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.)

73 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 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.

  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 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
    3. 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
    4. 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"
    5. 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.
    6. 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"
    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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!".

    10. 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
    11. 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

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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

    15. 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.

  3. 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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

  4. 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 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
    3. 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?
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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?

    15. 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.
    16. 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
    17. 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
    18. Re:You Forgot the Part About the Money by alphax45 · · Score: 2

      He said Google!

      --
      K Man
    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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
    24. 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.

    25. 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?

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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
    29. 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).

    30. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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 /.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. Engineering by isopropanol · · Score: 2

    Just if you charge someone for designing a computer, not fixing.

  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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!

  16. 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 ?
  17. 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/