methdology in other ways.

    76. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by oxdas · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that a person's lack of knowledge about business licensing laws degrades their ability to troubleshoot computer problems? I am not seeing the connection.

    77. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by oxdas · · Score: 1

      In addition to what SkimTony said, handing out business cards (or even visiting cards) is simply one piece of evidence that he was operating a business. The intent of distributing those cards appears to be driving potential business to his website. The real question is does the totality of evidence (including handing out business cards) demonstrate that he is operating a business. If so, then he has a new set of rules to follow.

    78. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!

      The statement "This is clearly such a case." can easily be construed to imply reference to legal precedent. IANAL, but I do understand how those weasels think.

      Unlike the site under discussion which is full of such actionable recommendations.

      I see. So if I tell you to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut, or take a long walk off a short pier, et. al., and you actually do it, it's my fault for telling you to? Do you not have a responsibility for your own actions, regardless of what advice you're given?

      If you're under the age of 12 I might accept that; however, assuming you (like Mr. Cooksey's audience) are an adult, I expect you to take responsibility for your own dumb ass.

      Besides, the guy covered his ass when he put the disclaimer on his website. He clearly states that he has no medical training whatsoever, so if you're taking his advice you're doing it at your own risk.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    79. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand by now, either you're not actually reading my entire posts or you have no desire to understand my point. Continuing to discuss with you at this point is futile, and I refuse to engage in futile efforts.

      Good day.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    80. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by oxdas · · Score: 1

      The problem is that business were abusing the concept of free speech to lie to potential customers, so things like truth in advertising laws etc. were passed. Coca Cola for instance, used to advertise their product as curing headaches, impotence, and morphine addiction. Do you believe that businesses should be able to make any claims about their products or services they desire?

      Just for clarification, the person does not lose any rights, but when acting as an agent of the business, then they are no longer simply a person sharing an opinion.

    81. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      The problem is that business were abusing the concept of free speech to lie to potential customers, so things like truth in advertising laws etc. were passed.

      - yeah, why are laws applied to businesses and not to government? Why is government allowed to call the most unpatriotic bill in the USA history 'The Patriot Act'?

      Do you believe that businesses should be able to make any claims about their products or services they desire?

      - yes. If their claims amount to fraud, there is CIVIL COURT for that, also there is contract law.

      Just for clarification, the person does not lose any rights, but when acting as an agent of the business, then they are no longer simply a person sharing an opinion.

      - of-course the person loses rights, because he is operating HIS MONEY under the corporate charter, and since a corporation is fiction, and it's really people behind business, once the corporation is no longer considered to be a person under the law, it takes away those same rights from the people who run the corporation with regards to the money invested in the corporation.

    82. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a difference between "computer troubleshooter" and "computer troubleshooting business operator". If you want to simply be a computer troubleshooter without bothering with the legal aspects of running a business, work for someone else. If, however, you are operating a business (and getting paid for your time is operating a business), then it is your responsibility to know the legal requirements of that. Are there any licensing requirements? What is your liability if you trash their computer? What are your options if the customer does not pay? What is your obligation if you see evidence of illegal activities? If you can't be bothered to find the answers to questions such as those, you shouldn't be running a business.

    83. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!

      The statement "This is clearly such a case." can easily be construed to imply reference to legal precedent.

      Reference to legal precedent is not giving legal advice.

      So if I tell you to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut, or take a long walk off a short pier, et. al., and you actually do it, it's my fault for telling you to? Do you not have a responsibility for your own actions, regardless of what advice you're given?

      According to the state of NC, no, you do not have responsibility for your own actions in regards to nutrition. They have relegated it to a topic like medicine that you must be licensed to practice. If you disagree with that, that would be a valid discussion, but for this story, the only discussion is if his web site and interactions with people meet the definition of being a practicing nutritionist in NC.

    84. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      It is obviously not legal advise because it is NOT advising anyone to do anything!

      The statement "This is clearly such a case." can easily be construed to imply reference to legal precedent.

      Reference to legal precedent is not giving legal advice.

      But discussing ones personal experience with medicine is? That's the point I'm trying to make.

      According to the state of NC, no, you do not have responsibility for your own actions in regards to nutrition. They have relegated it to a topic like medicine that you must be licensed to practice. If you disagree with that, that would be a valid discussion, but for this story, the only discussion is if his web site and interactions with people meet the definition of being a practicing nutritionist in NC.

      Well, then, that's just pants-on-head retarded, isn't it? Remind me to thank $deity that I live in a state that respects my right to make my own decisions, stupid or otherwise. Knowing NC requires government licensure before allowing their citizens to think does explain quite a bit about the region, though...

      On the issue of whether or not his actions qualify as being a "practicing nutritionist" (the term alone makes me want to spit), I would say that the only place the ADA really has an argument is where he's charging people for "telephone support." Otherwise, he clearly states that he is not a medical professional - caveat emptor.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    85. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point, which was that what follows both of those statements often completely contradicts the statements themselves.

    86. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

      That's not specific to business, though. If I put an untruthful story about someone on my non-monetized blog, I can still get in trouble.

    87. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Yet the same court decided money is speech, so every company can anonymously bribe politicans, to practice their freedom of speech.

      You expect me or anyone else to buy the excuse "it's constitutional because the Supreme Court says so"? Because it is utterly, flat-out, and dangerously false.

    88. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      So if I help someone fix their computer over the phone, or via video chat, and then charge 1-2 hours for my time, I've commited a crime of practicing engineering without a license?!?!?

      No, because you aren't required to be licensed to fix computers. If you put a sticker on the side of your car saying "Chauffer Services" and drove people around town without first passing a driving test, you'd probably be breaking the law.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    89. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Actually this guy did charge directly for services.

    90. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      California does, by the "State Bureau of Electronics and Appliance Repair".

      http://www.bearhfti.ca.gov/

      There's even a license lookup site for the ever-growing list of professions that CA requires licensing for:
      http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllquery$.startup

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    91. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by oxdas · · Score: 1

      I guess I don't see this as black and white. To me, this is a matter of scale and industry. If I am a teenager mowing lawns on the weekend, I shouldn't be held to the same standards as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

      For example, I don't expect that the teen from down the street who mows my lawn has a grasp of his liabilities, options for lack of payment, reporting requirements, if any, etc. Does that mean he shouldn't be mowing lawns? I fixed people's computers for money when I was his age. I couldn't have answered these questions either at the time.

      My experience is that government requirements can be opaque and down right byzantine. I worked for a Fortune 1000 finance company out of college. We would submit requests to the SEC and, at the time, NASD to determine the legality of new products or business decisions. I can't remember a single instance of getting a definitive answer. It always came down to how much would a potential lawsuit cost and what was the likelihood of losing. There is a reason that our society requires experts on matters of regulation, tax, legal requirements, etc.

      In a perfect world, sure, people should understand all aspects of what they do. We don't live in a perfect world.

    92. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Its called a business license, and you're almost certainly in violation unless you have one.

      Also depending on where you made the phone call, you might or might not be in violation of property zoning laws.

      And is that not completely ridiculous, and the point of the GPP by analogy to this situation?

      Should we go after all the teenagers mowing their neighbors' laws for $5 next? (zomg child labor too in that case!)

      if it's 50 neighbors a week, yes

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    93. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Its called a business license, and you're almost certainly in violation unless you have one.

      Also depending on where you made the phone call, you might or might not be in violation of property zoning laws.

      And is that not completely ridiculous, and the point of the GPP by analogy to this situation?

      Should we go after all the teenagers mowing their neighbors' laws for $5 next? (zomg child labor too in that case!)

      if it's 50 neighbors a week, yes

      also that's not quite the same. He's giving medical advice.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    94. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      So if I help someone fix their computer over the phone, or via video chat, and then charge 1-2 hours for my time, I've commited a crime of practicing engineering without a license?!?!?

      No, because you aren't required to be licensed to fix computers. If you put a sticker on the side of your car saying "Chauffer Services" and drove people around town without first passing a driving test, you'd probably be breaking the law.

      finally a car analogy!

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    95. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Which is fine, but let's apply this same standard to all the people pushing faith healing, homeopathy, psychic cures, ec all for giving medical advice without a license.

      Further, couldn't this same standard be held against people giving construction advice (This Old House, etc.) in the state, as they are not licensed contractors?

      Etc infinity for everything in the state that requires licensure.

      I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. I'm sick of everything having to go through the government, as if the government is really all that competent or capable. OTOH, I'd like very much to know that the doctor I'm seeing actually has a license.

      Faith healing is religious, so that's a slippery slope. Homeopathy, psychic cures, etc.... ya, they should be careful if they're charging and claiming they're curing something or giving medical advice.

      Construction advice is not medical advice. That's the real sticking point. Anyone can swing a hammer and get licensed to do construction with no formal education, but medical takes years of schooling, schools that pay taxes, loans that students pay back with interest to the govt, and this guy just by-passed all that.

      Requiring licenses is a VERY good thing because it's the govt saying "yes this person went to a real school and got a real degree and really knows what they're talking about". Doesn't mean they're perfect, it's just a verification that they are what they say they are. Just like a drivers license, it's proof you took the test and passed.

      Maybe they should require computer repair licenses and construction worker license? Otherwise it is possible for someone to say "Sure, I went to XYZ Onlinedegree.com University, I know what I'm talking about" and there's no way to verify they know anything or even that the school is 100% legit or what they learned, not every CS101 is the same. Nurses, Doctors, Lawyers all require a state license and have to pass relatively difficult state tests before they can receive that license.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    96. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You can't offer services in restricted fields - like medicine [...] and [...] nutrition, without being licensed.

      You repeated yourself. A dietitian is not a nutritionist, though it seems 90% of the slashdotters think so.

    97. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He is a professional nutritionist, despite his claims otherwise. That's the problem. He stated he is not a professional, but accepts money for his services (the definition of a professional). So his statement otherwise don't trump reality.

    98. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Also most restaurant reviewers, cooking TV shows, are illegal in NC.

      No, they are not. If they advocate some specific health benefit (Dr. Oz), then maybe, though Dr. Oz is a licensed doctor, so may not run afoul of these laws. But Rachel Ray wouldn't be in trouble, even if saying "olive oil is better for you than butter".

      This guy is providing medical advice without a license. That is all. If you don't like it, then you should be complaining about the AMA, not NC.

    99. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      could, under the same law Mr. Cooksey is being prosecuted under, be considered giving legal advice without a license

      No, it could not. What action did he recommend? And who did he recommend it to? Writing "go fuck yourself" on a bathroom wall is not "practicing sexual therapy without a license."

    100. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The statement "This is clearly such a case." can easily be construed to imply reference to legal precedent.

      Stating "this is true" is not advice. "Because this is true, *YOU* should do this." is advice. "I think this is true, so I would do this" is not advice.

      Perhaps you should start by reading the definition of "advice" before posting about it (that could be considered advice, but you'll not listen, as you haven't so far).

    101. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But discussing ones personal experience with medicine is? That's the point I'm trying to make.

      You spend to much time on the douchbag tactic of trying to guide others to your conclusion with false or misleading statements that nobody ever got the point you say now was your hidden agenda all along.

      The man in question offers explicit, specific, and personal advice to people for a fee. Are you really going to argue that he isn't giving advice?

      On the issue of whether or not his actions qualify as being a "practicing nutritionist" (the term alone makes me want to spit), I would say that the only place the ADA really has an argument is where he's charging people for "telephone support." Otherwise, he clearly states that he is not a medical professional - caveat emptor.

      For one, you don't get to charge someone for something then later claim you aren't a professional. They should be charging him with fraud. For another, it finally comes out, you hate the ADA, and this sounds like something the ADA would support, so you are against it, whether it is in theory or practice a good thing.

    102. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've never seen an insurance salesman or investment advisor give out a business card to a friend and not have it be a business transaction. Most even joke they'll pay for lunch and write it off as a business meeting.

    103. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Come on. You know how it works. You are a loonitarian. If you do it for free, it's ok. But once money changes hands, it's Interstate Commerce, and everyone can regulate it. It's not about the speech, it's about the money.

    104. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Child labor laws are usually specifically written to allow babysitting and lawn mowing (and sometimes newspaper routes, but most are adults now, so no need).

    105. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He's not a troubleshooter, he's a business owner. If he doesn't know how to legally run a business, he shouldn't be a business owner. That's the connection.

    106. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But if you have to point out the contradiction, then you are supporting the one you are explicitly denying. "I'm not a racist, but I think white people smell funny" is a racist statement, with or without the prefacing clause. It's only added to diffuse the inevitible "you are a racist" replies, because, though proven false, they stated they are not a racist.

      Oddly, this is very much on topic. Mr. "I am not a nutritionist, but you should eat ..." is in trouble because the law doesn't recognize the prefacing clause.

    107. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Further, couldn't this same standard be held against people giving construction advice (This Old House, etc.) in the state, as they are not licensed contractors?

      No. "This is my situation, what should I do?" is a question this guy would answer and charge money for that answer. That's professional advice. Having someone tell you how to build a tree swing isn't advice, and if you do it and put it in a heritage tree, violating local laws, they can't be held responsible, as they never told you to do it or anything like that, they just told you how to do it if you decided to.

      I'm sick of everything having to go through the government, as if the government is really all that competent or capable. OTOH, I'd like very much to know that the doctor I'm seeing actually has a license.

      The issue is whether someone can be a doctor without a license, letting people know he doesn't have one, or whether people should be barred from practicing medicine without a license for the safety of the patient and public. Not whether an unlicensed person is allowed to present themselves as a licensed person. In this case, he was practicing a restricted profession while not being licensed to do so. The fact he has a business doing it could be construed as legitimacy to some, and so the government has chosen to step in and prevent such medical advice without an appropriate license.

    108. Re:he was giving out business cards.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Why is government allowed to call the most unpatriotic bill in the USA history 'The Patriot Act'?

      They didn't. Your stupidity does not relate to the government's evil. Plus, it's a democracy. Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve,.

      If their claims amount to fraud, there is CIVIL COURT for that, also there is contract law.

      Fraud is a criminal act. Is your argument for this really that fraud should not be a crime?

  3. Protecting domains by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1, Troll

    Geez, if you started this process where would it end. You would have to shut down all the biology departments in schools for practicing Religion without the tax exempt status. You would have to jail all the "Job Creator" appologists for operating without a "Snake Oil" license. It would be total anachry. Free speach no more ,without paying someone for the right to say it (unless your already a member of the club and paid your dues).

    1. Re:Protecting domains by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You would have to shut down all the biology departments in schools for practicing Religion without the tax exempt status

      But biology isn't a religion, and you can practice religion anyway without tax exempt status. So there are two huge differences between that comparison and what's going on here: the guy WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process.

      You would have to jail all the "Job Creator" appologists for operating without a "Snake Oil" license.

      Now you're just making up licenses. And free speech wouldn't be shoehorned into such a license. Anyway, the law in question here is presumably specifically to prevent snake oil salesmanship.

      Who the hell modded this insightful? "Funny" would be debatable, I don't personally consider saying really dumb things to be funny, but some do. Insightful though, there are people who think this is actually a slippery slope to shutting down biology departments? Perhaps you should stop listening to quack blogs and start taking your meds again.

    2. Re:Protecting domains by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      "But biology isn't a religion, and you can practice religion anyway without tax exempt status. So there are two huge differences between that comparison and what's going on here: the guy WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process."

      But my point (sarcasm) (which you obviously missed) was that the fundamentalist Christians with their literal interpretation of the Bible and their trying to get their view that the few pages of old Jewish lore written down in the old testament constitute valid scientific theory and should be taught to impressionable young people as equally valid and contradictory to the well established principles of Evolution. They feel they can practice science without a license (usually you can't teach in school's now with the no child left behind act, science without a Masters degree in teaching science (as I understand)). So I was just turning it around showing that there are area's that disregard common sense and allow information to be peddled (for money, people are making salaries, text books with creationism are charging money for them, there is profit to be had).

      There are some areas that are jealous of their monopoly on information, or even a type of information as this case is an example of.

      "WAS giving out nutrition advice and charging for it, and you're NOT allowed to do that without some approval process" in the case of Evolution the approval process has been overridden by ideological legislators that want to say they have the approval of scientific information.

      Charging for information, that is not bad, look at any book on self help, or special diets, or theories of UFO landings, or how to win on the stock market. The issue is whether that group can prevent alternative views being expressed (a freedom of speach issue I would imagine). Other areas control the flow of information by giving approved by licenses (and charging for them). So they are missing an opportunity to make money, or from writting a book that debunks this sites information. But an area that does not like competing information should not have the right to shut that down unless they are claiming that that information is backed by sound scientific research. That would be the case with Creationism as well. If they could present sound scientific evidence for the creation of the universe by a supreme being that did not have a twisted sense of humor and that cavemen and dinosaurs lived together between 4016 bc and when the tower of babel existed then I would say, they too should be allowed to present in the schools. We try to present truth to our young ones.

      Again your humor missed my humor.

      "Now you're just making up licenses. And free speech wouldn't be shoehorned into such a license. Anyway, the law in question here is presumably specifically to prevent snake oil salesmanship."

      My point is that just as the creationists are snake oil salesmen (its true some salesmen actually believe their stories, but they are making a living off selling the oil). The field of Job Creator appologists which include the right wing talk machine that get daily talking points as well as the politicians (mostly Republican but a few Dems too) who rely on the contributions from the "Job Creators" and do their bidding at the expense of the 99% of their constituents are the modern Snake Oil Salesmen. The ones that believe in that trickle down does anything but get those at the bottom wet with effluent not affluent.

      As to shutting down biology departments, that is happening as funding is being cut down to higher education and ideology in areas such as stem cell research are targeted by the religious ideologues think they know what best for everyone.

      My points were succinct and wrapped in exaggeration to be more efficient and have more impact but the essentials I think are sound.

      I am sorry you did not understand the insights. Obviously others did. Maybe you should think about some sort of meds to help your concentration.

  4. good by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets bring this sort of thing to all the people that are effectively practicing medicine without a license.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:good by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Why?

    2. Re:good by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because they bilk, harm and kill people. Often with free reign.

      Children are dead because some unqualified person was lying about vaccine harm,
      People with diabetes are going to be a lot worse off because this guy is pretending to be an expert.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doctors harm and kill people by medication errors. "The impact is significant, as medication errors harm an estimated 1.5 million people and kill several thousand each year in the US." Perhaps we should ban doctors from practicing medicine? http://www.cpso.on.ca/members/resources/practicepartner/patientsafety/default.aspx?id=2804

    4. Re:good by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      unqualified

      This part doesn't matter. If lying is going on, that is the problem. Really, lying isn't even necessarily the problem either, it is being wrong. "Qualified" people lie and make mistakes as well.

      Perhaps you need someone to stamp qualified on a piece of paper in order to trust health advice (not saying this is stupid, it is a decent heuristic). What would be wrong with trusting membership in a trade union rather than the government?

    5. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Whew...it's a good thing people never die at the hand of an expert...oh, wait.

    6. Re:good by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Children are dead because some unqualified person was lying about vaccine harm

      Actually Dr Andrew Wakefield was a fully licensed Doctor at the time although I think he has been disbarred I believe he got reinstated about 6 months ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    7. Re:good by judoguy · · Score: 2
      Wrong. A quick look at this guy’s advice is spot on with the established science. A friend of mine is a respected food scientist, lectures around the world, and researcher at a large university. He told me years ago that the "nutritionists" pay no attention whatsoever to the actual science. They "know" what's right, they don't need no steenken research!

      I started eating a high fat, low starchy carb diet two years ago and I’m MUCH healthier by all measurements. Lost 50 lbs, went from lipid panels that indicated imminent heart attack, high blood sugar, low sex drive to a complete reversal. Super good lipid panels, vastly improved athletic performance (I’m a judo instructor with many year of consistent experience for comparison), testosterone levels back in the normal range for my age (58), way improved A1C tests.

      The ADA and “conventional wisdom” are wrong,wrong, worng about diet and health.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    8. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Children are dead because some unqualified person was lying about vaccine harm,

      He may have been lying, but he was a qualified & licensed MD:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

      Unless you're referring to Jenny McCarthy appearing on Oprah:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_McCarthy#Activism_and_autism_controversy

    9. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, Wakefield is STILL disbarred, and is currently getting smacked down in Texas courts in his attempt to sue his way back to "respectability".

      Good riddance.

    10. Re:good by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Children are dead because some unqualified person was lying about vaccine harm,

      No, children are dead because their parents are idiots.

      People with diabetes are going to be a lot worse off because this guy is pretending to be an expert.

      From Diabetes-Warrior.net:

      I am not a doctor, dietitian nor nutritionist in fact I have no medical training of any kind.

      If you think a guy is an expert, even though he expressly states that he is not an expert, that's on your dumb ass, not him. Maybe, instead of blaming everyone else for your bad decisions, you should stop bitching and take responsibility for your own actions.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      People with diabetes are going to be a lot worse off because this guy is pretending to be an expert.

      Except in this case, the government "experts" that have been pushing the low-fat/low-calorie/high-exercise diet for the past 40 years are the ones who have caused the epidemics of diabetes, obesity, heart disease and other chronic diseases.

      If you want the low down on the real science of nutrition, and just how badly all of these licensed nutritionists have gotten it, check out any of Gary Taubes' lectures: http://garytaubes.com/lectures/

      Type 2 diabetes is caused by excessive carbohydrate intake. Paleo regimes greatly restrict carbohydrates. If every diabetic listened to this man, they'd get *better*.

    12. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 2

      Hear, hear. I began my crawl back to health in 2007 with the release of Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories", lost 50 lbs., improved cholesterol profile, improved blood pressure, and most likely avoided the heart attack that was coming.

      Mod parent up.

    13. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you changed your diet completely. Have you considered that at least part of your improved health may have resulted simply from actually paying attention to what you eat? Studies have shown that (in general) when people are "forced" to keep track of their food intake, they eat less, both in volume and in calories. Eating less calories by itself could account for your weight loss. Losing the weight by itself could account for for the rest.

      And who's this friend of yours, by the way? If he's a "respected food scientist" who "lectures around the world," you won't mind naming him—shouldn't Slashdot have the benefit of his lectures also?

    14. Re:good by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Gary Taubes? LOL. You have got to be kidding.

    15. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Have you read his book? Maybe listened to his free lectures online? Is there anything about the science he cites that you disagree with?

      Do you know the name "Ancel Keys", and his contribution to the poor dietary guidelines we live with today?

    16. Re:good by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I know a fair amount about the science he is talking about; I happen to hold a PhD in chemistry. I also happen to know that Gary is a journalist with no degree in any field related to medicine or biology.

    17. Re:good by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Maybe, instead of blaming everyone else for your bad decisions, you should stop bitching and take responsibility for your own actions.

      I don't think anyone is actually blaming him. I think NC is thinking if people take unqualified advice and they get sick, that will cost society more to clean up. Which is still stupid, but for different reasons.

    18. Re:good by oxdas · · Score: 1

      Step right up, step right up. Let me present to you my famous Python Oil home remedy. This will cure headaches, nausea, the flu, impotence, and all forms of cancer all for just $49. Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind, but this remedy has worked for me and countless others. Cash only if you please.

    19. Re:good by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is actually blaming him. I think NC is thinking if people take unqualified advice and they get sick, that will cost society more to clean up. Which is still stupid, but for different reasons.

      I think it's rather an issue of the ADA using the courts to bully a man who actively and vocally disagrees with them; at least, that's how it appears from where I'm sitting (which, thankfully, is a long way from NC).

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:good by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Step right up, step right up. Let me present to you my famous Python Oil home remedy. This will cure headaches, nausea, the flu, impotence, and all forms of cancer all for just $49. Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind, but this remedy has worked for me and countless others. Cash only if you please.

      ... and?

      Did you have a point? or are you being a jackass for the sake of it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I know a fair amount about the science he is talking about; I happen to hold a PhD in chemistry

      Okay, so do you disagree with any of the following:

      1) insulin promotes fat accumulation
      2) high blood sugar levels drive insulin production
      3) carbohydrate intake increases blood sugar levels

      You've offered yourself up as an authority, do you actually have any *substance* to your argument?

    22. Re:good by oxdas · · Score: 1

      Perhaps reading up on advertising and business practices that led to our current laws might be enlightening for you. I'm all for personal responsibility, but businesses have responsibilities as well. The force that ensures businesses live up to their responsibilities is government.

    23. Re:good by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
      You're wrong; people can and do advertise products that do not match up to the advertisement's promises; one only has to go as far as late night infomercials to see examples. Products that claim to increase your fuel mileage by X%, products that promise to make you a millionaire or give you muscles like a pro athlete in 30 days, and so on.

      Also, any product sold under the claim that it will "help you lose weight." The vast majority of diet pills and other products do absolutely nothing to affect the weight of the user.

      Now, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training of any kind,

      Than anyone who buys your product based on your claims is doing so at their own risk. Which is my point - You already told them you are not a trustworthy source for medical advice; from that point on, it's caveat emptor.

      Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying any of this is right, or how things should be. Much to the contrary, I'm a firm believer that when you give corporations of any kind any sort of slack, they'll end up with the entire reel. I'm merely pointing out how things work as of today; a simple proclamation of ignorance is apparently all one needs in order to sell snake oil.

      Example: every single ToS I've ever taken the time to read.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    24. Re:good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And I eat piles of carbs, but no fat, and I'm well below average weight, low cholesterol, and normal blood pressure (misleading because "normal" is below average, as average is higher than ideal).

    25. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Well, a few things:

      1) obesity will depend on your insulin resistance. Obviously, you're insulin sensitive, if you're able to power down carbohydrates without gaining weight. Congratulations!

      2) "low cholesterol" isn't a marker of health if you're just counting overall cholesterol - triglycerides and HDL are what count. How are you on those markers?

      The fact of the matter is that some people aren't as visibly affected by carbohydrate intake as others. However, all those people who *are* visibly affected share the same root cause - chronically elevated insulin levels. You cannot expect someone who has insulin resistance to eat the way you do, and get the same results as you do.

    26. Re:good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You cannot expect someone who has insulin resistance to eat the way you do, and get the same results as you do.

      I should set up a blog and "life coach" others to follow my lifestyle as a means to lose weight.

    27. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if your body doesn't have the same hormonal problem with insulin resistance, you can't possibly expect your lifestyle to help people who are obese. It would be like thinking that your diet and exercise plan could keep a child with an overactive pituitary from growing...or that you could get a child with an under active pituitary to be as tall as you are. No amount of diet and exercise is going to alter how much growth hormone affects your body, and the only diet that affects insulin levels in your body is one that eschews blood sugar raising carbohydrates.

      Were you ever fat? Did you ever actually *lose* weight? Or were you just always skinny, with bad triglycerides and HDL?

