Claiming your First Amendment rights are being violated is a sure way to have the spotlight shone on you. It's also an effective way to shut down criticism of whatever you're selling. From the 1940s-60s, supplements manufacturers used the free speech gambit to keep regulators away from their products, resulting in a 1969 Supreme Court case. Derek looks at the 20th century evolution of medical regulations, and how companies are still using a similar argument to dissuade consumers from looking too deeply into what's inside the bottle.
Sign up today at butcherbox.com/CONSPIRITUALITY and use code CONSPIRITUALITY to get two 100% grass-fed filet mignons and two wild-caught lobster tails for FREE in your first box plus $20 off your first order.
Show Notes
Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety
United States v Kordel
Some Implications of the Kordel Decision
163: The Huberman Paradox
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices