xMenace

The problem is this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's entirely about passing off opinion as medical advice.

I understand Steve was to some extent charging for his advice and did very little to indicate he was neither trained nor qualified. This has since been rectified.

The analogy about movies and movie critics is completely irrelevant. Opinions on the quality of a movie are not subject to independent scientific verification. Dietary advice is. The fact that the science over dietary advice is confused complicates matters, but it doesn't change the fact that it should be possible to verify whether a diet is 'good' or not.

A much better analogy would be having someone with no qualifications charging for medical prescriptions. You wouldn't allow an unlicensed doctor to continue practising on the grounds of freedom of speech, and with good reason. It's the same for those giving out nutritional advice without a consensual scientific backing.

I've decided on balance, it'll be better for all our health if Steve loses. Why? Because then that sends out a clear message - if you don't have actual nutritional training, you can't influence dietary advice. Why's that good? Because then it provides a legal mechanism to prevent food manufacturers from influencing 'government' dietary advice. No more foods claiming to be 'healthy choices' on the basis they contain less than 5% fat. You then end up forcing consumers to actually consider what they eat, instead of picking up something that's labelled 'healthy' and then not even thinking whether or not it actually is.

Furthermore, it sets a precedent that will protect people from much larger issues than diet - no more kooks on the internet selling dodgy health products etc.

Originally Posted by DeusXM

The problem is this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's entirely about passing off opinion as medical advice.

I understand Steve was to some extent charging for his advice and did very little to indicate he was neither trained nor qualified. This has since been rectified.

The analogy about movies and movie critics is completely irrelevant. Opinions on the quality of a movie are not subject to independent scientific verification. Dietary advice is. The fact that the science over dietary advice is confused complicates matters, but it doesn't change the fact that it should be possible to verify whether a diet is 'good' or not.

A much better analogy would be having someone with no qualifications charging for medical prescriptions. You wouldn't allow an unlicensed doctor to continue practising on the grounds of freedom of speech, and with good reason. It's the same for those giving out nutritional advice without a consensual scientific backing.

I've decided on balance, it'll be better for all our health if Steve loses. Why? Because then that sends out a clear message - if you don't have actual nutritional training, you can't influence dietary advice. Why's that good? Because then it provides a legal mechanism to prevent food manufacturers from influencing 'government' dietary advice. No more foods claiming to be 'healthy choices' on the basis they contain less than 5% fat. You then end up forcing consumers to actually consider what they eat, instead of picking up something that's labelled 'healthy' and then not even thinking whether or not it actually is.

Furthermore, it sets a precedent that will protect people from much larger issues than diet - no more kooks on the internet selling dodgy health products etc.

But what if Steve's right? What if our dietary and medical advice has been wrong all this time?

This is the danger of censorship - ideas go unchallenged and are subjected to the whims of power. We also know that Steve is not the only voice. There are not only many every day kooks but also researchers, doctors, and dietitians on board with the viewpoint. Such laws and professional organizations might do more to entrench bad practice than actually do good for us.

Advice is opinion. It is contained in a relationship, and I don't argue the relationship needs to be managed. Charging money for professional advice with no credentials and no insurance is folly, but it's not wrong. If a friend came to me for advice, I'd tell tehm what to do. I have many times, but I also tell them to check with their doctors, to check their facts, to do their own research.

These laws are a very slippery slope.

I've been following Steve for a while. He's been a big help to me with his advice. And it was advice that I asked for. He didn't contact me any way way before I contacted him. He has never charged me anything. And, he has also made it known that this is what he did. He's not holding a gun to anyone's head saying "Do it my way". And Steve is fully aware that his way of eating is not going to cure me but it sure as heck is helping my pocket by needing less insulin and still keeping good readings.

Here's an important loking analysis at Law dot Com

Can state licensing boards ban ordinary advice on the Internet?

Applying that kind of analysis to Cooksey's speech makes clear the irrationality of the North Carolina board's actions. There is perhaps no kind of advice more ubiquitous than dietary advice, and our general societal presumption is that competent adults are fully capable of weighing conflicting dietary advice and deciding for themselves what to eat. That's why Cooksey has joined with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, public interest law firm to challenge the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition's attempt to silence his speech.

Originally Posted by DeusXM

. . . it should be possible to verify whether a diet is 'good' or not.

Ordinarily, I think i would agree with you, Deus, but I am sooo tired of hearing advice from the registered dietician at the hospital where I see my endo that I am going to disagree. She is giving the same advice that she has given for 30 years (at least). I.e. follow the ADA guidelines, and get 50-60% of your calories from carbohydrates - and avoid all fats like the plague. I followed that advice for years, and it led to A1c's in the mid 7's to mid 8's. Since limiting my carb intake, my A1c's have been below 6.5 and occasionally below 6. I've also lost a few extra pounds. My take on all this is that the state of our knowledge about diet and its effect on metabolism is primitive at best.

If the dieticians are going to restrict what advice can be given with respect to diet, are they going to shoulder the liability of what happens when they themselves give bad advice? I honestly feel like I got bad advice for years, and it probably damaged my quality of life in some ways. But I'm quite sure the Dietetic Association is not advocating for that kind of responsibility.

But what if Steve's right? What if our dietary and medical advice has been wrong all this time?

But that's an entirely different argument. The principle is whether someone with no training is allowed to dispense health advice for a charge. We can argue all we want about how Steve is some sort of vanguard for a movement or whatever. But you've said yourself, there are plenty of doctors and dieticians on board with the different diet approach. They aren't getting sued. Why? Because they're trained. The 'establishment' isn't shutting down alternative points of view, it's shutting down untrained people from dispensing advice for money.

The question isn't whether the advice Steve was giving out for money was correct; the question is whether he personally should be allowed to charge for that advice. To put in perspective, what if I started a consultancy service where I charged people and told them they needed to use leeches to cure diabetes, and that my advice was superior to that of doctors' because it was a treatment with a long history? Should I be entitled to continue to run that service on the grounds of freedom of speech? I don't think so. What about if I started a similar service, but for telling cancer patients that chemo is a good idea? Should I be entitled to run that service? No. I'm not a doctor. I don't have the necessary training.

The problem is that all of Steve's supporters in this seem to have a very different agenda to the one they're promoting. Ostensibly, it's supposed to be about freedom of speech. But when this view is challenged, suddenly it's about dieticians giving bad advice, or that there's too much regulation in business (and what a surprise, a libertarian group funded by the Koch Family Foundation wants less business regulation). These are entirely separate debates and have absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going through the courts. Playing Devil's advocate, you could put forward a compelling counterargument that Steve is just another in a long line of people who are lining their pockets out of other people's sickness.

You need to ask yourself whether you're really in this on the grounds of freedom of speech, or whether it's really because you're seeing this court case as a platform to push a low-carb agenda and get your opinions validated. If it's the latter, let's at least be intellectually honest about this instead of using 'freedom of speech' as a Trojan horse.

If Steve was being prosecuted for offering diet advice entirely free of charge with no consultancy fee, and did his best to ensure his audience knew he wasn't qualified, then yes, I would back him on this. But that's not what's happened.

Deus, just want to say this. Steve has always had a disclaimer on his site stating that he was not a licensed professional. He never led anyone to believe he is.