    28. Re:good by oxdas · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree. While the system is not perfect, the flaws are at the fringes and because of lack of resources for enforcement. The grandiose claims common in the 19th century are largely gone.

      Regarding late night weight loss commercials, the FTC has filed more than 80 cases against companies for false advertising in the last decade (the FTC has several white papers on their website). The FTC launched "Operation Waistline" in 1997 to crack down on false claims for weight loss and "Operation Workout" for exercise equipment companies. Disclaimers did not protect companies in these cases, including 4 rulings against NordicTrack (the only company I recognized).

      The notion that a disclaimer creates a situation of caveat emptor is patently false.

    29. Re:good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if your body doesn't have the same hormonal problem with insulin resistance, you can't possibly expect your lifestyle to help people who are obese.

      So perhaps, before giving such professional advice as a paid expert (Even if I have a disclaimer that I'm not a paid expert, the very fact I have such a site and make such claims indicates otherwise), I should have some education, and an official validation of that education before soliciting money for "life coaching" of that nature?

    30. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I should have some education, and an official validation of that education before soliciting money for "life coaching" of that nature?

      No, official validation of your proposition, or even education on a topic doesn't make it true.

      The problem with your position is that is is categorically *wrong*, not that it isn't properly certified by some agency.

    31. Re:good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, official validation of your proposition, or even education on a topic doesn't make it true.

      I never said it did. You are so interested in objecting to what I say that you aren't even reading it anymore.

      The problem with your position is that is is categorically *wrong*, not that it isn't properly certified by some agency.

      If it's so wrong, then it would never be certified by some agency. That means that a proper education (what this blogger doesn't have) should correct some of his theories. If he still insists on pushing provably wrong theories as truth to paying customers, then the agency can pull his certification. That's why certifications are good. They require training such that crackpots would have trouble passing or modify their theories, and if they don't and push unsafe advice, they can be censured.

    32. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      If it's so wrong, then it would never be certified by some agency.

      Again, the appeal to authority fallacy. There are *plenty* of wrong things that are certified by agencies all over the place, not the least of which is the high-carbohydrate, high-grain, low-fat dogma pushed on us by Ancel Keys and his followers.

      That advice has been certified by some official agency doesn't make it right - and conversely, the fact that advice has *not* been certified by some officially agency doesn't make it wrong.

      The scientific fact of the matter, which no amount of appeal to authority can refute, is that chronically elevated insulin levels cause all sorts of diseases, including diabetes, heart disease and obesity, and that chronically elevated insulin levels are caused by chronically elevated blood sugar levels, and that the only food type that significantly raises blood sugar levels is carbohydrate.

      The real question, is what do you do when an authority body of dietitians has been pushing provably wrong advice and offering provably incorrect certifications? How do you get the crackpots out of the position of authority?

    33. Re:good by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Again, the appeal to authority fallacy.

      Nope, you don't even know what that is. I never claimed it was right because the authority said so, thus, it is not an appeal to authority.

      Your argument is that because "appeal to authority fallacy" exists, that all consensuses are wrong by definition. That's simply insane.

      The real question, is what do you do when an authority body of dietitians has been pushing provably wrong advice and offering provably incorrect certifications?

      If you are a loonitarian, you go back to sleep and wait for the Invisible Hand (TM) to step in and correct it. If you are a conservative, you sue them and their mother for giving birth to them. If you are a liberal, you form another government agency to oversee the agency not working right. Unfortunately, there is no option for correcting the agency in question. The crackpots who disagree are all unwilling to work within the system to change it, and they are immediately dismissed as crackpots when they try to circumvent it.

    34. Re:good by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I never claimed it was right because the authority said so, thus, it is not an appeal to authority.

      Yes, you did. Let's review:

      "If it's so wrong, then it would never be certified by some agency."

      You can rewrite this as "anything certified by some agency is right". You are appealing to the authority of some certifying agency.

      Your argument is that because "appeal to authority fallacy" exists, that all consensuses are wrong by definition.

      No, my argument is that you are making an appeal to authority fallacy, and that the consensus on diet and nutrition is wrong because it is *provably* wrong, not simply because it is a consensus view.

      Unfortunately, there is no option for correcting the agency in question.

      Which, is my point. The authority you would have us believe (the "certifying agency" as it were), is wrong. Because of that, they wish to keep the truth out of the marketplace of ideas. Should we be happy that someone with the truth is being oppressed by the ministers of truth?

  5. You Forgot the Part About the Money by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"

    He makes money on ad revenue for this advice. And also from the article:

    McCullagh said the board may be on more solid ground in its complaint about the telephone support packages Cooksey offers. “But if customers are paying $97 or $149 or $197 a month to have someone listen, that sounds a lot like life coaching, which doesn't require a license.”

    So I think the board is trying to do Crooksey a favor because here's what's going to happen. Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic with Crooksey when they should have had their ankle amputated. The family is going to sue Crooksey probably with a number of things like practicing nutrition without a license, etc etc. And since Crooksey is making money off this operation it's going to be hard to tell the court that was just friendly advice over tea. Crooksey isn't going to have malpractice insurance and his first amendment rights aren't going to protect him from the lawsuits that follow regarding the repercussions of his preachings.

    Crooksey should be able to say whatever he wants and put it on his blog. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for what he says. It's wrong for the board to try and shut him down now but if I were them I would just kindly let Crooksey know that the things he is saying might leaving him with serious liabilities in due time.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He makes money on ad revenue for this advice.

      *sigh*

      I don't give a shit. I really don't. I'm tired of this mentality that says that making money on ads is somehow more evil than usual because of the content on your website. Such bullshit. Either way, you're making money off of ads. It's your website.

      They might have been right to shut down the website, but not for this reason.

    2. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      The laws are protecting people from their own stupidity? Amazing...

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except the First Amendment *does* apply here, because it's been incorporated and thus applies to the states as well.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic with Crooksey when they should have had their ankle amputated.

      Wait, what?

      I can understand someone doing something stupid like deciding to forego certain medications (in this case Metformin, Insulin, whatever) in favor of some holistic thing, but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      Don't get me wrong - I agree with your main point: if he's charging money giving actual medical advice sans license, he's opened himself up to a shitload of liability, and if something goes wrong, he's liable to become a permanent pauper.

      OTOH, as long as he was smart enough to put up the regular disclaimers ("this is not actual medical advice, always see and trust your doctor first, etc...") then nobody has a leg to stand on (I know, I know...) when it comes to prosecuting him, because as long as those disclaimers are prominent enough to be legible on his site or elsewhere, anyone trying to sue him would have a very hard time winning.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crooksey isn't going to have malpractice insurance

      Good luck finding a lawyer to take that suit without an insurance company payout at the end.

    6. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about "he makes money, period." The important part is that it's a significant source of economic gain, which makes it a business. Being a business means more liability, under consumer-protection laws.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point is he is profiting from people taking his advice.

      This means that if his advice is bad he's profiting from misleading people. Since he isn't certified as a qualified professional in the filed on which he's advising people there's a pretty good chance that at least some of his advice is bad.

    8. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't make it evil, that makes it a commercial enterprise. You telling your buddy the key to diabetes is drinking 3 cans of coke a day is different than you charging for advice that says the same, or generating revenue from ad sales on your website than promotes the same.

      In one case, your friend is being an idiot for listening to you. In the other you are fraudulently presenting the information commercially. Advice of various sorts (legal, medical, apparently nutritional in north caronlina) requires you be licenced so that people are protected from businesses selling snake oil to cure diabetes.

      IANAL, so consider this in the advice to a buddy category. But if you have a business where you practice medicine, law, or nutrition in north carolina expect them to come after you eventually.

    9. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Try reading up about the 14th Ammendment, and how it applies to the first ammendment. Here, let me help you out. Read the second paragraph, and you can follow the links therein to see how things are applied.

    10. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by ttyRazor · · Score: 2

      His disclaimer says he isn't an expert but then goes on to imply that experts can't be any better since they're not doing what he is.

    11. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      giving actual medical advice

      The problem is he's merely providing diet advice, which is not medical advice.

      Here is an example of a violation of the NC law (thank god I don't live there):

      "I advise you not to eat at McDonalds because a homemade salad is more nutritious than a cheeseburger".

      thats all it takes to be a criminal in NC.

      Its basically a blasphemy law, but applied to diet instead of gods.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SirWhoopass · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are correct in that the First Amendment does apply to the states.

      I am not certain, however, that is applies to this situation. The summary is misleading. He was not merely blogging about what he did and encouraging others.

      He also diagnosing conditions and recommending treatment plans. And he was charging money for that service.

    13. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

      Interesting, I stand corrected. Thanks; once again, the money paid to educate me through public education and college has been for naught...

      Learning this actually makes me sort of happy that I'm wrong.

    14. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      On this blog there is advice to ignore dietary recommendations from the American Diabetics Association and use his diet instead. From what I have seen of his recommendations they could easily cause hypoglycemia, a potentially fatal condition.

    15. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can understand someone doing something stupid like deciding to forego certain medications (in this case Metformin, Insulin, whatever) in favor of some holistic thing, but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      I wish you were right, but you're wrong. People believe and follow all manner of stupid advice from the internet, strangers on buses, that guy at the health food store, everywhere. Maybe it's false hope, maybe it's a desire to be more natural, whatever it is, people take bad advice from strangers all the time. It's not just on the internet.

    16. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says?"

      I believe you underestimate the strength of human stupidity. A common mistake.

    17. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SirWhoopass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I advise you not to eat at McDonalds because a homemade salad is more nutritious than a cheeseburger". Thats all it takes to be a criminal in NC.

      That is not correct. Providing nutritional information is perfectly legal in NC. Telling people about your diet is fine. Creating a diet plan for someone would be illegal. Which is what this guy was doing. Diagnosing symptoms and providing specific nutritional remedies for people with diabetes (charging $100 - $150 for this service).

      The state board provides a PDF of what type of advice is legal, and what crosses the line. The short version would be that it is fine to provide nutritional information. It is illegal to provide nutrition care services.

    18. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by repapetilto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From what I have seen of his recommendations they could easily cause hypoglycemia, a potentially fatal condition.

      Are you qualified to assess this?

    19. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sarten-X · · Score: 3

      skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says?

      Yes, people do this. There are people who are terrified of surgery. They'll only go if it's the last option (besides losing that foot entirely). That random dude on a blog becomes their last hope, who will save them when the doctors (those evil minions of the pharmaceutical industry) won't. They know that the surgery might not work, has its risks, and will cost thousands of dollars. The doctors even admit that. This diet, though, is cheap, the person stays in control, and it'll improve their life... their savior even says so, right there! Besides, if it doesn't work, they can get the surgery in a few months, unless they find another last chance.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    20. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Yeah, incorporation is one of those things that they don't seem to cover in high school civics courses, although they really should. I'd wager that most of the kids that graduate from American secondary schools don't really have a good handle on how the government and the law actually work.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    21. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      If I recall, the 14th Amendment applies. States are not allowed to pass laws which remove these basic rights. The Constitution and Bill of Rights state these rights are inalienable. They aren't granted by the government when they see fit. They are inherent and can't be removed.

      That's the theory anyway. Reality is entirely different.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    22. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I would make it a capital offense to protest at a funeral. There are lots of appropriate places they can protest the war and gays, like the Pentagon and San Francisco, respectively, but doing so at a funeral for a fallen soldier is not one of them.

    23. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      This person is selling this service with over the phone consultation. I don't normally charge my friends for phone calls.

    24. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      Sure it does.
      It applies here just as much as it applies to my making a website spouting WhitePowerBS(tm) and my other website decrying WhitePowerBS(tm) in the most profane ways possible.
      It applies here just as much as my gripe site about gripe sites, my gripe site about insurance companies, etc.
      It applies here just as much as it does for the PTA website for the school my kids go to.

      The First Amendment guarantees your ability to say darn near anything you want. Doesn't mean you won't be held liable for the outcomes of that speech (i.e. in the WhitePowerBS(tm) site if you manage to provoke a race riot, you're in some really hot water)...
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    25. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      I was just speaking as to the applicability of the First Amendment to the states in general. In this particular case the guy clearly states that he's not a dietitian and that he has no formal credentials, but accepting money for his services is definitely going to make it hard for him to argue against the state's reasoning.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    26. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by alphax45 · · Score: 2

      He said Google!

      --
      K Man
    27. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Nah, I think it's the schools.
      The disparity of quality of education at schools is amazing, even within the same school district.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    28. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      How will you define funeral?

    29. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand someone doing something stupid like deciding to forego certain medications (in this case Metformin, Insulin, whatever) in favor of some holistic thing, but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      Um, I'm sure the late Steve Jobs has admitted to trying to practice holistic medicine in an attempt to cure his cancer, which delayed actual surgery so by the time he had it, it was too late.

      Now, it may not be a random blog that advocated that, but I'd say that if Jobs wasn't willing to get cancer surgery for years, then it's not an absurd thought at all.

      Hell, people believe in creationism/intelligent design/"scientific controversy", Obama wasn't born in the US (still), Obama is a Muslim, etc. Even idiotic blog posts from a no-name, as long as they confirm our beliefs, will have a higher "pull" than respected articles that contradict our beliefs.

    30. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For example, from that document you linked:

      Unlicensed persons can encourage (so long as they do not counsel) clients to follow diet plans recommended to the client by licensed dietitian/nutritionist or other medical professional. . . .

      What's the difference between "encouraging" and "counseling" in this context?

