Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Fri, Jun-08-18, 12:17
s93uv3h's Avatar
s93uv3h s93uv3h is offline
 
Plan: Atkins & IF
Stats: 000/014.5/015 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 97%
Default

He was great in The Magic Pill.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Fri, Jun-08-18, 14:42
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 866
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/185/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 102%
Location: New Zealand
Default

What wonderful news to wake up to this morning. After all he's done for so many people around the world - myself included - I'm so happy for him to have finally reached the end of this ordeal.

I'll be sure to spread the word about this.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Fri, Jun-08-18, 15:56
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,428
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

There's an important point raised in this case - patient/doctor relationship - where a doctor cannot reasonably conclude anything (i.e. diagnose) unless he examines the patient directly in person. So, for example, a doctor opens up a public website on which he gives medical advice to any visitor, obviously without having examined any of them in any way. So, yeah, I understand completely why there is such a restriction.

But here's the question, is there any kind of precedent on this planet with regards to any medical profession doing same? Yes, there is, and in fact it's business as usual for this particular medical profession. But we just call it Official Dietary Guidelines.

This is giant irony of the most bestest kind, the kind where nobody thought could ever happen. Yet, it's quite true. The various dietetic associations try real hard to have their members' profession be recognized as a medical profession. How could they ever hope to achieve this when the basis for their professional advice (i.e. DGA) is otherwise given freely without consultation of any kind?

Oh, you want the same privileges? Well then, you gonna get the same obligations too.

On the flip side, we've never had such extensive and free access to medical and nutritional information that didn't require any consultation of any kind.

Well done, Tim.
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Fri, Jun-08-18, 17:49
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,369
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Always wonderful to start a weekend with good news. I'm pleased this witch hunt has finally concluded. He can never be compensated for the cost and stress this circus has caused, but isn't it interesting that when they picked on Tim Noakes, they picked on the right person at the right time? The awareness of this mess has traveled the world and informed people who otherwise would never have known about these important issues.
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Sat, Jun-09-18, 10:02
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,373
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/so...ng-guru-noakes/

It’s finally over‚ says relieved banting guru Noakes

Quote:
Banting guru Professor Tim Noakes has won his case at the Health Profession’s Council of SA‚ four years after he tweeted that a mother should wean her baby on to a low-carb-high-fat diet.

He told TimesLIVE: "The predominant feeling at the moment is one of intense relief. Relief that it is finally over and that the appeal judgment was again 100% in our favour as was the original judgment. This chapter is finally closed. I just hope that all the effort put in by myself and my team will help move the dietary guidelines forward to the benefit of the health of all South Africans."

In February 2014‚ the mother‚ Pippa Leenstra‚ tweeted: "~ProfTimNoakes ~SalCreed is LCHF eating ok for breastfeeding mums? Worried about all the dairy + cauliflower = wind for babies??"

The complaint against Noakes was laid with Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) by dietician Claire Strydom‚ who was then chairperson of the Association of Dieticians of SA.

Noakes won his case in April last year but the HPCSA appealed the ruling and a new appeal committee‚ including a doctor and a lawyer‚ was established.

The issues at both hearings examined whether Noakes was giving "unconventional advice" over social media and whether he was treating Leenstra's baby as a patient without conducting an examination. Doctors cannot treat patients over social media.

The appeal found there was no doctor-patient relationship between Noakes and Leenstra‚ who had used Twitter to ask for general advice.

In its appeal the HPCSA argued that the protection of public from tweets was paramount.

The panel found the matter of protecting the public was not argued in the first hearing or in the heads of arguments and said that for the HPCSA to bring it up later was a “fishing expedition”.

The appeal was dismissed late on Friday afternoon.

The panel found that the first panel was correct to agree with Noakes’s argument that: “Neither she [Strydom] or I can be certain of what is the best diet on to which to wean a child. As a result‚ we are allowed to our own conclusions based on professional experience and training.”

What Noakes frequently said during the trial was that if he was banned for tweeting‚ it would affect all health professionals giving general medical advice on social media‚ or discussing controversial medical issues.

During the appeal hearing Noakes’s lawyers mentioned emails they had accessed through the Promotion of Access to Information request. The emails were between Strydom and a professor of dietetics at North-West University and discussed a plan to complain about Noakes before the tweet in question was posted.

Noakes’s legal team argued that the two had planned to take him down and found a tweet to do so.
**

Noakes has said his legal costs would have run into millions had his two advocates‚ Mike van der Nest and Rocky Ramdass‚ not acted for free.

There was no order about costs‚ so the HPCSA did not need not pay any of his legal fees.



**Back in March, Marika at FoodMed wrote in more detail about how, why and with whom the plans were laid to "take him down"
http://foodmed.net/2018/03/noakes-w...rs-silence-him/

Last edited by JEY100 : Sat, Jun-09-18 at 10:09.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Sat, Jun-09-18, 11:58
s93uv3h's Avatar
s93uv3h s93uv3h is offline
 
Plan: Atkins & IF
Stats: 000/014.5/015 Male 5' 10"
BF:
Progress: 97%
Default

He is one of my heroes.

Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Mon, Jun-11-18, 07:26
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,373
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Marika Sboros's article on the decision. http://foodmed.net/2018/06/noakes-f...ks-wounds-lchf/
She doggedly followed this trial from day one, kept it in the news, even wrote a book about Prof Noakes, she deserves thanks to as a journalist who hung onto a story when others would have "moved on."
Some others stories linked here: https://www.dietdoctor.com/professo...is-finally-over
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Mon, Jun-11-18, 09:18
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,369
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Marika functioned in the spirit of true journalism. She definitely deserves recognition for her perseverance in something that could have been easily dropped and was by others. Truth is so often twisted by so many with an agenda nowadays. It's important for all to be aware of the constant spin of so many topics.
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Mon, Jun-11-18, 09:28
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,857
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Were the frivolous accusers required to pay at least some of Noakes' legal fees or does he have to sue them for that?

