Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Health Blogging vs the Nanny State

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=8992

"CHARLOTTE — 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.

"Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”'

....

_________________________

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, if only because if the state wins against the blogger the camel's nose is in the tent. I maintained a blog about my weight loss a few years ago, explaining how I made choices regarding exercise and what to eat. How might a Pennsylvania "diet and nutrition board" interpret my postings? And I'm not alone in keeping such a blog.

And while we are at it the Clyde Forum is filled with threads recommending ways of eating and exercise for weight loss and other health conditions. (Indeed, we've had at least one poster recommend specific drugs to me for my knee trouble.) Diabetics routinely share advice on managing the disease here, just as people who have undergone weight loss surgery talk about maintaining a healthy lifestyle afterward.

Personally I see this as a free speech issue, and the North Carolina board is overstepping its bounds. Or am I wrong?

If he changed his wording he shouldn't have a problem, right? And it does look like a free speech issue since federal law trumps state law.

If he changed his wording he shouldn't have a problem, right? And it does look like a free speech issue since federal law trumps state law.

The blogger advocates a popular but controversial way of eating called the Paleo-diet. As the article indicates, some of the stuff the NC diet folks flagged included suggestions people follow the blogger's way of eating and exercise as they can. If you remove or dilute that, you are eliminating the 'advocacy' aspect of the blog. The guy started this site because he believes much of what's taught about diabetes is incorrect. His success is going off drugs after 30 days and losing 45 pounds.

Just to make things clear, I am neither advocating for or against the Paleo-diet nor any particular method of controlling diabetes.

More links here:

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/paleo-low-carb-bloggers-beware-dietitians-are-coming-after-you/14143

Colorado almost passed a bill criminalizing the providing of 'dietetic' advice from anyone other than a liscensed dietician.

http://yourlighterside.com/colorado-hb1060-may-mean-the-end-of-your-lighter-side/

Broadly interpreted, this could mean recipe websites specializing in, say, sugar free, or low carb, or low fat, or cooking for Coumadin users, would be breaking the law because they provided advice about diet.

I am decidedly libertarian in my political outlook and I am shocked daily by some new aspect of the government overstepping its bounds.

I think the only part of the camel that ISN'T in the tent is the damn nose.

So who licenses the dietitians? Ask yourself that. This has less to do with ensuring people get proper dietary advice and more to do with who gets to say what's proper. The whole thing stinks. Now the President of the USA can assassinate US citizens without so much as a by your leave, and with last year's defense authorization act, they can arrest and detain us citizens indefinitely - all they have to do is use the "T" word. Is this as bad as the red scare back in the 50s? I wasn't around but it sure seems like it.

How about that new POS legislation sponsored by my absolute second favorite politician, Barbara Boxer (Pelosi has an honored spot atop the villain chart) - MAP-21 will require a black box in every car so Big Brother can check on you. It's for your own safety of course.

Bah. California is the canary in the coal mine. We're so screwed up we can't even see straight and this is where the rest of the country is headed.

<off soapbox>

It is another example of government thinking it can regulate the internet. The board is going to be busy trying to put out of business and send to jail all the other bloggers and posters whose information is available on computers in North Carolina.

Have you seen what the US government did to Kim Dotcom? He's the guy that ran megaupload.com, which *may* have been used to share illegal files but I know for a fact was also used extensively by the android community to share roms and other large files (100 MB +). No hearing, no trial, just kicked in the door, grabbed 100% of his equipment and he's rotting in jail for a year now I believe. It looks like their case is falling apart but a year later and a failed business in the rear view mirror, does it matter?

Have you seen what the US government did to Kim Dotcom? He's the guy that ran megaupload.com, which *may* have been used to share illegal files but I know for a fact was also used extensively by the android community to share roms and other large files (100 MB +). No hearing, no trial, just kicked in the door, grabbed 100% of his equipment and he's rotting in jail for a year now I believe. It looks like their case is falling apart but a year later and a failed business in the rear view mirror, does it matter?
Huh? Be careful with this as the guy is a convicted crim in the first instance for embezzlement and insider trading.

And get your facts straight...

The guy was arrested in New Zealand in January of this year. He is out on bail since early March. There is a due process involved in the proceedings. And I get the impression that he is living in the sort of dreamworld that comes from being a virtually full-time gamer.

I do not think he is a good example to raise in this thread, to the point of suggesting that he is irrelevant to the situation of ordinary bloggers.

Huh? Be careful with this as the guy is a convicted crim in the first instance for embezzlement and insider trading.