    31. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic with Crooksey when they should have had their ankle amputated

      Let me quote something displayed in bold faced lettering on each and every page of this fellers web site:

      âoeI am not a doctor, dietitian, nor nutritionist ⦠in fact I have no medical training of any kind.â

      Wake me up when he misrepresents himself.

      Assume the guy is a crackpot and assume everything he says is wrong. I would rather live in a society man enough to tolerate crackpots than deal with the consequences of a government that (effectivly) outlaws speech or seeks to fault everyone else for the poor choices and misfortunes of the individual.

      He is not a lawyer and not pretending to be one. If his disclaimer is worthless then so should EVERYONE elses.

    32. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your rainwater and grain alcohol, Mr. Riper.

    33. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by krinderlin · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have no idea.

      Co-worker: Didn't Obama pass some law getting rid of my payroll tax?

      Me: Uh...Congress passes laws.

      Co-worker: No they don't. The president passes laws. Congress just votes on which ones they suggest to the President.

      Me: I think you're confusing veto powers. Those can be overridden, you know. Though, in the current climate, it really would never happen. However, Obama can't pass a law that Congress didn't vote through.

      Co-worker: Yes he can!

      Me: I'm sure the Supreme Court would beg to differ.

      Co-worker: They just raise a big fuss when the President passes a law the Constitutional [sic] says he can't pass.

      Me: And you have a degree?

      Co-worker: Yeah, in Business!

      I'd say something along the lines of "God help us all". However, I stopped believing in God a long time ago. This is mostly because of conversations like this.

    34. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Speech is protected by the First Ammendment. Business is not so protected.

      So, you can say what you want, but that doesn't mean you can legally charge money for saying whatever you want.

    35. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Desler · · Score: 1

      Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is a pretty old concept, bro. The States have been held to the first amendment since the ruling in Gitlow v. New York from 87 years ago.

    36. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I went to school in the 80s, and as my family moved around a lot, I got to go to many different schools growing up. I completely agree with this. There's very little consistency between public schools in this country. If you go to one in an upper-middle-class district, you can get a perfectly decent education, whereas if you go to one on the other side of town where the poor kids are, you won't learn anything in that school.

    37. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Desler · · Score: 1

      Then you went to a crappy school. I learned about it in US history class and a US government class.

    38. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Compaqt · · Score: 2

      Wait, what's the limit of that argument?

      When you write a book, you charge money for it, right? You're saying the 1st amendment only protects free flyers that you hand out?

      And that Alabama could ban Black Entertainment Television because they're charging for it?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    39. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Peristaltic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      I would tend to agree with you, but on the other hand I've heard of people doing just that kind of thing. For instance, a neurologist friend of mine had recently been seeing an unusual number (5, over 3 weeks) of people being admitted for symptoms and signs resembling Myasthenia Gravis and MS in his rural hospital.

      After spending a fair amount of time investigating, turns out that these people sought out a "practitioner" in the community that injected them with fluid pulled from some ungodly mixture of ground up pig brains... never heard what it was they were trying to treat. The patients ended up with neurological autoimmune disorders and are not in very good shape. I'm not making this up, either- It took forever for doctors and authorities to figure out what happened, as the patients were concerned that the practitioner would be prosecuted, so were reluctant to talk.

      Then there's the recent case of an individual in Houston jailed for injecting some mixture (including caulk) into her customers' butt cheeks to plump up their rear ends.

      Take Steve Jobs- from what I read, had he undergone a pancreatic Whipple procedure immediately after his cancer diagnosis instead of waiting 10 months while first trying "naturopathic" remedies, he likely would have had more time in a better state of health before succumbing to his disease- not a sure thing, but it was the opinion of several doctors that worked on him that he would have been much better off avoiding the naturopathic approach as a first option. I can't fault someone trying -anything- as a last resort, after other, more proven options have failed, but to seek out naturopathy or homeopothy as a primary treatment?

      Never underestimate human stupidity.

    40. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      How would you define it?

    41. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Endovior · · Score: 1

      'Counseling' implies more time being spent in the process. Also, money.

    42. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Tmann72 · · Score: 1

      Chemtrails eh. Go jump on that conspiracy theory bandwagon some more. What a stupid theory.

    43. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Tmann72 · · Score: 1

      What a dumb question. I think any dictionary would make this fairly clear.

    44. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by SirWhoopass · · Score: 1

      'Counseling' implies more time being spent in the process. Also, money.

      I disagree. I believe that counseling implies giving advice regarding the diet plan. Someone who counsels would be altering the plan in some fashion... eat more of X, less of Y, you can still eat ice cream every other day, etc.

      Encouraging would mean to be supportive about following the prescribed plan, but not altering the plan.

    45. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by bdenton42 · · Score: 1
      Yes, the dictionary definition is fine.
      • funeral
      • 1. a ceremony at which a dead person is buried or cremated
      • 2. a procession of people escorting a corpse to burial

      I think it would be more difficult to define "protest". Several of the recent Westboro activities has incited counter-protests... but I'm ok with those being banned as well. You're either a party to the funeral service, or you just really don't belong there.

    46. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Whether it's fair or not, local, state, and federal governments regulate business, and this is overtly allowed by the US Constitution, the state constitutions, and local government charters. The various governments do, in fact, impose restrictions on businesses that the Bill of Rights would not allow for individual citizens.

    47. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nigelo · · Score: 1

      FTFA: The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee.

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    48. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is he's merely providing diet advice, which is not medical advice.

      Most religions provide diet advice. They virtually all ban pork, for instance. Does that make religion illegal in NC?

    49. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I get what you're saying. It's just an interesting thought experience to think what the limit of that would be.

      And also how certain state governments might want to get around to banning violent video games (a perennial Slashdot topic), because they're charging for it.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    50. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Hmm, ok. Now try to think of ways to weasel that definition to mean whatever you want. Protest is a good one too.

      Well. The first problem with your definition is the WBC could still protest "body not present" (not sure what the real word for this is) funerals. So we would need to fix it to account for that.

    51. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by ajlisows · · Score: 2

      To be fair, there are plenty of people who have their children skip vaccines on the word of Jenny Mccarthy. People will listen to whatever advice sounds good to them.

    52. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      From what I have seen of his recommendations they could easily cause hypoglycemia, a potentially fatal condition.

      Are you qualified to assess this?

      To suggest that this or that "could" result in that or this? I'd argue that most of us are.

    53. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't, they provide me with so much entertainment! I mean, would you want to live in a world where the crazy people weren't allowed to talk? Who would you make fun of?

      Everybody get so angry at them, but that just fuels their fires. You know how to kill the Westboro Baptists? Cunning wit and subtle mockery!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    54. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Declan McCullagh doesn't understand the way the First Amendment works in this country. It doesn't protect you from prosecution if you go into a bank and say, "This is a stickup." It doesn't protect you from from prosecution if you say, "I'll sell you this drug which will cure your cancer for $1,000," when you're not a doctor and the drug doesn't cure cancer.

      Courts draw a fairly clear line between OTOH publishing a book or magazine article or having a discussion with a friend over dinner, and OTOH offering yourself to the public as an expert, giving specific advice to individuals about their specific conditions, and charging money for it. According to TFA, Steve Cooksey crossed that line. They're giving him a chance to stop, and he better take it. I'm sure he's sincere, but sincere stupid people do a lot of damage.

      Doctors have to draw the same line. When are they treating a patient, and when are they just giving general advice, as they do when they write a book, teach a class or discuss a case with a colleague in the cafeteria?

      That comes up a lot in malpractice cases. A patient can sue a doctor if they have a doctor-patient relationship, but not when the doctor was simply giving educational advice.

      A doctor is treating someone as a patient when he asks questions about the patient's specific conditions, gives specific advice, and (especially) charges money for advice.

      (Here's an article about that on Medscape, with a free but annoying signin required http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759163?src=ptalk)

      It sounds like Steve Cooksey was soliciting questions about peoples' specific conditions, giving specific advice, and taking money for his advice in the treatment of diabetes. That's the practice of medicine.

      Diabetes is a medical condition. It's not like being a life coach.

      If diabetes is treated right, you're often likely to live a long, reasonably healthy life. If it's not treated right, you can die, lose a foot, go blind, and get strokes (which are sometimes worse than death). Lots of people (including children) with diabetes have died because they (or their parents) refused conventional medicine.

      That includes diet. In diabetes, diet is a serious business.

      North Carolina decided that they didn't want to let anybody without medical qualifications put up a web site and advertise that they're treating a medical condition. You can't practice medicine without a license. That's the legislature's right. We settled that at the beginning of the 20th Century. It doesn't violate the First Amendment.

    55. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Wait, what's the limit of that argument?

      When you write a book, you charge money for it, right?

      The limit is when a specific person gives you the details of his medical problem, and you give him detailed advice on treating it, especially as part of a business.

      When you write a book, you can give any medical advice you want. That's general advice. If you let people call you up, and you gave them specific advice on how to apply your book to their medical condition, that would be the practice of medicine. That would go beyond the limit.

    56. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You would MURDER someone with the authority of the state for saying things you dont like? interesting philosophy.

      --
      Good-bye
    57. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2

      The second he bills someone for his advice he become subject to consumer protection laws. Up until that point he violated no law, but by charging for his services, he is in fact making claims contrary to his disclaimer, which is a form of misrepresentation. He is being charged for violating consumer protection law, not for as you put it "being a crackpot".

      I frequently rail against the nanny-state, but in this particular case the power of the government is being used appropriately in my opinion. Maybe it's because I have a PhD in nutrition that I view their response as appropriate. There are thousands of people out there who give bad nutritional advice because in a lot of places a license is NOT require to act a nutritionist. Anyone can call themself a nutritionist in many states without objection by the state, and I've seen the problems this situation can create. The FUD spread by many of these charletons is very damaging.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    58. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The problem is he's merely providing diet advice, which is not medical advice.

      For a diabetic, diet advice is medical advice.

      Doctors hire dieticians for their practice.

      There are scientific studies about what works and what doesn't.

    59. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      A Capital offense? I'd hate to have you hold any public office.

      That said, I'd love to see those assholes be struck by lightning at one of their "protests" -- and I'm a Christian. Those people are NOT Christians and do not follow Christ. Christians do NOT believe that "God hates fags", we believe that God loves everyone.

      Fred Phelps is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and his followers follow him at peril of their very souls. While he's worried about what gays are doing, he's breaking God's commandment against making one's self look like a woman, by cutting off a secondary sexual characteristic every day. He's a damned hypocrite.

      I believe he's in it for the money.

    60. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "So I think the board is trying to do Crooksey a favor because here's what's going to happen. Someone is going to die after telling their family members that they've stopped seeing a regular doctor and went holistic"

      Sure, that's the kind of nonsense I'd expect to hear from a lawyer in court who doesn't know anything about science.

      Fortunately the defense is easy. You bring in a dozen articles from some journals of evolutionary biology and point it "that's what we've eaten for hundreds of thousands of years".

      This isn't magnetic bracelets of homeopathy, this is actually based on established science. You'd know that if you'd read any.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    61. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 2

      That PDF is worth reading carefully. You cross the line when you provide individualized services to treat diabetes:

      Persons who are not licensed to practice dietetics/nutrition in North Carolina can provide general non-medical nutrition information. Nutrition Information is defined in 21 NCAC 17.0402 as nonfraudulent nutrition information related to food, food materials, or dietary supplements which is designed for one or more healthy population groups and is based on valid scientific evidence, reports, and studies. Nutrition information is not based on an individual nutrition assessment as referenced in G.S. 90-352 or medical nutrition therapy as referenced in 21 NCAC 17.0101(11) and is not individualized to provide nutrition care services to prevent, manage, treat, cure or rehabilitate a medical condition, illness, or injury for a specific person or group as referenced in G.S. 90-352 and 21 NCAC 17.0101(12).

    62. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 1

      There have been several cases of parents of children with diabetes who refused to follow conventional medicine, "treated" their children with prayer and diet, and the children died.

      They were prosecuted for child abuse, and often sent to jail, sometimes for long prison terms.

    63. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How would the people who enjoy BET feel is someone started WET? Why would WET be racist, but BET is not?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    64. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not. The reason the ADA recommendations are ignored is because they don't work, and they're more likely to lead to poor blood sugar control than not. The whole point of his advice is that it leads to better blood sugar control with less insulin need, which means less profit for sales of insulin by pharmaceutical companies with large campaign contribution war-chests.

      FTFY

      Just as with many laws and regulations governing hairdressers/beauticians/manicurists, they are designed to limit competition by putting up barriers to entry and/or protect established businesses' profits and business models.

      This is one of the reasons that the power and scope of government must be limited if we are to have anything remotely resembling freedom. If government has the power to do something, there will be someone trying to influence the politician(s) involved for their own gain. People in the US ~235 years ago understood this.

      Tragically, many today have never been taught this basic truth.

      The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. - Thomas Jefferson

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    65. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

      No, I was exaggerating for emphasis. Maybe sending them to Guantanamo would be more appropriate. :-)

    66. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      When you have diabetes you study it like the predator that it is.

      However if your advice/treatment is not validated by a double blind independently funded study you shouldn't bill for it. That goes for the tons of late nite TV ads for "cures this" for three easy payments(just pay shipping). The FDA should shut all these clowns up if they charge any fees. But they usually don't because the advertisers need the money.

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    67. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      There have been several cases of parents of children with diabetes who refused to follow conventional medicine, "treated" their children with prayer and diet, and the children died.

