Blogger Threatened with Jail!!

do not agree

threatened with jail? ppfft

This is gonna be fun!






*Sigh*

It has been a long time since they first made it clear to us that health claims would not be tolerated. Just don't do it. PERIOD. Look if you follow the rules you can do business online for free you're still in the gold rush age. Quit worrying about this and get out there and make some money before the gold rush closes. There will always be some rules. Make it your mission to be up on them, listen to other marketers. As much as I hate over flowing emails with marketers emails I get a lot of HEADS UPS allowing the emails through. You should do the same.

Exactly. This is why I DO NOT write sales letters for medical or health products UNLESS the person who created it is a licensed health care professional. The number of marketers selling three dollars worth of rewritten PLR as "medical advice" is scary.

Frankly, I don't want to play a part in hurting people by selling them bogus medical "cures." (I sleep better that way.) And, on top of that, the potential liability issues and FTC/FDA problems are a serious concern.

In short... there are better, safer products to market.

John

Very good advice. I'll remove a lot of the health benefit verbage regarding "What benefits other users have experienced..." section until I get further advice on this topic.

It's not medication or anything, it's actually just a high-searched health food with very little online information about - nothing significant, but I'll proceed with content as if it were a controversial health product because there's so many people out there looking for the next best thing to lose weight and get healthier with little to no work (kind of like the make money online community!). While I could take advantage of that energy, I'd rather educate people to BE SMART and improve the overall well being of their lives rather than just consuming a product!

By the way, this counts for fitness advice as well, for anyone who is telling people to do exercises.

I'd imagine it would depend on the wording, but you can't tell someone to do something to get bigger muscles, for example.

That's why trainers spend money to be insured for millions per year.

In theory, if you tell someone to do bench press and they get squashed, they could sue you for broken ribs and you are eligible for damages.

I'd be very careful with fitness/nutrition/medical advice.

Sorry! Meant to type nutritional advice. I think the info on Mark's Daily Apple is nutritional advice too.

Here's some medical advice:

Don't step in front of a speeding semi truck. It'll kill you.

That is medcial advice isn't it?

Thank you.

Tom

Teach me oh great one, how I have offended thee in the world of freedom of speech let us now have such discourse as might be fit for the human mind, doth thou doubt thy ability to do said analysis?

You know what thats all I need to make my point, its clear there is no ambiguity, there is no doubt, when you use those few words

So if you are right, then why can the FDA litigate against those who give unsupported medical advise? Why are they not protected by 'freedom of speech'?

Anecdotal evidence really doesn't matter here

Freedom of Speech really doesn't matter here

It doesn't even matter whether or not his diet cures every diabetes patient who tries it.

What matters is that the North Carolina legislature determined that it is against state law to give medical advice without possessing what they consider to be credentials in the medical field. Unless that law is changed or repealed, anyone giving medical advice in NC without whatever NC determines are proper medical credentials will be subject to prosecution.

So are we arguing about whether or not NC's law is a just law? Or are we arguing about whether it's a valid law (constitutionally)?

I disagree with the previous quote that Freedom of Speech extends to publication (also to art, or burning a flag, for that matter - my own <rant> :rolleyes - if Freedom of Speech was meant to cover print media, why did the constitutional framers also enumerate "Freedom of the Press"?

"Speech", at the time of the constitution's writing, referred to opening one's mouth and issuing words from it. That's why they felt they had to also mention "Freedom of the Press", and "Freedom of Assembly". To them, actions did not equate to speech. Therefore "Freedom of Speech" doesn't really cover the multitude of actions that people nowadays try to use it for.

Speech is speech. The speaking of words. Just because people nowadays want to re-define the word "speech", it shouldn't change the original spirit of the law, written by people who knew that speech is speech.

The State of North Carolina intended to stop this blogger from giving advice that could harm those who take that advice without proper guidance from someone familiar with their particular health concerns - the type of advice that should never be given out without very explicit disclaimers advising readers to consult their own physician before starting any diet or treatment. They may well have saved him from a lawsuit down the road - even if his advice never harmed anyone. All it takes is a person with an existing condition (like those reading his blog) - if they can even prove that your advice could have had an effect on their condition, you're toast.

Who will decide if your advice is potentially harmful? The state or country with jurisdiction over you, with the guidance (in US) of the FDA, who is historically hostile towards homeopathic and natural medicine.

You can hate the FDA, you can hate states like NC, you can even hate the entire medical establishment. But right or wrong, anyone in the health niche is subject to scrutiny by people who's best interest is not served by people outside of the medical field offering alternate solutions to people's health problems. That could suck sometimes, but it can also protect lives. Not all of us need laws to make us ethical, but some do, and the just must live under the same laws as the unjust...

PS: I hope I didn't get too political here - slap me down if I did (I love the abuse :p)

If he tells people that it can cure diabetes, it certainly does. He can relay his own experience according to NC law, but cannot advise others to adopt his plan without a license. The problem is that each person is different and he could give people advice that could kill them.

It appears that he was offering diabetes/nutritional consulting for a fee without a license as well.