And get your facts straight...

The guy was arrested in New Zealand in January of this year. He is out on bail since early March. There is a due process involved in the proceedings. And I get the impression that he is living in the sort of dreamworld that comes from being a virtually full-time gamer.

I do not think he is a good example to raise in this thread, to the point of suggesting that he is irrelevant to the situation of ordinary bloggers.

I agree with you while at the same time noting that many people used Megaupload for legit purposes.

There is a little murkiness in this case, since the blogger offered private coaching in diet and exercise to treat a medical condition for a fee.

That's why I always stated that I wasn't offering medical advice or nutritional advice, and only sharing personal experience. This gives you legal cover.

There is a little murkiness in this case, since the blogger offered private coaching in diet and exercise to treat a medical condition for a fee.

And this counts as practicing as a Nutritionist. It's not murky, it's actually pretty clear. Instead, he should have suggested "Get Togethers" to discuss their mutual experiences.

Huh? Be careful with this as the guy is a convicted crim in the first instance for embezzlement and insider trading.

And get your facts straight...

The guy was arrested in New Zealand in January of this year. He is out on bail since early March. There is a due process involved in the proceedings. And I get the impression that he is living in the sort of dreamworld that comes from being a virtually full-time gamer.

I do not think he is a good example to raise in this thread, to the point of suggesting that he is irrelevant to the situation of ordinary bloggers.

He probably is a dirtbag, he probably does live in a dream world and he probably did encourage illegal file sharing. Which one of those "proven facts" allows the government to bust down your door in a *foreign* country without any sort of due process? I have no fondness for the man, but I do have this shiny white gauzy dream that the government won't attack me without due process.

As for providing unlicensed coaching for a fee - oops.

He probably is a dirtbag, he probably does live in a dream world and he probably did encourage illegal file sharing. Which one of those "proven facts" allows the government to bust down your door in a *foreign* country without any sort of due process? I have no fondness for the man, but I do have this shiny white gauzy dream that the government won't attack me without due process.

As for providing unlicensed coaching for a fee - oops.

The US government did not knock down his doors in a foreign country. The jurisdiction is New Zealand, and that's where the due process lies. Whether the man will be extradited to the US for trial, or whether the NZ government will launch proceedings itself is up to... the New Zealand government.

And the proven fact that he is a convicted criminal likely gives any government the right to knock down the doors of his (rented) residence based on the suspicion that he is a flight risk.

As to the issues with the blogger, yes, it does seem taking a fee has put the person in question beyond the realm of the usual postings that we might see here.

I believe that most thinking people will take advice after it has been validated elsewhere. But as we know, there are many people who are desperate to find a solution to their lives' woes, and will take any advice at face value without stopping to consider the ramifications. This is particularly true when there are persuasive (and pervasive) individuals offering up the advice and with dollar signs rolling in their eyes.

.

And the proven fact that he is a convicted criminal likely gives any government the right to knock down the doors of his (rented) residence based on the suspicion that he is a flight risk.



i am curious , when u guys are saying "kick down the door" do you actually mean they did a "raid" and dragged his ass in... or did they just go to his house and arrest him.

Big difference between the two

Also with out knowing all the facts on the person and GBATG, having criminal record does not entitle you to be man handled or arrested with out due cause. IF they have due cause well then st...stuff happens :)



oh and in regards to the actually topic of the Thread, soon as he offered money he was in trouble.

i am curious , when u guys are saying "kick down the door" do you actually mean they did a "raid" and dragged his ass in... or did they just go to his house and arrest him.

Big difference between the two

Also with out knowing all the facts on the person and GBATG, having criminal record does not entitle you to be man handled or arrested with out due cause. IF they have due cause well then st...stuff happens :)



oh and in regards to the actually topic of the Thread, soon as he offered money he was in trouble.

tergal my friend

You have lit the wick ... :)

tergal my friend

You have lit the wick ... :)

ha after my last month and half a internet argument is not going to bother me in the slightest :)

and nothing i really said was that bad was it ?

oh and GBATG is Can't be arsed to Google

They obviously had due cause, based on what appears to be the illegal exchange of the material, and perhaps an extradition application had been duly made by the US Government. See that word... illegal.

And yes, they did break down doors on the exterior to get into the house, and to get into rooms, according to media reports from New Zealand. But who knows what sort of fortress the guy had created around him.

And despite your high-road position, tergal, with someone with an actual significant criminal record and judged to be a major flight risk, I'd be taking whatever steps it takes to apprehend someone like this.