      I've met people like this in churches. One woman with cancer requested an "annointing" (where oil was poured over her head) rather then go with Chemo. Despite being a practicing Christian myself, I think this is patently ridiculous, and harmful to the faith-It's just another reason that so many of the "washed masses" (see what I did there ;) ) think that all Christians are idiots.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    68. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by pseudofrog · · Score: 1

      Black people, in case you haven't noticed, are a minority. Issues that are especially important to a minority won't draw viewers on most channels. BET fills that void.

    69. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They're about to become the #3 minority instead of the #2 as well, should be interesting, will we see the S(panish)ET channel next?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    70. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I miss the days when a story like this would bring out "Dr. Bob"

    71. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I just did a quick literature search and saw nothing about paleo-diets causing death in diabetics. This guy has been posting FUD about it throughout this thread.

    72. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't see how it makes it a "nutrition advice business", unless he is getting the money directly from his customers for giving direct and explicit advice on what they should eat.

      Really, that's just basic common sense.

    73. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by jesseck · · Score: 1

      Post to undo moderation, your comment is funny.

    74. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by oursland · · Score: 1

      In your scenario the choice is being made for the children by the parents. However, TFA describes a situation where people voluntarily alter their behavior, with potential detriment. That is a grand canyon of a gap to jump to equate the two.

    75. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Business plan:

      • Make a product (which we call Widget) that people are attracted to
      • Offer Widget for free
      • Sell ad space on Widget
      • Profit!

      If the Widget in question is a nutrition plan, we have the business model of one Steve Cooksey, and "common sense" dictates that he's not in the nutrition advice business.

      If the Widget in question is a suite of web-based applications, we have the business model of Google, and "common sense" dictates that they aren't in the software business.

      If the Widget in question is a news aggregator, we have the business model of Slashdot, and "common sense" dictates that they aren't in the social media business.

      This strikes me as a rather uncommon form of "common sense", where being in a business is dependent on that business being your revenue source.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    76. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by flonker · · Score: 1

      The rule of thumb is that as long as the decision to regulate speech is not based on the content of that speech, you're OK.

    77. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I can understand someone doing something stupid like deciding to forego certain medications (in this case Metformin, Insulin, whatever) but skipping surgery based on what some random dude on a blog says? C'mon, you're flirting with argumentum ad absurdum there.

      Untreated diabetes can lead to complications which require lower limb amputation. A solicitor could argue that the "advice" regarding "treatment" given on this blog may well have resulted in the diabetes sufferer not seeking professional medical advice for a life-threatening complication, as they believed they were already treating the condition.

      Furthermore, I'm no lawyer, but I don't know how much legal protection those "disclaimers" will get you. If I say "I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, but..." and then continue to give what certainly looks, to the lay man, like legal advice, is the 10-word-disclaimer sufficient protection? I am dubious.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    78. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Try reading up about the 14th Ammendment

      I did, and I got this:

      Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Fourteenth Ammendment to the United States Constitution in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

              Search for "Fourteenth Ammendment to the United States Constitution" in existing articles.
              Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

      Other reasons this message may be displayed:

              If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function.
              Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
              If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?.
              Alternatively, you might just be a fucking idiot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    79. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the late Steve Jobs has admitted to trying to practice holistic medicine in an attempt to cure his cancer, which delayed actual surgery so by the time he had it, it was too late.

      So even quacks and charlatans have their good side?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    80. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If I say "I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, but..." and then continue to give what certainly looks, to the lay man, like legal advice, is the 10-word-disclaimer sufficient protection? I am dubious.

      Put a disclaimer stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclaimer stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclaimer stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclainner stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclairner stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclaimer stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclaïmer stating that you're not a lawyer before the disclaimer stating that yoùre not a lawyer before the disclaimer stating that you're not a lawyer beföre the disclaimer stating that you're not a lawyer

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    81. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Well, I just went to the link in my post, which worked. I then looked in the second paragraph, and followed the link "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment", and that also worked for me. I don't know why it's not working for you. Either way, I'm sure you can easily search for it.

    82. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Declan McCullagh doesn't understand the way the First Amendment works in this country. It doesn't protect you from prosecution if you go into a bank and say, "This is a stickup."

      That is armed robbery.

      Now it's up to you to conflate unlicensed nutritional advice from "someone who's been there" with armed robbery.

      This is a neglected area of study with a poor track record that often gets viewed as a joke by laymen. So treating it as a protected class profession is beyond absurd.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    83. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Yes. A funeral is a private thing. If you aren't invited then you are trespassing and can be treated as such.

      It's a shame you couldn't just use trespassing laws.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    84. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's still a bogus line.

      Look up the curriculum required for this certification. It's a joke. It's the very essence of underwater basket weaving. You could get more out of a weekend seminar.

      You could take the one meaningful text book in the entire relevant BA program and just study that and be as competent as anyone with a "license".

      If anything, being subject to indoctrination of the current establishment in these matters is a hinderance rather than a help. You're better off NOT being licensed and having a broader perspective on these matters.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    85. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment doesn't protect you from from prosecution if you say, "I'll sell you this drug which will cure your cancer for $1,000," when you're not a doctor and the drug doesn't cure cancer.

    86. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Did you look up the curriculum required for this certification?

      http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Healthcare/Dietitians-and-nutritionists.htm

      Education

      Most dietitians and nutritionists have earned a bachelor’s degree in dietetics, foods and nutrition, food service systems management, or a related area. Programs include courses in nutrition, physiology, chemistry, and biology.
      Training

      Dietitians and nutritionists typically participate in several hundred hours of supervised training, usually in the form of an internship following graduation from college. However, some programs in dietetics include this training as part of the coursework.

      Many dietitians and nutritionists have advanced degrees.

      It sounds like you don't know what a nutritionist is. You're confusing them with restaurant chefs or natural food store salesmen.

      Nutritionists who deal with diabetes work for doctors,

      A friend of mine just told me that she couldn't eat lettuce because she was taking warfarin. Lettuce, which has vitamin K, would counteract the warfarin and cause internal bleeding. It could kill her. A lot of foods have interactions with commonly-prescribed drugs. Nutritionists have to know things like that.

      There's so much bullshit going on in nutrition that nutritionists need a good background in science to know what to trust.

    87. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by bigredpaul · · Score: 1

      We have those already, in the form of Univision, and Galavision, etc.

    88. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's a tautology. "I am not a nutritionist" is a false statement when he is accepting money to give nutritional advice as a medical treatment. If "I am not a murderer" is said by someone who kills someone, should they be let free because laws against murder only apply to murderers?

      He is a nutritionist because he solicits money for nutritional advice to treat a medical condition. Claiming otherwise won't affect that. Just like you can't open a salon with a "no licensed cosmetologists on staff" sign out front, you can't be a nutritionist without a license. And he is.

    89. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      WET? Are you sure you didn't misspell CBS, NBC or ABC? We have WET now, it's just not called that.

    90. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Univision and Telemundo do transmit in the US, so the future is 1980 (or earlier, I didn't watch Sabado Gigante until the '80s, I was too young before, but there was probably a Spanish channel before that.).

    91. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hmm, ok. Now try to think of ways to weasel that definition to mean whatever you want.

      Given that most "funerals" for protestable deaths are memorial services, and not funerals, I don't think much weaseling would be necessary. And, as you said, many don't even have a body to bury.

  6. That's NC for you by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Funny

    First in flight, 48th in education...

    Am I the only one not surprised by this?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:That's NC for you by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      And apparently 14th in fat.

    2. Re:That's NC for you by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      It's usually SAT or ACT scores. The problem with comparing that to other states is that NC has a constitutional provision that the state is required to insure education is available to all. We have extremely low college tuition (relatively), and encourage (push even) all students to take the entrance tests. The results is that NC average score are brought down by a lot of average students taking the tests on the off chance that they might want to go on to higher education, whereas other states only having the most prepared students taking them knowing that they have to make good scores to get a scholarship.

      Statistical nonsense.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:That's NC for you by Calos · · Score: 1

      Even the "first in flight" is tenuous, considering they had nothing to do with aviation coming of age. The Wright brothers just decided to try their plane there, the research and designs and everything else having been done in Ohio.

      They're "first in flight" in the same way that Japan was the "first in nuclear energy."

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    4. Re:That's NC for you by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Without more info, that statistic is just sensational.

      It's a bumper sticker, not a statistic.

      Learn the difference or be doomed to ignorance.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:That's NC for you by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the Wright Brothers were beaten to it by some Aussie dude.

  7. IANAL equivalent by Essequemodeia · · Score: 1

    Seems to me if he just included the dietary equivalent of IANAL in his signature he could sidestep most of this criticism. Such as: "I am not a licensed nutritional expert, but I do have experience and common sense, and I think..."

    1. Re:IANAL equivalent by dryriver · · Score: 1

      At the bottom of his blog it says: "I am not a doctor, dietitian nor nutritionist in fact I have no medical training of any kind. If I can figure this out so should they if it wasn’t for their A) Intellectual Laziness B) Willful ignorance C) Greed D) All of the Above :)"

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    2. Re:IANAL equivalent by geekoid · · Score: 1

      All he has to do is to stop charging for nutritional advice, and have the disclaimer.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. Nutrition Blog by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Funny

    A nutrition blog
    Is a horrible slog.
    Go straight razor smooth,
    Get some barbecued hog!
    Burma Shave

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  9. Sweet, I'm a practicing therapist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I tell people to pull their heads out of their asses quite a bit. Do I need a license for that?

    1. Re:Sweet, I'm a practicing therapist by gnick · · Score: 1

      Only if you charge for it. How do I get that job?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:Sweet, I'm a practicing therapist by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Only if you offer to do it for a fee. Doing it for fun, on the other hand, is just "being helpful".

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  10. Sometimes I Like the Ads by El+Torico · · Score: 1

    I particularly like all of the "Become and Nutritionist" and "Become a Health Coach" ads that I see with this story. By the way, what the hell is a "Health Coach"? How many players are there on a "Heath Team"? Is there a professional league? What do they call the finals?

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    1. Re:Sometimes I Like the Ads by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of "professions" being advertised that are pretty iffy.
      BTW, you're wrong on both counts. I'm married and my BMI is at the upper end of "normal". You're not the Amazing Kreskin, and not even close.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:Sometimes I Like the Ads by Pope · · Score: 1

      "Nutritionist" is not a protected employment category in most places, since there is no qualification needed to become one.
      "Dietitian/Registered Dietitian" is a protected class, licensed by governments with actual education requirements.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Sometimes I Like the Ads by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  11. All over by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    My psych prof in college had to be careful not to use "Dr." as a title on anything in NYS, even though he had a valid doctorate in psychology. I believe it had something to do with the doctorate not being in clinical psychology or somesuch.

    Although I can see these rules being for consumer protection, many of them are poorly implemented.

  12. Long arm of the law ... ? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    The server appears to be in Utah, not North Carolina. Certainly Provo isn't within the NC Board of Nutrition's jurisdiction.

  13. all for a FAQ by mounthood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They call a FAQ a 'assessing and counseling readers' because it answers questions. From the article:

    Where it crosses the line, Burill said, is when a blogger “advertises himself as an expert” and “takes information from someone such that he’s performing some sort of assessment and then giving it back with some sort of plan or diet.”

    Cooksey posted a link (6.3 MB PDF download) to the board’s review of his website. The document shows several Web pages the board took issue with, including a question-and-answer page, which the director had marked in red ink noting the places he was “assessing and counseling” readers of his blog.

    “If people are writing you with diabetic specific questions and you are responding, you are no longer just providing information — you are counseling,” she wrote. “You need a license to provide this service."

    The board also found fault with a page titled “My Meal Plan,” where Cooksey details what he eats daily.

    In red, Burril writes, “It is acceptable to provide just this information [his meal plan], but when you start recommending it directly to people you speak to or who write you, you are now providing diabetic counseling, which requires a license.”

    The board also directed Cooksey to remove a link offering one-on-one support, a personal-training type of service he offered for a small fee.

    Cooksey posts the following disclaimer at the bottom of every page on his website:

    “I am not a doctor, dietitian, nor nutritionist in fact I have no medical training of any kind.”

    The idea that only licensed people can discuss a subject that everyone is familiar with is like the freak flip-side to 'teach the controversy'; instead of forcing people to disseminate wrong information, they've decided that only government licensed counselors speak the truth.

    --
    tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    1. Re:all for a FAQ by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      they've decided that only government licensed counselors speak the truth.

      And it gets downright entertaining when you have the licensed elite battling it out between themselves. Some cardiologists recommend diets that are in direct opposition to what some dietitians would tell you, for instance.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    2. Re:all for a FAQ by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Anyone can discuss it, but not everyone should be allowed to charge for it.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:all for a FAQ by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Everyone is familiar with driving, does that make you qualified to design and submit plans for roadway construction?

      State licensing boards exist for very good reasons, these often involved severe harm to people decades ago when the laws were passed. The example in the article header is manicures, but did you know if that if you don't know what you are doing with a manicure that you could give someone an infection that could require that their fingers be amputated because you made a very stupid but easily avoided mistake because you weren't licensed? Are you aware that there are people out there right now without hands because they got a manicure from an unlicensed practitioner?

      There is a reason for this licensing, diabete's is a very serious disease that if not managed will kill the person. Don't get me wrong, there is a boundary here where the guy should be able to talk about his experiences, but when he starts advocating and offering paid advice he's branched very far into the realm of licensed work and he better be damn careful because that licensing board might have the legal ability to put him in jail.

    4. Re:all for a FAQ by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      1) What city built a roadway using some random guy's plans? Perhaps politicians should be licensed to make decisions.

