It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blogger threatened with jail for writing on health

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
More ridiculousness from the mainstream medical establishment. Now we're not allowed to talk with one another about diet or our own success stories. This is mafia monopoly, and it's crazy!



A blogger in North Carolina has been threatened with jail time for “practicing nutrition without a license” by writing about his experiences with diabetes and telling readers what types of food he was eating.

It was in January when the North Carolina Board of Dietetics and Nutrition told blogger Steve Cooksey, who writes at diabetes-warrior.net, that it was investigating him for providing nutrition care services without a license.

Cooksey was accused of violating Chapter 90, Article 25 of the North Carolina General Statutes, which makes it a misdemeanor to “practice dietetics or nutrition” without state permission – a license. According to the law, “practicing” nutrition includes “assessing the nutritional needs of individuals and groups” and “providing nutrition counseling.”

In February 2009, after being hospitalized with diabetes and wanting to avoid the fate of his grandmother who eventually died from the disease, Cooksey decided to embrace the low-carb, high-protein Paleo, or “caveman,” diet.

As a result of the diet, he was drug- and insulin-free within 30 days. By May of that year, he had lost 45 pounds and decided to start a blog in which he would write about his success.

In January, Cooksey received a call from the director of the nutrition board telling him he was not allowed to offer nutrition advice without a license and that his website was being investigated. He was also told that if he did not comply with the “suggestions” in a 19-page report, his website could be shut down and he could be sentenced to up to 120 days in jail.

The first page of the report shows Cooksey responding to an email he received from a person who is concerned about a friend that has diabetes. In the response he says, “Your friend must first and foremost obtain and maintain normal blood sugars.”

The official hand wrote a note in the column saying “assessing and advising requires a license.”

When Cooksey provided a list of what he eats as part of his diet, he was told, “It is acceptable to provide just this information, but when you start recommending it directly to people you speak to or write to you, you are now providing diabetic counseling which requires a license.”

In a statement on his blog site, Cooksey said that in response to the investigation he stopped writing his published advice column, took down his diabetes support packages and made the disclaimer more prominent.

The steps appear to have satisfied government officials, who announced April 9 they were closing the case.

However, Cooksey says he does not consider the issue to be over.

“All this means is that the board has violated my First Amendment rights by silencing me in altering how I express my opinions. My compliance is compliance with their violation of my rights, not an agreement between us that I was wrong and they were right,” he said. “I have absolutely no intention of complying with the board’s violation of my free speech rights. I intend to defend those rights, not only for myself, but for everyone.

“This is America and America people should be free to give each other advice about things like diet.”





posted on May, 1 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
"Hey, the medication we tell you will help you live actually kills you slowly and makes you spend more money on something that will kill you a little less slower than the last medication; you subliminally got closer to that
truth, we're locking you up until you decide to keep your mouth shut"

Really, this is outlandish.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


I'm just getting into business selling natural supplements, and the things I'm learning as I do about the establishment amaze me! Did you know if you put on the side of a bottle of water "this product will cure dehydration" you can be fined and sent to jail?! Ha!

We tried to have our products approved throught the FDA (thank God it failed, ended up being a blessing). We couldn't get it approved because we couldn't pass the initial trial called an LD50 (Lethal Dose 50%). So, you take a million mice, and force the "drug" into them until you kill 50%, proving the lethal dose. We couldn't kill any of the mice! The product was intrinsically not lethal. In addition, the mice receiving the supplement got healthier and increased cognition (ie. ran the mazes increasingly faster, etc.). So, because our product was not provably lethal, the FDA would not approve it. Madness much?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BBobb
 


Really, "cure" is a bad word. "Cure" implies one-time usage.

"Treatment" is a better word...in case you haven't noticed, people who are being "treated" make return visits. People who are "cured" never have to see a doctor regarding the issue again...at least not for the same incident.

Just a note on the semantics.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas
"Hey, the medication we tell you will help you live actually kills you slowly and makes you spend more money on something that will kill you a little less slower than the last medication; you subliminally got closer to that
truth, we're locking you up until you decide to keep your mouth shut"

Really, this is outlandish.


But...that's how it works!

And then the pesticides slowly develop health issues, but hey, they're not worried. It's a sales gimmick; your health starts failing, and you pay to get treated. The treatment has side effects resulting in another visit. And you continue to eat and drink the stuff that hurt you in the first place.

Money. It's all money. If we got rid of money, there would be no more reason to work us like sheep, right? That's why we still have money. It's so complicated...and yet, I know almost every part of it. I have most of it figured out.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBobb
 


Really, "cure" is a bad word. "Cure" implies one-time usage.

"Treatment" is a better word...in case you haven't noticed, people who are being "treated" make return visits. People who are "cured" never have to see a doctor regarding the issue again...at least not for the same incident.

Just a note on the semantics.


Well said. Although I do grow a bit tired of the semantic tango, because in my opinion it really limits freedom of expression. When I say freedom of expression, I literally mean the ability through comfort and ease of speech to just engage with the use of language. When we start nit-picking things to closely, it stifles. This, by the way, is not a criticism of your point, I think you're right about what you said. It's just that we were never meant to be ruled by lawyers...but look what's become.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
this makes me so angry !!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Do pharmaceutical companies have a "license" to assess and advise when they suggest ibuprofen, aspirin or similar for headaches... or antacids for heartburn... or something for erectile dysfunction?
Can you be fined for suggesting quitting smoking due to shortness of breath and other issues?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
Do pharmaceutical companies have a "license" to assess and advise when they suggest ibuprofen, aspirin or similar for headaches... or antacids for heartburn... or something for erectile dysfunction?
Can you be fined for suggesting quitting smoking due to shortness of breath and other issues?


In some supermarkets I know they put the Paracetamol down low where they used to have sweets...yet it's one of the most toxic drugs available in any supermarket. Paracetamol needs to be banned, ever since it first appeared on the market the liver transplant list exploded. The Crazy thing is that sometimes you take well without the maximum dose, but it destroys your liver anyway.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
uhmm...do you have any source article for this? not that i don't trust what this guy is saying, i would just like to here or read the other side of the arguement.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
OMG,,, where is DR. OZ when you need him to bust a case open..
the fact here is the hunter gatherer diet is the real way to be healthy,, but
the Big Pharma and the FDA will not allow that to be heard



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein
 


Do you have any links concerning the parecetomol?? i'm not disbelieving you but I did a little research when looking for a "Safe" pain killer and could not find much negative info on it. Have you found info I missed?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Already posted here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks




**Thread Closed**


for future reference:

We Have A New Search Engine--Please Use It!



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join