Should government have the right to shut down "quack" websites?

This subject came up recently during an evening chat with my two sons (we have some pretty good ones at times), as the result of my reading an online account of a very disturbing medical case.

The account I read was of an older couple who were in a very difficult position, the husband with terminal cancer (not PCa), having exhausted all currently available treatment options.

In desperation the couple turned to a website promising a cure, and in the process lost much of their life savings to this site, with nothing to show for it. Soon after the husband died, and the wife was left in financial difficulty.

As soon as I relayed this story to my sons, in general conversation, my older son said "The government should put a stop to websites like that!" Then my younger one said "No, that's government censorship!"

So we kicked it around for a while, and came up with:

PRO GOVERNMENT ACTION:
The FDA already regulates drugs, so it (or the Dept. of Health and Human Services) should have the right to shut down quack sites as well. Also, such sites can be medically harmful, and so should be regulated. Regulation protects medically desperate consumers, who may fall prey to such sites.

CON:
Such regulation is a violation of First Amendment rights of such site owners. It would be an over-extension of governmental regulatory powers, which many feel are already intrusive. In some cases the products being promoted by certain websites may actually have therapeutic value, which will be lost through government suppression.

But these observations we made are just the start of a possible debate.

So what do you think? Should the government shut down websites that offer cures, treatments, etc., of questionable medical value? Who decides this? Would such websites have the right to appeal such actions? If so, to whom? What is the balance here between protecting the rights of such websites to offer their product to the public, possibly for a price, and yet maintaining the rights of consumers to expect a reasonably trustworthy product from the websites they visit?

Obviously the elements of a debate are here. Which side would you come down on?

Your younger son lost that one a long time ago. The FDA currently does have the power to shut them down. They send out "cease and desist" orders to anyone making unsubstantiated medical claims, and can impose penalties.

www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ProtectYourself/HealthFraud/ucm255474.htm

Unfortunately, the Internet is an ocean and the FDA only has a small pipette of resources at its disposal. If you see any violations, you can alert them.

- Allen

Talk about your slippery slope, and free speech issues! But as has been pointed out, we have already slipped down that slope a good distance. On occasion, the FDA even goes after folks making health claims for food:
www.fda.gov/Food/ComplianceEnforcement/WarningLetters/ucm081724.htm

So who is to protect us from the government? The bill of rights supposedly, but then there is that slippery slope. You guys are all old enough to remember when the government( allied with our brightest medical authorities) was encouraging consumers, and more than encouraging business' ( like McDonalds) to ditch all saturated fats and replace them with soybean or other vegetable oil for frying? Or encouraging the use of same which has been treated by the mad scientists so that it would be solid at room temp and colored, both so that it would look like butter? AKA margarine? AKA hydrogenated oils? AKA Trans fats? Our government and the medical authorities ( who are also the ones who say who the quacks are) changed the habits of an entire country, no doubt to the benefit of certain industries. And have only stopped recommending that stuff in recent years, after 30+ years of propaganda in favor of it.

How many folks do you suppose they killed with that bit of quackery? How many of us at this site, while alive, are worse off in the heart department due to years of following that advice? Some of us probably still do follow it, since they did not exactly make a big of a deal about telling people to stop doing what they had been telling them to do, so some of us do not know. I also am not aware of any government or medical establishment apology for that gross error. Or again, was that quackery? Any one ever hear an apology from the guys who shut down the quacks?

Then how about the "cut fats way down and replace with bread/cereal/pasta/potatoes" advice, starting about the same time as the margarine kick, that coincided with a massive increase in obesity and diabetes? The science ( or at least the more current "science") is only now beginning to shoot the high carb/low fat theories down, it has not got quite as far as the trans fat ban has. But it appears to be happening. But the government will be slow to turn that boat around.

How about all the times the FDA, based on the scientific studies, have approved a drug as safe and effective, only to have to pull it from the market or issue big warnings a few years later when they realize how many folks the drug has hurt or even killed? Who is going to guard us against that? The same guys concerned about, and issuing warning letters due to health claims for cherries approved those drugs.
prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceid=005528
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

I bet there are at least a few guys here who wish that the government had warned them about surgery for their low volume G6 that left them impotent and in diapers, and/or with shortening, PD or loss of pleasurable orgasm, or all of the above- for what has turned out to be extremely low risk situation. Seems like there might be a thread about that going on right now? But who was there to warn us about that, at least until very recently at this site? Well, actually, I can think of a few "quack" sites that have been warning about that for years. Some of those places the FDA would probably shut down if they become aware of them.

Yep, IMO, a slippery slope.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 8/31/2016 2:31:55 PM (GMT-6)

I don't see any "slippery slope" here. The FDA has a specific power, granted by Congress (which, turn, is elected by "We, the People") as US Code Title 21. The 1906 Food and Drug Act, was expanded by Congress in 1938, and with amendments since, to be the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. It is their job to ensure that drugs are effective and safe, that food and cosmetics are safe, and to make sure that there are no fraudulent health claims made for food, drugs and cosmetics.

They do a pretty good job, and their determinations are used in almost every country in the world. There will always be failures (any engineer on this site can explain why they would be doing their job poorly if there were never failures). There will always be later data that may lead them to reverse their earlier decisions, but there will always be pressure (yes, from pharmaceutical mfrs, but mostly from us!) to reach determinations quickly. There will always be dishonest people who lie and commit fraud, but thankfully, that is a rare event.

I'd say it is a slippery slope when you start regulating what can be said on web sites or anywhere else, unless people are inciting violence. Or maybe telling a seller of food they can not make health claims for food unless the feds give permission, maybe even requiring RCTs as adequate proof. The slippery slope is the loss of free speech.