      2 )The person getting a manicure can avoid the infection problem by being aware of, and demanding common sanitary practices.

      Really, these aren't real problems.

    5. Re:all for a FAQ by mounthood · · Score: 1

      This is NOT a public safety issue: he doesn't claim to be licensed. People can talk about anything, and ask money for any kind of talk. (With the usual exclusions of Sedition/Libel/etc...) That's free speech. Here's an analogy discussing the law:

      * People cannot pretend to be lawyers when they aren't, regardless of any money involved.
      * People can give legal advice, whether they're a lawyer or not. If they're a lawyer, then they have extra obligations and restrictions.
      * People can charge for legal advice, whether they're a lawyer or not. If they're a lawyer, then they have extra obligations and restrictions.

      The second one should be obvious: you can tell your friends what you think about legal situations. If last one seems wrong it's because the phrase "legal advice" is generally used to mean advice given by a lawyer, rather than advice given on the subject of law. People are paid to give advice on the law all the time. If you want examples: a CEO asking the board if they can win a lawsuit, or asking a stock broker what the tax implications might be, or a chef telling a restaurant manager what the law demands in terms of sanitation standards. The people giving advice aren't pretending to be lawyers, they are talking about the law, and they are getting paid to do so.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    6. Re:all for a FAQ by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      People can talk about anything, and ask money for any kind of talk. ...That's free speech.

      That's an interesting definition of "free".

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  14. Re:We voted for it by geekoid · · Score: 1

    because Obama run NC now?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Gillian McKeith by iB1 · · Score: 1

    Can someone PLEASE threaten to shut down Gillian McKeith in the UK? Please please please! That woman is a quack of the highest order!

  16. Kevin Trudeau would complain by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    this would also clear out considerable space from the average bookstore's health section.

    Trudeau would have to get a real job rather than claiming "The Man" is trying to keep "free" cancer cures secret from the public and harassing him.

    After all, Big Government is in cahoots with Big Pharma so people are bled dry using tested and approved medicines rather than "vitamin" pills to cure cancer.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:Kevin Trudeau would complain by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      After all, Big Government is in cahoots with Big Pharma so people are bled dry using tested and approved medicines rather than "vitamin" pills to cure cancer.

      Appropriate political cartoon

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  17. The rantings of a lone datapoint by goffster · · Score: 1

    Just because one person did something and got well does not, in any way, imply
    that it works, or is even a good idea for the population as a whole.

    It is exactly this kind of stuff the general public is very susceptible to,
    and needs protection from, so kudos to North Carolina.

  18. Quick Fix... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 2

    All they have to do is place a disclaimer on the site that says "I am not a practicing nutritionist. The following nutrition tips are for entertainment only. Please consult with your North Carolina Practicing Nutritionist before following anything on this site."

    Crisis deverted.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  19. What are his qualifications? by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    Is he qualified to do what he is doing? Does this guy have a degree in nutrition or certification from a third party? Is he running a business? To put it bluntly, how do I know that he isn't a crackpot?

    They want this guy to prove he isn't a crackpot in offering what is effectively medical advice. How is this a free speech issue? I'm not a doctor, so I have no place being in a business offering medical advice. The entire point of having things like certification boards is to keep people like this person from simply hanging a sign and going into business without the necessary qualifications.

    If this person is qualified, than I'm much more inclined to think that the state can bugger off.

    1. Re:What are his qualifications? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Define "qualified".

      For a generation we have had the federal government propagandizing a food pyramid in our schools that we now know is about the worst diet you could possibly eat (high in grains, low in proteins). How the hell is the government qualified to make a determination of who is qualified?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:What are his qualifications? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Whether or not he's a crackpot has very little to do with anything. He isn't claiming to be a certified anything. In fact his site has a disclaimer at the bottom of every page stating that he isn't. So it should be obvious to anyone taking his advice that's he just an ordinary person offering advice.

      It's a free speech issue because the state is claiming a monopoly on speech that is deemed to be advice. Which is bogus. He isn't commiting fraud, libeling or slandering anyone, so why should his speech be restricted. Does the state of North Carolina actively prosecute Christian Scientist's for saying that medicine is useless and it's all in the sick persons head as practicing medicine without a licenese?

    3. Re:What are his qualifications? by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      You make an excellent point on the food pyramid, I can't argue that one at all. In a case like the food pyramid example where politics were put above science (meat is politically bad, therefore let's try to have people eat very little of it) there needs to be accountability. The need for accountability doesn't change my point though.

      For the average lay person they need to have a way of knowing whether or not someone is qualified without having to a SME themselves. For that the lay person needs to be able to rely the qualifying agency to put needs above politics. It is simply not reasonable to ask each person to be an expert in all the things they might encounter, is that bridge safe, is that food safe, is that doctor qualified, is that car safe and so on.

    4. Re:What are his qualifications? by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      So you have government agencies fueled by the political profit machine of grains, corn, and drugs determining the curriculum for certified nutrition experts and dieticians. These certified dieticians can preach high carb, low fat OR high fat, low carb - whichever they want (but they are TAUGHT high carb, low fat)

      And you have a guy who makes a website, explicitly says - I am not certified nor a doctor but this is what worked for me and a fuckton of other people - and he gets in trouble.

      I think California has similar laws about not being able to make "food plans" for people unless you're certified... so if that is what he was doing... I guess he should be punished - but it's disheartening. I have to wonder, though - Would he get in trouble if he were spreading the ADA misinformation they preach?
      If not... then he needs to be let off the hook.

    5. Re:What are his qualifications? by swb · · Score: 1

      The politics of the USA Food Pyramid isn't about meat being bad, but about the large and profitable agribusiness sector that wants to insure a market for its high-margin grain crops.

      That being said, it would have never made it on politics alone if the medical community wasn't firmly in the grasp of the "dietary fat and cholesterol are bad for you" paradigm, which has never been scientifically proven. There was some preliminary research which indicated a possible link between dietary fat and cholesterol in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the medical community got behind it 100% and refused to let go.

      Now that reputations and entire careers based are based on this paradigm, it's really hard to let go of it, despite a lack of scientific proof linking dietary cholesterol and fat to heart disease and a scientifically proven understanding of insulin's role in fat deposition and inhibiting fat burning.

      Further there is increasing evidence that eating a diet high in fat, moderate in protein and very low in carbohydrates is actually good for you. It's been amply demonstrated in clinical settings that eating this kind of diet results in near effortless weight loss (other than the effort to not inhale baskets of chips or candy) without exercise along with accompanying improvements in metabolic risk factors (high blood pressure, elevated blood sugar).

      But such evidence runs counter to the paradigm and those vested in the "high carb, low fat" paradigm resist this because they look wrong and in many cases it can damage careers and status when they have been pushing the wrong "cure".

    6. Re:What are his qualifications? by swb · · Score: 1

      http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html

      Stanford ran a comparison of various diets, including Atkins, and Atkins beat the other diets by 2:1 or better in terms of weight loss, and one of the diets was a traditional high carb, low fat "starvation" diet.

      That's one of the better trials, but much of the rest isn't "scientific" studies per say but clinical experience with patients who actually use the diets.

      http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/low_carb_diet_effective_at_lowering_blood_pressure

      This one refer specifically to blood pressure, although there's a guy at Duke (whose name escapes me) running a weight loss clinic using a low carb diet.

      For even better reading and the science involved, you could read:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

      Another article on a related topic by the same author, Gary Taubes:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

      Check out his two books, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat" for detailed, well-annotated scientific explanations of low carb, high fat diets specifically.

    7. Re:What are his qualifications? by swb · · Score: 1

      There's little to believe why a diet that minimizes fat deposition isn't good for people who have a healthy weight.

      Prior to the mid-20th century, most Inuit ate a traditional diet which was 60-75% fat, and the rest protein with a small quantity of carbohydrates, mainly from either seaweed or berries.

      According to Taubes' book, cancer was so unknown among the Inuit that when one did develop it, it made the medical journals. Now their cancer rates are on par with non-Inuit since they have adopted a "Western" high carb diet.

      A ketogenic (aka low carb diet) is used on children who have epilepsy untreatable with drugs and about a third of them stop having seizures at all and the next third are easily treatable with medications.

      This leads Taubes to speculate on a possible link between a high carb diet and Alzheimer's disease, although no specific research has been done. Taubes does note that the large increases in Alzheimer's in recent history does dovetail with the epidemic of obesity, which is closely tied to the medical community's adoption of a low-fat, high-carb dietary paradigm.

  20. How is this different from any licensing? by trout007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no difference between this and licensed doctors, engineers, lawyers, ect.

    These should all be voluntarily organizations. So if you want to see a real doctor you can find one that has AMA accreditation. But if you want to see a witch doctor, herbal specialist, or chiropractor go ahead. It's your body.

    Now if someone claims to have AMA accreditation when they don't that is committing fraud.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:How is this different from any licensing? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      It seems to me this IS the current situation.

      Some of these fraudulent alternative "doctors" have even convinced state legislators to pass laws requiring insurers reimburse care by these quacks.

    2. Re:How is this different from any licensing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The AMA doesn't license physicians. US physicians are licensed through the National Board of Medical Examiners and the Federation of State Medical Boards. The American Medical Association is a national professional group designed to lobby for physician's interests, publish articles and guidance documents for medical professionals, and make health policy recommendations. It is not necessary to be an AMA member to be a licensed and practicing physician.

      One should remember that not all licensing or accrediting bodies are created equal, and merely being a member of an exclusive club does not mean you are any more qualified than another individual with equal or greater experience and education. That being said, most aforementioned witch doctors, herbal specialists, or chiropractors have neither credible license, accreditation, education, experience, or any qualification worth more than three beans.

      A conscientious patient needs to learn some science, ask lots of questions, and always seek second or third opinions for concerning diagnoses or treatment protocols. This of course requires some personal responsibility on the part of the general public, which is often too much to ask for.

    3. Re:How is this different from any licensing? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      "go ahead. It's your body."

      Nope. The government disagrees with that.

    4. Re:How is this different from any licensing? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      My philosophical starting point is that people own their body and should be able to do whatever they want with it as long as they don't violate someone else's right to their body.

      What I am saying is you should be allowed to get whatever service you and another person agree upon. Now state legislators passing laws forcing insurance companies to cover anything is a violation of your and your insurance company's rights to enter into your own contract. The proper role of government would be to provide courts in case your insurance company did not live up to the terms of a contract you signed with them. Not to predetermine what should be in that contract.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    5. Re:How is this different from any licensing? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I know the AMA doesn't license physicians. What I am saying is that there should be no government licensing of any kind. Voluntarily organizations would build reputations. There used to be a time when Union workers were sought after because they helped train their own members and union members tended to be of a high quality. The problem is when force is used to either prevent people from working unless they have a license or member of a union or the opposite case when an employer is not allowed to require someone to join a union.

      These organizations would come and go based on how people value the opinion. Kind of like Amazon reviews, Angies List, Consumer Reports, CNET, ect.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  21. Re:We voted for it by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    It's never been considered 'freedom' to commit fraud.

  22. Some advice by kimvette · · Score: 2

    If you want to decrease your risk of diabetes, eat less sugar and exercise more.

    If you want to lower your blood pressure, eat less sugar, maintain proper electrolyte balance (doesn't necessarily mean less salt!), and exercise more. Also consider breathing/meditating exercises as well.

    If you want to lower your risk of cancer, particularly colon cancer, eat more blueberries, green leafy vegetables, garlic, and exercise more.

    If you want to decrease your LDL cholesterol levels, eat more oatmeal and olive oil (not together, that would be gross!), and exercise more.

    Take that, North Carolina! I just posted nutritional advice without a license!

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Some advice by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      You're not charging us $97 an hour to read it.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    2. Re:Some advice by Bobtree · · Score: 1

      Recommending exercise is not nutritional advice.

    3. Re:Some advice by swb · · Score: 1

      Exercise doesn't really contribute much here. Your body will just request more food to counter the increased caloric consumption.

      Decreasing your glycemic load is spot-on though.

    4. Re:Some advice by Seedy2 · · Score: 1

      If you want to decrease your risk of diabetes, eat less sugar and exercise more.

      If you want to lower your blood pressure, eat less sugar, maintain proper electrolyte balance (doesn't necessarily mean less salt!), and exercise more. Also consider breathing/meditating exercises as well.

      If you want to lower your risk of cancer, particularly colon cancer, eat more blueberries, green leafy vegetables, garlic, and exercise more.

      If you want to decrease your LDL cholesterol levels, eat more oatmeal and olive oil (not together, that would be gross!), and exercise more.

      Take that, North Carolina! I just posted nutritional advice without a license!

      Hey, what's wrong with oatmeal and olive oil?
      I eat my oatmeal savory, not sweet.
      Steel cut oats, garlic, ginger, and pepper to heat it up.
      Yummy bacon, Red Leicester cheese, and olive oil..
      Plus olive oil seems to help it not boil over in the microwave.

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
  23. Engineering by isopropanol · · Score: 2

    Just if you charge someone for designing a computer, not fixing.

  24. the farthest the law should reach here... by ClioCJS · · Score: 2
    Is that his customers should be required to sign something stating they understand he is not a doctor dispensing commonly-accepted medical advice.

    He shouldn't be censored, becuase we should be free to pay any person for any kind of advice we want. Freedom FROM licensing.

    We're allowed to think the world was created 6000 years ago -- and pay money to people who promote this idea. But apparently we're not allowed to follow people's advice. We're not smart enough to make our own decisions. The government should make them for us. That's what I'm getting out of this.

