North Carolina orders blogger to stop giving dietary advice

View Comments (15)

• I was unaware that the curriculum for earning a law license included courses in nutrition.

• This means that Michelle Obama is a criminal and can be arrested at the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte in September.

  Honestly, who would look at her and believe that she has been able to come up with any kind of a diet?

  • The Seafood diet. See food and eat it.

• All this from a state that makes moonshine and grows tobacco. Hypocrites!!!!

• NC is also the state that was inspecting children's school lunches: https://www.ihatethemedia.com/2nd-nc-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough

  Sounds like a whole bunch of Nanny Staters have moved from NYC to NC in the past few years.

• Not surprising, they also don't want you to know about black salve for skin cancer. I know for a fact that it works, but you are NOT allowed to buy it in the states anymore.

  • Huh? What's black salve?

    • http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/eschar.html

      "Corrosive salves are often referred to as "escharotics" because they produce a thick, dry scab called an "eschar" on the skin. Their use to treat cancer dates back hundreds of years, perhaps even to ancient times. Their use was fairly common during the 18th and 19th centuries. If a tumor is confined to the superficial layers of the skin, it would be possible to burn it off with a corrosive salve or paste. Unfortunately, products capable of accomplishing this can also burn the surrounding normal tissue and result in unnecessary scarring. For superficial cancers—for which the cure rate with standard treatment is nearly 100%—it makes much more sense to use standard methods that can destroy the cancer with little or no damage to the nearby tissues.

      • Interesting site, but the most interesting part was that it used four anecdotes to support its point of view. Strange for medical people who are supposed to be scientists, don't you think? I'm sure I could find four anecdotes about people who used standard medical treatments and had unfavorable results.

        • J.P., I have used the product, as have friends and family. It got out stuff a $125 visit to the skin doctor did not.
          Having lived in S. Florida, and coming from a family that seems to have a knack for getting skin cancer, all I can say is it works for us.
          Thank God none of the stuff the docs checked was malignant, but I just got to the point where if I even THOUGHT it might be cancerous I used the black salve on it. It took most of the stuff out within 3 days, and costs a hell of a lot less than the Doctors do.

          But again, that's just me.

        • I would probably continue using it, too.

        • Ah, but if you're the one regularly using something the government says doesn't work, and it has worked wonderfully for you for 20 years, that would be anecdotal, wouldn't it? Therefore not good information, according to scientists?

        • Archives of Dermatology

          http://jamanetwork.com/index.aspx

          "The Archives of Dermatology has been in continuous publication since October 1882. It began publication by the American Medical Association in 1920 as Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology; in 1955, it continued publication as Archives of Dermatology. It is an international peer-reviewed journal published 12 times a year..."

          I would consider this a reputable journal. Hardly "anecdotal."

        • It doesn't matter how reputable the publication is if it is using anecdotes to support its position. The scientific method doesn't magically change because of their reputation. They may be correct in their conclusion. I like the logic part of the article, where they talk about the salve being unable to reach cancer cells that have metastisized. All I'm saying is the rest of the article is about as unscientific and unprofessional as an article can get. It's surprising that medical people would resort to 4 anecdotes to make a point, especially since medical people are the ones who complain most vehemently about anecdotal evidence. It makes me suspicious.

        • Just looking at it from the outside, no previous knowledge, it makes sense to me that superficial skin cancers, like the ones farmers and ranchers get from sun exposure, might very well be removed by this coorosive salve. Those cancers DO metastasize, but rarely and those that do generaly move very slowly. I can see that when medical care was less available, this may have been successfully used for small, early, discreet lesions. The problme is you can't always tell by looking which type of skin cancer you have, they all DO metatasize and we hve more effective, safer treatments that reduce the possibility of recurrence or metastasis.