5 ms·

I’m still hoping someone can prove me wrong: the unlicensed providing of nutrition advice has never caused actual harm to anyone anywhere ever.

tokai 7y ago
How about you start trying to prove yourself right first?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > How about you start trying to prove yourself right first? Because if you have to prove something is true before the law allows you to do it, you are prohibited by law from proving it is true until after you have proved it is true.
  - tokai 7y ago
    I have no idea what you're on about. He should just look for supporting sources himself, instead of challenging us to disprove his non-substantiated opinion.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      This is a discussion about relaxing exclusionary licensing. Asking for research justifying the restrictions prior to enacting or continuing them is reasonable. Asking for research justifying removing them before actually removing them, when doing the research would require removing them, is a catch 22.
pgeorgi 7y ago
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starved-to-death-on-daylight-diet/news-story/d5037b92889834df50634e0f4cc300fb https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starve... "This was the fourth known death linked to breatharianism and Jasmuheen's books since the practice emerged in the early 90s." Unlicensed nutrition advice ("eat and drink nothing") causing actual harm ("death") to anyone anywhere ever ("fourth known death")
- makomk 7y ago
  Of course, she got that advice from a book and documentary. Should the government have the power to ban the sale of unapproved books and documentaries containing medical advice - maybe even the description of unsafe health and nutritional practices full stop?
  - pgeorgi 7y ago
    That wasn't what the OP was asking. Instead there was some hand-wavy assertion that can be generated within seconds but takes minutes to disprove. That's a popular tactic to bind resources while at some point getting something that went "undisproven". I'm not interested in playing that game in general, but this particular instance was just too amusing to not react to it.
- Overtonwindow 7y ago
  Nope. Those are books. Try again.
b_tterc_p 7y ago
It is hard to find direct evidence of this because bad diet won't usually kill you before you quit it, nor is long term permanent damage easy to nail down attribution analysis. It should be obvious that certain bad advice has led some people to get fatter, and some people to miss essential nutrients. But if you really must have some direct story, here's a bunch of idiots who tried to extract all of their nutrition from the air: https://culteducation.com/group/848-breatharianism/3269-three-deaths-linked-to-living-on-air-cults.html https://culteducation.com/group/848-breatharianism/3269-thre... (edit, amused that someone else posted a link to the same random, whacko movement. It does highlight the difficulty in finding evidence for what are otherwise rapid, vanishing fad diets)
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  The reason I picked them is, as you said, that cause and effect are easily linked in their case. Colloidal silver is suspected to lead to kidney damage, but it's much less conclusive. I'd also call "you turn into a smurf" enough harm to count, but I didn't want to argue semantics.
Overtonwindow 7y ago
Still waiting.. so far I’ve only seen people talk about books, and people following advice that they came up with. There is still no factual evidence of one person providing nutrition advice for money to another person and causing actual harm.

tokai 7y ago

How about you start trying to prove yourself right first?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> How about you start trying to prove yourself right first? Because if you have to prove something is true before the law allows you to do it, you are prohibited by law from proving it is true until after you have proved it is true.
- tokai 7y ago
  I have no idea what you're on about. He should just look for supporting sources himself, instead of challenging us to disprove his non-substantiated opinion.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    This is a discussion about relaxing exclusionary licensing. Asking for research justifying the restrictions prior to enacting or continuing them is reasonable. Asking for research justifying removing them before actually removing them, when doing the research would require removing them, is a catch 22.

pgeorgi 7y ago

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starved-to-death-on-daylight-diet/news-story/d5037b92889834df50634e0f4cc300fb https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starve... "This was the fourth known death linked to breatharianism and Jasmuheen's books since the practice emerged in the early 90s." Unlicensed nutrition advice ("eat and drink nothing") causing actual harm ("death") to anyone anywhere ever ("fourth known death")

makomk 7y ago
Of course, she got that advice from a book and documentary. Should the government have the power to ban the sale of unapproved books and documentaries containing medical advice - maybe even the description of unsafe health and nutritional practices full stop?
- pgeorgi 7y ago
  That wasn't what the OP was asking. Instead there was some hand-wavy assertion that can be generated within seconds but takes minutes to disprove. That's a popular tactic to bind resources while at some point getting something that went "undisproven". I'm not interested in playing that game in general, but this particular instance was just too amusing to not react to it.
Overtonwindow 7y ago
Nope. Those are books. Try again.

b_tterc_p 7y ago

It is hard to find direct evidence of this because bad diet won't usually kill you before you quit it, nor is long term permanent damage easy to nail down attribution analysis. It should be obvious that certain bad advice has led some people to get fatter, and some people to miss essential nutrients. But if you really must have some direct story, here's a bunch of idiots who tried to extract all of their nutrition from the air: https://culteducation.com/group/848-breatharianism/3269-three-deaths-linked-to-living-on-air-cults.html https://culteducation.com/group/848-breatharianism/3269-thre... (edit, amused that someone else posted a link to the same random, whacko movement. It does highlight the difficulty in finding evidence for what are otherwise rapid, vanishing fad diets)

pgeorgi 7y ago
The reason I picked them is, as you said, that cause and effect are easily linked in their case. Colloidal silver is suspected to lead to kidney damage, but it's much less conclusive. I'd also call "you turn into a smurf" enough harm to count, but I didn't want to argue semantics.

Overtonwindow 7y ago

Still waiting.. so far I’ve only seen people talk about books, and people following advice that they came up with. There is still no factual evidence of one person providing nutrition advice for money to another person and causing actual harm.