    Another phrase I hate: "the science is settled." That's what they said to Socrates, Galileo, the guy who discovered penicillin (too lazy to Google) etc ad nauseum. It kills me that the people for whom skepticism is (supposed to be) a way of life have such a habit of asking the rest of us to set aside all skepticism.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  25. Re:We voted for it by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    Then he should be arrested/sued for defrauding people. I didn't see anything about that in the story.

  26. Re:We voted for it by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Not only that but this is a "profession" that quite often changes it's tune and is currently responsible for the largest increase in obesity in human history.

    Burning all of these "licensed nutritionists" at that stake might not be such a bad idea.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  27. Epic Fail by Wovel · · Score: 1

    What a complete failure of a summary.

  28. Simple solution - Move to South Carolina by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1

    South Carolina doesn't recognize clinical nutritionists as licensed practitioners. Apparently, the only state that doesn't too. In this case though, it creates a loophole by proximity for this guy.

    --
    "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
  29. Re:We voted for it by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    This person is selling advice which he claims is superior to the consensus. Looking at some of the things he writes, in particular the attacks on the ADA diet it is pretty obvious that his advice can be very dangerous (could cause hypoglycemia).

    That is fraud IMHO.

  30. although it sounds bad by nimbius · · Score: 1

    in the summary its probably not. given north carolinas epidemic levels of obesity and uncontrolled diabetes, coupled with the fact that this guy was basically selling unqualified help online, i think this is an example of a pretty responsible state. Diabetes and obesity for that matter are slowly reducing the deep south to a population of blind motorized-cart parapalegics.

    so good start, NC. Next step, crack down on fast food and big box stores and stop pretending the unmitigated ability to eat yourself to death is a "right" enjoyed by the people.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  31. Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reading the comments here decrying the fact that an unlicensed person would write about nutrition is maddening.

    These license requirements are written by the same government that brought us the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and narrowly missed on SOPA. Also Vioxx, and school sponsored sugar bomb school lunches, with some whole grain. And apprently USDA inspections of student's brought lunches. It's the same. It's the same people, same motivations, same corruption, same everything.

    We know the MPAA and RIAA are self serving corps who will destroy anything and anyone to perserve their power and make another dollar. Everyone here knows that. But apparently we don't know enough about organizations like the AMA to realize that they are the same.

    They are out to protect the consumer or patient in the same way the MPAA is out to protect movie viewers. It's the same.

    1. Re:Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      They are out to protect the consumer or patient in the same way the MPAA is out to protect movie viewers. It's the same.

      One's trying to protect you from bad medical and nutritional advice, the other's trying to protect you from bad movies.

      </sarcasm>

      Both are failing. Hard.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by LocalH · · Score: 2

      No, the MPAA is trying to protect you from good movies so that you don't know that the majority of their dreck is made up of bad movies.

      Yeah, not really working well either, except within the unwashed masses.

      --
      FC Closer
    3. Re:Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Funny

      if someone dies from taking this unlicensed person's advice, who pays the health bills? That's right, the taxpayer!

    4. Re:Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      you're paying even if they don't die.... and your point is????

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    5. Re:Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      you can't name a single doctor that knows shit about nutrition. but they can give you an allergy pill whose only side effects are: anal bleeding, eczema, depression/suicidal thoughts (presumably an effect of the bloody shit-covered shingles on your ass), and death (presumably an effect of the depression). no reputable person who knows a single thing about nutrition would legalize aspartame as a "food additive" (that's right, originally classified as a poison until lobbyists fixed that).

      if you're interested in becoming healthy (or healthier) skip the doctor, go to the gym, and speak to a personal trainer. don't even ask about exercises yet, just ask about food and nutrition. they will have lots more to say than your doctor, guaranteed.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    6. Re:Suddenly Slashdot Readers are Sheep? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      if someone dies from taking this unlicensed person's advice, who pays the health bills? That's right, the taxpayer!

      If they seek medical attention, they probably don't die, in which case, the person who took ill-advised actions on account of poor suggestions. People take ill-advised actions all the time, whether the suggestion to do so is coming from another person or not. Unless you can prove this unlicensed person is giving advice, the advice is reckless harmful and unjustified, there's really no basis for government suggesting they have an authority to prevent someone from making general suggestions based on their personal experience available..

      If a person in danger doesn't seek medical attention, and as a result they seek emergency care but still die, their expenses may be a bit more. However, unless they are quite insolvent -- their estate has to cover the expenses -- that is, their estate will have a debt. Medical expenses trump most other debts; the medical provider gets paid before credit card companies, etc -- so if there's any real or personal property, life insurance, etc, the Medical expenses get paid not by the taxpayer, before their next of kin can get anything.

      One thing we know about anyone reading the blog regularly.... they have a computer and an internet connection......

  32. Or the other way around: GET A LICENSE by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Or he could do the opposite:

    Start again studying, get a license, and they stay a little longer in the academics and do some research in order to have a better picture of his theories and to have a little bit more data points than "1 single exemple: my self".

    From what I know (Medicine, but not nutritionnist), what he's doing does have some sense. It's not completely unlike the regiment that weight lifter and body builder are using to "dry out" their muscles. (Eating almost only proteins and no carbs). And we have plenty of data points proving that lots of proteins/no carbs hasn't been that much harmful to these athletes. And as (almost) no carbs are includined in this diet, diabetes is (almost) non relevant.

    Biologically:
    - Diabetes come from difficulties processing sugar. Either because not enough insuline is produced (Type 1 - onset in youngs) or because the body doesn't react to insuline anymore. Sugar stays in the blood instead of getting inside cells which need it. High concentration of sugar are directly and indirectly damaging. And the sugar-starved cells start to use alternate source of energy (proteins and fats). Which saddly procudes some toxic by products (ketonic bodies). And they stay in the blood stream (where they cause additionnal damage) because there *is* sugar in the blood and no process kicks in to destroy them (for exemple, the brain can use ketonic bodies as fuel, but the brain can also use sugar without insuline and thus gets its normal sugar and doesn't realise that it needs to burn ketonic bodies).
    This is an over simplification, but it mostly gives an approximative picture of what's happening.

    What classical handling of diabetis tries to achieve is:
    - Giving insuline, etiher replacing the deffective production (Type 1) or trying to overcome the lack of reaction with more insuline (Type 2). Thus sugars enters inside cells and is processed as it should. (Stored for mid-term storage, converted to fat for long storage, burned as energy for physical performance, or used as fuel to keep temperature high, or used to power body while the body is creating more muscles, etc. - it all depends on exercices, hormones, etc.)
    The good thing:
    - blood sugar remains low (no direct and indirect damage)
    - no production of ketonic acids.
    The not so good thing:
    - it all depends on eating carbs, and the western-civilisation living style is rather sedentary and wouldn't always need that much energy (thus fat is produced) which lead to fat related problems, like obesity, and like... well Type diabetis. The carbs need to be adjusted to the life-style needs, and the life style needs a minimum level of exercice. Sometime the obesity related problems needs to be taken care of.

    What he's trying to do:
    - Just kick the carbs out of the diet. (almost) no carbs, (almost) no need for insuline. Eat meat and greens. And exercice a lot. As the cells are starving for sugar, they start burning alternate fuels like proteins and fat. This produces ketonic bodies which are in turn digested by other organs who notice that there's no sugar in the blood. Basically his body is functionning like that of an ahtelete (a body builder or a wiehgt lifter) on a fat burning diet.
    The good things:
    - No carbs, no diabetes problems.
    - No carbs, less obesity problems.
    The not so good things:
    - still producing ketonic acids, but at least now they are correctly burned instead of causing damage (I don't remember if physical exrecise helps it or not).
    - needing a fuck big quantity of proteins (both the normal quantity used by the body + additionnal quantity because of turn-over of muscles tissues and muscle buidling caused by physical exercice + much much more because now it's used as a fuel).
    - higher level of fats because that now the new energy source (but can be compensated by either eating good fats and/or exercice)
    - proteins and fat: might lack some vitamins - that's why he's eating also a lot of greens
    - without exercice and huge amount of proteins, instead of

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Or the other way around: GET A LICENSE by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      It's not just one man. It's a community.
      Best place to start as he has a background in Molecular Biology.
      http://robbwolf.com/

  33. "Dr." Phil by WankerWeasel · · Score: 1

    Now if someone would only put "Dr." Phil in jail for dispensing medical advice without a license. He's really mastered the attempt to shame people into changing method.

  34. how he can fix this by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    all he needs to do is partner up with an actual MD to provide some actual medical backing.

    btw where are the ads on his blog?? (i do run adblock but i don't see any ads or "missing" parts)
    also where does is say on his website that he charges anything??

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:how he can fix this by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      He took down the section where he was selling advice; there is a comment about it on the site.

      "2) I agreed to take down the âDiabetes Supportâ page. Itâ(TM)s a page few people new about, I did not âpromote itâ(TM) but people could become my client and I would assist them doing what I had done, for a fee. My earnings were meager and I left the link up there just in case someone wanted my assistance."

  35. teaching, media by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    Most license requirements have exemptions for common use cases that have a reason to exist, and are not actually practicing, such as teaching or news coverage. For example you need a license to give financial advise, unless doing it as an instructor or as a member of the media. Imagine if every news person, blogger, and high school life science teacher had to have a Series 7 license to do their job.

    This should be the same.

  36. Re:In the land of uncle jesse by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Stories like that happen in every state. Heck, I have had the state threaten to take my children away. The crappy ADT fire alarm went off even though there wasn't a fire. This happened about once a month until I finally decided to disable the fire alarm. (Don't worry, we still have smoke detectors, just not monitored because ADT thinks I should pay to have their crappy equipment maintenanced). Anyway, the fire department showed up even though the babysitter said there wasn't a fire and then they insisted that she needed to show them the upper floor to prove it wasn't on fire. So she took them upstairs. When they came back down, they acted flabbergasted that she had gone to a different floor of the house while the babies were sleeping in their crib, even though she had gone at their request. I looked it up and it is in fact illegal for you to be on a different floor of your house from infant children. So they threatened to take my children away. Fortunately, I was able to fight off the state. our state has more than 400 children in their custody that they are unable to account for at all. Additionally, dozens of children die every year as wards of the state, often after being placed with someone who beats the child to death. Unless you are someone who beats your child to death or sells them for drugs, your children are still likely better off with you than with the state.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  37. I am not a licensed movie reviewer... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    But I offered my opinion on my blog regarding a recently released film.... Should I be worried that North Carolina will be coming for me next?

    I guess now that that 4th amendment is dead in the USA, the 1st amendment can't be far behind. Zeig Heil.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  38. Re:We voted for it by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    The sad part is that the ADA advice is not only *obviously* dangerous, it is *demonstrably* dangerous.

    Gary Taubes tore apart the pseudo-science of nutrition with his original "Good Calories, Bad Calories", and followed up with a book more targeted towards laymen called "Why We Get Fat". Read one, or both, and come back with impressions.

  39. Website is hosted in a different jurisdiction! by alphacharliezero · · Score: 1

    I couldn't help but notice that his site (diabetes-warrior.net) is hosted by Bluehost in Provo, Utah. Not really having a legal background I wonder how this changes the landscape... i.e.-
    What if he were living in Utah but the site was hosted in North Carolina? Could they go after him then? What if he just registered the site under a business in a different state and continued to host the site in Utah? Could they still get him for writing it in N.C.?

    Don't get me wrong. It does appear he crossed the line by offering 'coaching' services which is forbidden by the law. But the blog itself describing his battle against diabetes and the steps that he has found useful is likely protected free speech. It's going to be hard to convince a judge that a blog is illegal when the same information could be printed and bound in a book and sold at the Barnes & Noble in Raleigh legally.

    Reading the lawthough, pretty much every mother in North Carolina is likely a criminal. From the statute-

    Nutrition care services means any part or all of the following:
    a. Assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups, and determining resources and constraints in the practice setting
    b. Establishing priorities, goals, and objectives that meet nutritional needs and are consistent with available resources and constraints
    c. Providing nutrition counseling in health and disease
    d. Developing, implementing, and managing nutrition care systems
    e. Evaluating, making changes in, and maintaining appropriate standards of quality in food and nutrition services.

    Seriously, any parent worth their salt does this for their children from an early age. Friends do it for each other. Adults do it for their aging parents. 'Dad! Why are you eating that? You know it'll set off your gout/blood sugar/.' It takes support and encouragement to make lifestyle changes. Some people find that support in their family or friends. Some find it online. The best solution would be to slap his wrist for offering coaching and let the rest go.

  40. Re:We voted for it by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    One guys book isn't going to prove anything. At most there is a logical sounding narrative in there. I am not saying he is wrong, but you shouldn't act like the guy created some book of truth.

  41. Re:We voted for it by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Gary Taube is a journalist with no training in any field even RELATED to medicine, biology etc.

    You have got to be kidding me.

  42. Freedom of Expression by kawabago · · Score: 1

    A high school student could see that he has the right to freely express himself and this law is blatantly unconstitutional. Which begs the question, "If secondary school students can see a law is clearly unconstitutional, what group of morons passed it into law?"

    1. Re:Freedom of Expression by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      This is why there aren't any high school students acting as Supreme Court Justices.

  43. Why is everyone yammering about free speech? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    This guy was charging for his speech, it was in no way free.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Why is everyone yammering about free speech? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Free speech in most cases refers to the individuals right to say whatever the hell they want without censure unless it is slander, libel and I think sedition. Whether or not they are paid for it is of no consequence.