Maybe if we traded the words "suspected e-pirate" for "suspected paedophile" whether you would take the same position.

I also should say that theft of copyrighted material means people can't make a living out of what they own. It's theft, plain and simple, and while we might feel like cheering like mad when the "little guy" like the torrent kings win over the big movie and music studios, it is actually the real little guys who create the material that are ultimately the victims.

It happens regularly on BFs that people post, without permission, copyrighted material that has been created by a professional in their field, and this site exists specifically to make money for Internet Brands... yet no payment goes to the professional for the unauthorisation publication of the work.

Way off topic now, and all I tried to do was correct the patent misinformation about this case posted earlier in this thread.

It happens regularly on BFs that people post, without permission, copyrighted material that has been created by a professional in their field, and this site exists specifically to make money for Internet Brands... yet no payment goes to the professional for the unauthorisation publication of the work.


Which is why providing the link and a couple of sentences, as I did in the initial post, is considered good manners. In the United States it would be considered as protected under the "fair use" exceptions to copyright.

That's why I always stated that I wasn't offering medical advice or nutritional advice, and only sharing personal experience. This gives you legal cover.

I give medical advise, it goes along the lines of "did you see your doc? What did they say? I think you should follow that..." :D


I am decidedly libertarian in my political outlook and I am shocked daily by some new aspect of the government overstepping its bounds.

I think the only part of the camel that ISN'T in the tent is the damn nose.

So who licenses the dietitians? Ask yourself that. This has less to do with ensuring people get proper dietary advice and more to do with who gets to say what's proper. The whole thing stinks. Now the President of the USA can assassinate US citizens without so much as a by your leave, and with last year's defense authorization act, they can arrest and detain us citizens indefinitely - all they have to do is use the "T" word. Is this as bad as the red scare back in the 50s? I wasn't around but it sure seems like it.

How about that new POS legislation sponsored by my absolute second favorite politician, Barbara Boxer (Pelosi has an honored spot atop the villain chart) - MAP-21 will require a black box in every car so Big Brother can check on you. It's for your own safety of course.

Bah. California is the canary in the coal mine. We're so screwed up we can't even see straight and this is where the rest of the country is headed.

<off soapbox>

Yup, as goes California, so goes the US. Though, it would seem some states have wisened up and left California standing alone on some issues. I figure I have a few years to get my family out of the state before the crazies get the super majority and there goes my paycheck.

Why shouldn't I be able to give people legal advice over the internet? Never mind that I'm not a lawyer ... if they can't figure that out, or don't realize they shouldn't be taking my advice seriously, that's their error, and they'll learn from it in the future.


Personally I see this as a free speech issue, and the North Carolina board is overstepping its bounds. Or am I wrong?

"Free speech" is an over-used excuse, and it's one that people hope will rile their audience up, emotionally, but if you stop and think about it, people don't really give it as much credence as everyone thinks and hopes. Nobody is up and arms about how being able to impersonate a police officer is a matter of free speech ... so it's not like anything that involves talking should be just fine. And that means you can't excuse somebody without going into some detail about what they did or didn't do, just by chalking it up to "free speech."

This guy charged money to treat a medical condition; that's impersonating a doctor, instead of a police officer. This is exactly the sort of thing people should have to be licensed for.

This guy charged money to treat a medical condition; that's impersonating a doctor, instead of a police officer. This is exactly the sort of thing people should have to be licensed for.

Obesity is a medical condition too. Is a personal trainer then impersonating a doctor if he tells a client to reduce the starches in his diet? Is the author of a gluten-free cookbook giving medical advice by selling his tome?

And this counts as practicing as a Nutritionist. It's not murky, it's actually pretty clear. Instead, he should have suggested "Get Togethers" to discuss their mutual experiences.


I think the defense plans on claiming the blogger's activities consisted of listening, which would allegedly mean he was a "life coach", not a nutritionist.

Anyway he's promoting a specific diet that worked for him, rather than just claiming he can cure diabetes. I don't have feelings either way about the Paleo Diet but I don't see the guy as a huckster.

Why shouldn't I be able to give people legal advice over the internet? Never mind that I'm not a lawyer ... if they can't figure that out, or don't realize they shouldn't be taking my advice seriously, that's their error, and they'll learn from it in the future.


Many, many people routinely give legal advice of one kind or another without being lawyers. Which may not be recommended, but its legal. Curiously enough, when an attorney answers a legal question they provide a disclaimer saying they aren't your representative, nor seeking to be, and their advice is general and not specific for any individual.