Dietitian Claire Strydom should try LCHF eating. The fact that Noakes literally wrote the book on carbo-loading for athletes, but saw the error of his ways AND ADMITTED IT is rare in science & medicine. Meanwhile Strydom and her ilk are still practising the dangerous HCLF diet.
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Mon, Jun-11-18, 17:42
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,816
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

I HOPE the whole mess is ALL over for Prof Noakes but, as I read the "decision" handed down by the Appeal Committee of the HPCSA, I fear that it may not be.

I don't know a thing about South African law, and I definitely don't understand the "rules" under which the Health Professions Committee of South Africa operates. And I'll admit that the opinion (Jey posted a link to it on Scribd) contains a whole lot of language that doesn't conform to standard usage in American English.

I took the time to slog my way thru the opinion and it looks to me like the Appeals Committee basically said "We can't find Dr. Noakes guilty of misleading/harming the public because the complainant never raised that issue at the trial level." Maybe I'm just pessimistic but I fear that those who want to take Noakes down will view that as an open invitation to go back to the trial court with a brand new complaint alleging that Noakes is "harming the public" by "misleading" them and that the HSPCA is charged with "protecting the public" and must therefore shut Noakes up!

Think of it this way. Suppose I get into a fight with my next door neighbor and, in a fury, I drive my car across his lawn. He goes to the police and has them bring charges against me for assault. He wants the court to take away my driver's license...and maybe make me take anger management classes.

The trial court decides for me because the charge of assault requires that I either actually physically inflict physical harm or an unwanted physical contact upon another person OR I have to have at least made a credible threat/attempt to physically harm him. Since my neighbor wasn't home at the time I drove my car across his lawn, the assault claim fails.

My neighbor appeals and, in his appeal claims that my driving recklessly when I am in a rage is a danger to the entire neighborhood. The appeals court again rules for me BUT they do NOT say "we think bevangel is innocent of driving recklessly." Instead the appeals court says "the lower court was correct in finding that bevangel did not commit an assault by driving her car across her neighbor's lawn AND the issue of reckless driving was not presented to the lower court therefore we cannot make a judgement on that question here."

Any prosecuting lawyer reading that opinion would say "wait a minute...what the appeals court is telling me is that I brought the wrong charge to the lower court! I need to refile...this time I'll charge bevangel with reckless driving and endangering the public based on exactly the same facts as before."

I sincerely HOPE I'm wrong but, honestly, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Prof. Noakes hauled before the HPCSA once again, this time charged with something like "unethical behavior: specifically, endangering the public by providing non-conventional dietary advice via a public medium."
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Mon, Jun-11-18, 19:32
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,428
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I am not a lawyer. I'm just some guy.

Protection of the public was an ad hoc argument during the appeal, and was rejected as such, but also rejected as a fishing expedition and "such approach is unacceptable". Even though it was rejected (not ruled on) therefore could be used in a new complaint, it stands under the tweet by Noakes, and this tweet has been addressed correctly at length. This means that for a new complaint with this ad hoc argument to be valid, it must first show the nature of that tweet to be different this time around. In my opinion, at this point it's quite impossible to do this since the tweet has been ruled on twice already.

Your assault/reckless driving analogy is slightlly different in that the original claim is misdirected. In Noakes' case, the original claim was correct and was correctly ruled on, but then an additional claim was attempted during the appeal, and for this new claim to be valid the same event must be seen differently, but can't because the correct claim about this event was correctly ruled on - the event was correctly seen for what it was. Also in Noakes' case, the new claim is related to the original claim (manifests from it as a potential consequence), it's not different, so it's unlikely a ruling on this new claim would be any different. For your reckless driving analogy, this would be like ruling not guilty of reckless driving, then arguing that reckless driving could endanger the public and making that a claim on its own. If you're not guilty of reckless driving, you couldn't possibly be guilty of endangering the public as a consequence of being not guilty of reckless driving. See?

On the flip side, in Marika's article, it says that new evidence was discovered. Tweets between Strydom and the HPCSA. The content of which clearly indicates intent to silence Noakes, and a tweet by Noakes was found to do this. This new evidence was not presented (or at least not considered, if it was indeed presented) during the appeal. Not sure if it was presented during the original hearings. Anyways, that stuff is ammo for Noakes, if he decides to sue Strydom and the HPCSA and the ADSA and whoever else financed the whole mess. I mean, he could, but somehow I don't think he wants to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Mon, Jun-11-18, 22:30
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,204
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

It looks like they have plenty of time to decide whether to sue or not. I'd love to see it happen if it's worth the headache for him.


Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Tue, Jun-12-18, 10:02
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,520
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/218/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 31%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
There's an important point raised in this case - patient/doctor relationship - where a doctor cannot reasonably conclude anything (i.e. diagnose) unless he examines the patient directly in person. So, for example, a doctor opens up a public website on which he gives medical advice to any visitor, obviously without having examined any of them in any way. So, yeah, I understand completely why there is such a restriction.

Tim.


And yet, how many times I have been to see a doc in person, and they still get the diagnosis WRONG. How many times, I have had to go off on my own to fix an issue.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Fri, Jun-22-18, 03:52
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,373
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

I almost cannot believe the trial part of the saga is now over, but a heartfelt thanks from Prof Noakes and how to continue the work towards evidence based dietary guidelines in the US.

https://www.change.org/f/help-us-re...n=petition_show
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 22:23.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.