  44. Re:We voted for it by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Gary Taubes didn't do the research he cites, people with training in medicine and biology did the research he cites. What Gary Taubes is is a journalist, writer, and scientist who has been able to properly research, cite and present a whole host of data and work that others have done - he stands on the shoulders of giants, even if he isn't one.

    If you haven't read his work (compiled from the work of others, of course), you should.

    If you have read his work, and simply dismiss it because he isn't an MD, go ahead and check out Dr. Eades (http://proteinpower.com/), or Dr. Lustig.

  45. Re:We voted for it by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Of course his book doesn't prove anything - what it does is cite a whole host of literature and experimental science that *does*. I'm not saying that Taubes did original research, and did so without any sort of medical training himself - what he did was, for the first time ever, rigorously go through the body of research, and the history of the science of diet and obesity and chronic disease, and thoroughly repudiated the common wisdom given to us by government, thanks to a misguided Ancel Keys who took hold of the "fat is dangerous" meme and forced it upon us by sheer will.

  46. Diet-Fu by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I noticed in a couple of episodes, Alton Brown was very careful to disclaim that he is not a doctor, is not offering dietary advice and that you should consult your doctor about such things. I suspect his liability concerns were wider-ranging than "might get me arrested in North Carolina." Anyone with an "in" want to corner the guy and ask him about it?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  47. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  48. rubbish by rs79 · · Score: 2

    So if somebody says "I'm thirsty" and you way "drink some water" you''re "diagnosing conditions and recommending treatment plans" ?

    Technically, yes. We aren't bothered by this, and why? It's stuff everybody knows, and you don't need peer reviewed journals to back this up, it's grandfathered.

    One could make the point that so is the dietary advice he's handing out (and doesn't go far enough with, he's missing a couple of key points) is also grandfathered, look it up in any journals of evolutionary biology. Keywords: encephalization, vitamins.

    NC is trying to protect their licensing revenue, and just for laughs, their policies are based on a combination of hokum and paid-for "advice" from big agro. Check for yourself. You know enough now to do that. Google scholar and medline are two good places to start.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. Re:rubbish by tofarr · · Score: 1

      In this case the advice being given was contrary to established medical practice. To illustrate, were you to say "I'm thirsty" and I respond with "Have some water", that would not be a problem. Were I to say "Have some engine oil", then there would be trouble

    2. Re:rubbish by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      ....snip....

      NC is trying to protect their licensing revenue, and just for laughs, their policies are based on a combination of hokum and paid-for "advice" from big agro. Check for yourself. You know enough now to do that. Google scholar and medline are two good places to start.

      I looked fo but did not find qualification for licensing criteria.
      Without training and criteria the state is on fragile footing.

      One phrase caught my eye where medical practices are equated with dietician services. I wonder what medical privileges are confirmed by the license.

      Given the range of fools out there I think the only hope is universal Obamacare.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    3. Re:rubbish by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If someone gives you money and tells you that he's thirsty, and you prescribe water, then you have provided medical services.

      See the difference? To be perfectly clear, it's when you start charging money for services.

      No, that alone does not make it medical device, there's a requirement you are missing.
      The person you provide a service to in exchange for money has to believe you are a medical professional, for you to have provided medical services.

      If you go to your accountant's office, and in the midst of a discussion, you say you're thirsty, and he says "Here, have some water"; you have not been provided with medical advice, even though you are paying for your accountant's time.

      Similarly, if in the middle of a meal at a restaurant, you tell the waitress that you are thirsty -- and she says "Here, drink this"

      You have not been provided with medical advise, even though there is a fee for a drink.

      Advise is only medical when the business is advertised as a medical professional business, with a medical doctor.

      Seeing as the use of the title medical doctor requires a license.

  49. Context by rs79 · · Score: 1

    So change the wording. "Here's the history and science behind it, here's 30,000 case studies that worked, that's your history lesson for today, sign here that you understand this is not nutritional advice".

    Pffffffffft. We can argue this in court for ages. I got time, how are those legal bills lookin at taxpayer expense.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  50. Re:We voted for it by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    I highly doubt he properly analyzed the literature. You can cherry pick literature to say whatever you want. Doesn't make him wrong, but doesn't mean his theory has been tested either.

  51. Amer. Dietetics Conf vs Ancestral Health Symposium by bkranson · · Score: 3, Informative

    During 2011 I was able to attend many health related conferences around the country in addition to the NAMA, National Automatic Merchandising Association (aka Vending Machines) conference. While at the NAMA it is no surprise I was surrounded by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Mars and a host of other related companies that make food like products. It was also of no surprise that most of the people were over weight and looked unhealthy.

    Then I got to attend the Ancestral Health Symposium. Major difference, people were talking about eating food our ancestors would have eaten and getting back to the basics. Reducing our sugar intake, lower our consumption of processed foods and getting more information about what we are really putting in our bodies. Some people were overweight, but the majority of people there looked like they cared about their overall health.

    Last I got to attend the ADA conference. This is a huge conference in San Diego where all the Dietitians go to get some of their continuing education credits and current health information. Who was there?!? Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Mars and a host of other related companies that make food like products. It was so sad for me to see. So much became clear to me over the course of that weekend.

    I would much rather give my money to Steve Cooksey for his advise, or to support his legal fees, than to most of the Dietitians I met at the ADA.

    NAMA: http://www.vending.org/
    Ancestral Health Symposium: http://ancestryfoundation.org/
    American Dietetic Association: http://www.eatright.org/

  52. Me too by Fished · · Score: 1

    Just a quick comment -- although I am not familiar with that blog, I have practiced low carb for managing my diabetes VERY successfully. I raised my HDL, lowered my LDL, and dropped my average blood sugar from 140 or so to 85, not to mention losing massive amounts of weight. No other way to live!

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  54. This is actually quite right by gelfling · · Score: 1

    It takes an additional 6 months of education as well as a special certification to be a nutritionist in NC over and above the requirements of a certified rehab exercise physiologist. For example personal trainers are not permitted by law to offer nutritional plans to clients. That's the law. If you don't like it, change the law.

  55. I am the IJ by Jaborandy · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a job for the Institude of Justice.

  56. Dang, and me with no mod points by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Nicely said.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  57. Yeah, why should we regulate nutritionists? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    It's not like anyone could be hurt from following their advice if they have no idea what their talking about. End snark.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  58. IANAL, but.... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    my guess is that if accessing his website of checkboxes is free, he's fine. If he charges, he'd need a license. And he'd probably get his license pulled, because diagnosing via questionnaire is pretty damn sketchy. We're not talking about diagnosing a software glitch, this is people's health we're talking about.

    As for walnuts, if you're selling them based on claimed health benefits, yes, the FDA has the responsibility of verifying those claims.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  59. So licensing doesn't prevent errors... by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    ...so we should just throw up our hands and let everybody practice medicine? Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Licensing isn't perfect (Guess what? Nothing is!), but it's better than doing nothing, which seems to be your recommendation.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  60. Oh Sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

    Movie critics aren't licensed, and nobody has ever been hurt or killed from receiving poor movie viewing advice. Nutritionists are licensed, and I've heard diet can affect your health.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  61. Re:We voted for it by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    I highly doubt he properly analyzed the literature.

    Well, I'd be interested if you have any specific critique. Frankly, most of the basics are generally not contested (insulin promotes fat deposition, blood sugar drives insulin levels, and carbohydrate intake drives blood sugar levels).

    Have you read any of his work?

  62. He's not practicing Nutrition in Missouri by mysidia · · Score: 1

    The web site http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/ is clearly located in Utah.

    So, possibly he's working remotely from his home in Missouri, but the practice is still in Utah. Utah is not Missouri, therefore, it is interstate commerce if anyone in Missouri is being served from Utah, placing this matter clearly outside of Missouri's regulatory authority.

  63. In Soviet Russia by Roachie · · Score: 1

    Nutrition shuts YOU down!

    --
    This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
  64. idiots by beep54 · · Score: 1

    OK, here's an idea: Why don't we just collectively sue ourselves for being stupid. Would that cover everything?

  65. I live in NC by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    And have lived many other places...

    This state has no clue how to run a government of any sort. Every level of state and local government is layered with such bureaucracy it can barely function. Even when it somehow manages to get and retain people who actually want to help you, the system strangles them and makes it impossible.

    What makes this worse is their happiness to include you, as a visitor/student/just citizen into the bureaucracy itself. I have examples. Go to any of the NC state park websites, look at their list of rules and regulations. It practically takes a law degree to understand what is and isn't allowed.

    It extends to universities. I was forced to sit out a semester between my community college and NCSU because of their inability to figure out how to transfer me properly until after I graduated the community college, despite my extremely high GPA, membership in the honors program, etc.. Even their head of admissions admitted it was absurd, but could do nothing. When I finally could apply, they lost my transcript, which I handed to them in person.

    The police in the town here will simply sit at intersections in neighborhoods and wait for someone to do absolutely anything illegal. The best part is, if you pull up behind them, trying to actually use the intersection in the direction they have blocked, they will ignore you and sit there.

    Go read Wake country "sanitation department" inspections for restaurants. Lose 3 points for putting something in a fridge with the lid on too soon; lose 1 for cockroaches in the kitchen.

    I could go on all day. It simply does not surprise me at all that this is occurring here. I have no idea how the state government manages to function on a day to day basis at all, yet it doesn't come as a shock it feels the freedom to violate the first amendment while failing utterly to accomplish its stated goals. The state government needs to be totally trashed, on every level, and tried again from scratch.

  66. Proud to be... an American? by halfkoreanamerican · · Score: 1

    You better watch out, you better not shout, you better not blog I'm tellin' you why... The NCBDN is shuttin' you down? I cannot believe that courts even have time to listen to this nonsense. He can talk about whatever he wants to talk about... and if he cannot then America is no longer a good place to live.

  67. Dilution schmilution already by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He googled it using bing, so what?

    Now excuse me, I have to go hoover the floor.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  68. I knew this was coming.... by dborden702 · · Score: 1

    They passed the same bill in Nevada last year, supposedly to license dietitians, but promised that things like this would not happen. I am not surprised to read this. Typical government censorship of information. Everyone needs to read Global Censorship of Health Information by Johnathan Emord.

  69. This is wrong for a reason by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    NC is wrong for a reason. Even though nutrition science is a science and you can't, with good reason, claim to be a nutritionist without certification, also a good thing, he's not claiming to BE a nutritionist and people have been talking about diet and health from time immemorial.

    I actually think each of his pages should carry a disclaimer that he is NOT a nutritionist and nothing he says has been scientifically tested and shown to be true.

    But if they're so worried about this nutritionist, what about eh LEGIONS of global warming denier-quacks that populate the red states like N.C.? Where is the concern about what effect- death on a scale so massive it dwarfs WWII - THEIR unscientific and reckless opinions are having on naive readers?

    I actually think in the case of global warming the media outlets and personalities who perpetrated the fraud of denialism should be prosecuted under a Nuremberg - like framework.

    If we truly do nothing to stop global warming, that result - giving them access to due process of any sort- will be giving them a safe refuge from the masses of people looking to string them up Mussolini style from the nearest tree.

    Yeah, I know. Mussolini, Saddam and Mubarak never thought it could come to that either Funny how the sudden imposition of reality can produce shocking results .

  70. It is, after all, North Carolina. by JonathanPDX · · Score: 1

    They still believe that smoking is good for you, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and that having your picture taken steals part of your soul.

  71. Hi Mom by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    I think it is the legal and moral responsibility for mothers and fathers to practice nutrition.
    This action makes no sense and MUST be balanced by banning all books and school health
    clases that present health information. History bookers must be purged of all references
    to Limies and why British seamen were called "Limies". Further dictionaries must be purged
    of references to rickets, palegra, scurvy, etc.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  72. They have a name for this blog by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    It is called "Tinfoil Hat Moon Battery". The guy (in his own words) is not a doctor, dietitian, or a scientist...

    Basically: He is making stuff up and pushing off paranoid opinion and trying to push it off as "scientific" fact.

    I read his "blog" (resisting the urge to rage here...) and he wrong about a lot of things. I have been Insulin Dependent since I was a baby and it had nothing to do with my diet or life choices. Yet he wants to blame diet and a plethora of BS for my condition NEVERMIND THE FACT my diabetes is a direct result of genetics. Also, its hard for a 10-month old to know what a choice is, let alone make one.

    I hope he gets sued and jailed for his stupidity and paranoid BS.

  73. Re:We voted for it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Fraud is a crime, so the state will investigate it. Or are you are you advocating the decriminalization of fraud?

  74. Re:We voted for it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So he selected the works to prove his hypothesis, and discarded everything else, and that's a good thing?

  75. Re:We voted for it by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    Actually, he selected works that *disproved* the hypothesis of Ancel Keys, and that's a good thing. Discarding evidence that was consistent with Ancel Keys' hypothesis was perfectly reasonable, since we were looking for falsification, not blind confirmation.

    Now, as to the alternate hypothesis he puts forth, regarding the carbohydrate origins of chronic disease, thus far, I haven't seen anyone who has found a falsification.

  76. Re:We voted for it by repapetilto · · Score: 1

    No, I am asking if it is the FDA's responsibility to investigate fraud.

  77. Re:We voted for it by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    With regards to medical fraud, yes. It's not like the Constitution restricts all investigations to the FBI, so the agencies split up investigations according to specialty. FBI for bank robberies and Secret Service for counterfeiting may not be logical, but that's how they do it. And FDA gets medical.