Your example about impersonating a police officer as a free speech issue is, of course, an absurdity, so we'll ignore it. At least its more original that suggesting we yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

I think the defense plans on claiming the blogger's activities consisted of listening, which would allegedly mean he was a "life coach", not a nutritionist.

A blogger is a type of writer, and writing is the 180 degree opposite of "listening."


Your example about impersonating a police officer as a free speech issue is, of course

... on point. Here, we have a guy pretending to be a doctor, and you've just agreed that pretending to be a police officer is illegal. I'm sure you can find the similarity if you think about it.

It sounds to me like you've decided that this should be A-OK, facts, perspective, and context be damned. Dismissing everybody else's opinions and reasoning behind them makes for a boring thread.

BTW, I wonder what the FDA move to allow diabetes medicines sold over the counter without a script will mean for this case? If the FDA says a doctor's visit isn't needed for diabetes treatment....

What's so hard about understanding that if you don't have a license to practice medicine or dietwhatever, don't give other people advice about how procedure X or product Y will effect them.

Instead of, "if you eat only Z you will gain a benefit"; he can simply say, "I changed my diet to include only Z and my blood sugar is now ### and my A1C is #.#..."

And it does look like a free speech issue since federal law trumps state law.


Thanks to "judicial activism," the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution has been held applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. (If you read the 1st Amendment, it literally applies only to Congress: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

North Carolina has in its state constitution "freedom of speech" protection. Laws/acts can violate both a state constitution and the U.S. Constitution, but a state constitution cannot be more restrictive (or permissive, depending on how you look at it) than the U.S. Constitution. In other words, if an act or law violates the U.S. Constitution, it cannot be saved by arguing that it's permissible under a state constitution.

Thanks to the internet, what constitues practicing law, medicine and other legitimately regulated professions has become less clear.

[QUOTE=Neil_B;14162238]Curiously enough, when an attorney answers a legal question they provide a disclaimer saying they aren't your representative, nor seeking to be, and their advice is general and not specific for any individual.[qUOTE]

The reason that is done is to ward off a finding that an attorney-client relationship was formed when a lawyer answers a general question or gives general legal advice. The formation of such a relationship places burdens on the attorney and could subject him or her to. among other things, malpractice claims. In some cases, the disclaimer doesn't work.

They obviously had due cause, based on what appears to be the illegal exchange of the material, and perhaps an extradition application had been duly made by the US Government. See that word... illegal.

And yes, they did break down doors on the exterior to get into the house, and to get into rooms, according to media reports from New Zealand. But who knows what sort of fortress the guy had created around him.

And despite your high-road position, tergal, with someone with an actual significant criminal record and judged to be a major flight risk, I'd be taking whatever steps it takes to apprehend someone like this.

Maybe if we traded the words "suspected e-pirate" for "suspected paedophile" whether you would take the same position.

I also should say that theft of copyrighted material means people can't make a living out of what they own. It's theft, plain and simple, and while we might feel like cheering like mad when the "little guy" like the torrent kings win over the big movie and music studios, it is actually the real little guys who create the material that are ultimately the victims.

It happens regularly on BFs that people post, without permission, copyrighted material that has been created by a professional in their field, and this site exists specifically to make money for Internet Brands... yet no payment goes to the professional for the unauthorisation publication of the work.

Way off topic now, and all I tried to do was correct the patent misinformation about this case posted earlier in this thread.

I typed out a huge response to this post but in the end I deleted it because there is no point arguing with someone who
A) Throws a personal attack in the first response he types ( all though this didn't offend me, i just see it as a bad way to start a discussion)
and
B) See no difference between a paedophile( which is in turn a ******) and somehow who transfers illegal material for their own gains regardless of how large.

have fun , this is a bike fourm we are here to have fun not discuse different views of the legal system and human rights :love:

An update to the case..... this isn't the first time the North Carolina Board of Dietetics has investigated someone for giving health and diet advice..... they've given 'cease and desist' orders to fifty people in the past five years, ranging from a nurse to Duke to licensed nutritionists who don't have a degree from the ''right' schools.

Meanwhile the blogger mentioned in the original post is receiving legal help from a Libertarian group. Their suit was dismissed, but they plan an appeal.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=9589

:popcorn

:popcorn

I'm not sure that popcorn is Paleo. ;)

I'm not sure that popcorn is Paleo. ;)
:p