Yes, mistakes will always be made, and they have made them, and will continue to be made, despite RCTs by drug companies. But there is no one to shut them down for being dangerous and biased, they do the shutting down. When they make those mistakes despite all the RCT trials to prove safe and effective, people are hurt, but they are not called quacks, they determine who the quacks are. A rather huge mistake was convincing the American public they should replace butter and lard with trans fats. That was quackery, no real evidence for that government advice, but that's OK, they are allowed, and there was no one to stop them. Just so a cherry seller does not make unproven claims about the health benefits of cherries, all will be OK. I say they have no real right to regulate speech - (as opposed to the sale of drugs)- speech regarding health issues, when they told us we should eat trans fats, plus have given us many harmful drugs over the years. How is it that their RCTs proved these drugs safe and effective, when sometimes they were neither, and sometimes were deadly? But then they want to regulate speech of people who might disagree with them on some of these issues? Some folks were speaking out about some things like trans fats and others for a very long time before the gov finally gave in. But they should have the right to shut down the speech of those pointing out how they were wrong? The congress may have given them them the power to oppress free speech( that slippery slope), regardless of the 2nd amendment. (EDIT: Duh, I obviously meant FIRST amendment, LOL, but some of this thinking can be applied to the 2nd also) But that does not make it right. IMO, anyway. But I'm sure there are many who are all for government having the final say about what people can say about these matters or any others.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 8/31/2016 7:57:56 PM (GMT-6)

It seems to me that it's simple. People shouldn't be allowed to claim that this or that unregulated substance or treatment will cure a disease, without scientific facts to back it up.

I agree with Halbert, that's not a slippery slope. It's protection of an often gullible public.

BillyBob said...
I'd say it is a slippery slope...

It is not a slippery slope just because you assert that it might happen in some imaginary version of reality. In reality, there are very strict laws about where the gov't can and cannot step in. It might interest you to investigate what some of those safeguards actually are - they are designed to protect free speech while criminalizing speech that is used for fraud, libel, slander, and to harm others. That protects all of us. Those food and drug laws have been in place since 1906. Certainly, if there were a "slippery slope" we would have seen the evidence for that in over a century.

You might be interested to learn as well that US free-speech laws are much more liberal than in most other western democracies. Canada, for example, has limits on protected speech that may include obscenity laws, hate propaganda laws, and the law of defamation. In the US, the Supreme Court has held that the KKK can march and put any vile thing they want on their signs. In Canada, and most of the rest of the world, they cannot.

So, for example, cherry growers cannot make unsubstantiated health claims in order to dupe people to buy more cherries. At the same time, a manufacturer of, say, ibuprofen, can make the claim that it relieves pain because it is approved for that use.

Show us where we have fallen down this imaginary slippery slope of yours.If it hasn't happened in a century, why would it happen now?

TA,

When you say there are "strict" laws you are, in many people's opinion, already on a slippery slope. We are a country of laws .... more lawyers in the US then in the rest of the world. 51% of the people can pass a strict law (or elect an official) that is very unpopular with the other 49%.

You must admit we have many laws that we find hard to enforce, such as murder in our major cities. We can not expect government and laws to protect us from all evils. At some point we must take ownership and protect ourselves. Do we really need strict laws, and the government, to protect us from buying snake oil?

Having said that I do think that for the most part the FDA has served a useful function and has performed adequately under current regulations.

RCS:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do we really need strict laws, and the government, to protect us from buying snake oil?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In answer to your question, I think so. If anything, to protect us and put away these vultures.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having said that I do think that for the most part the FDA has served a useful function and has performed adequately under current regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh.. yes. This is an excellent case in point

Mel

RCS, I think Mel, and most if not all of us here, are smart enough to spot a vulture. But thats just not the case for so many people. And many who are smart enough, if they are in desparate straits, will believe what they so desparately want to believe. Those are the people that need to be protected. Thos are the ones who will potentially be caught in the fraud web

When I started this thread, of course I realized the potential was here for this thing to start getting political, personal, etc.

Talk about your slippery slopes.

Personally, I respect everyone's point of view. The fact is, nobody likes overreaching government. And the fact is, nobody likes unregulated, maybe dangerous, medications, hazardous things in our lives, etc. that government could maybe stop.

But these issue are clearly so touch-button, that maybe it’s time to step away from them, for the benefit of all. Things are starting to get a bit testy. So let’s all agree to disagree, or at least call for a truce.

Mods, if any of you are there, as the OP, I’d like to call for a lock now, and let's call it a day on this one.

Pratoman said...
It seems to me that it's simple. People shouldn't be allowed to claim that this or that unregulated substance or treatment will cure a disease, without scientific facts to back it up.

I agree with Halbert, that's not a slippery slope. It's protection of an often gullible public.

By that I assume you mean governments 30+ years of recommendations to replace butter with Trans fats and carbs? ;) Yes, they should not have been allowed, I agree! ;) And even a lot of smart, sophisticated folks were very gullible about that governmental advice.

OK 81Guy, I am just seeing your request, so I will quit with this post, I guess there is no way for it not to become incendiary (sp?). I will stop with saying I don't understand folks willingness to so readily allow government to tell us what folks can advise us about health care matters. Though the government can have it's say to counter those they consider quacks. Including the quacks who told us all those years we should NOT be replacing butter with vegetable oil altered by the mad scientists to look like butter. Or the ones who said, against government/medical advice, that we should not be cutting fat just to replace with carbs? (perhaps government should have shut down those web sites or newsletters? ) They can of course regulate the actual selling of products or actual medical treatments, but when it comes to speech, well, I just wish there had been someone to regulate their speech about margarine and a few other things. IMO.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 9/1/2016 11:34:51 AM (GMT-6)

Pratoman,

I hear ya!

I used to think I knew what was best for everyone ..... but I was so much wiser then ......