Greed and dishonest science has promoted a lucrative worldwide epidemic of diabetes which honesty and good science can quickly reverse by naturally restoring the body’s blood-sugar control mechanism.
If you are a diabetic, your doctor will never tell you that most cases of diabetes are curable. In fact, if you even mention the “cure” word around him, he will likely become upset and irrational. His medical school training only allows him to respond to the word “treatment”. For him, the “cure” word does not exist.
Diabetes, in its modern epidemic form, is a curable disease and has been for at least 40 years. In 2001, the most recent year for which US figures are posted, 934,550 Americans died from out-of-control symptoms of this disease.1
Your physician will also never tell you that, at one time, strokes, heart failure due to neuropathy as well as both ischaemic and haemorrhagic coronary events, obesity, atherosclerosis, elevated blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, impotence, retinopathy, renal failure, liver failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, elevated blood sugar, systemic candida, impaired carbohydrate metabolism, poor wound healing, impaired fat metabolism, peripheral neuropathy as well as many more of today’s disgraceful epidemic disorders were once well understood to often be but symptoms of diabetes.
If you contract diabetes and depend upon orthodox medical treatment, sooner or later you will experience one or more of its symptoms as the disease rapidly worsens. It is now common practice to refer to these symptoms as if they were separable, independent diseases with separate, unrelated treatments provided by competing medical specialists. It is true that many of these symptoms can and sometimes do result from other causes; however, it is also true that this fact has been used to disguise the causative role of diabetes and to justify expensive, ineffective treatments for these symptoms.
Epidemic Type II diabetes is curable. By the time you get to the end of this article, you are going to know that. You’re going to know why it isn’t routinely being cured. And, you’re going to know how to cure it. You are also probably going to be angry at what a handful of greedy people have surreptitiously done to the entire orthodox medical community and to its trusting patients.
The Diabetes Industry
Today’s diabetes industry is a massive community that has grown step by step from its dubious origins in the early 20th century. In the last 80 years it has become enormously successful at shutting out competitive voices that attempt to point out the fraud involved in modern diabetes treatment. It has matured into a religion. And, like all religions, it depends heavily upon the faith of the believer. So successful has it become that it verges on blasphemy to suggest that, in most cases, the kindly high priest with the stethoscope draped prominently around his neck is a charlatan and a fraud. In the large majority of cases, he has never cured a single case of diabetes in his entire medical career.
The financial and political influence of this medical community has almost totally subverted the original intent of our regulatory agencies. They routinely approve death-dealing, ineffective drugs with insufficient testing. Former commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Herbert Ley, in testimony before a US Senate hearing, commented: “People think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day.”2
The financial and political influence of this medical community dominates our entire medical insurance industry. Generally, only approved treatments from licensed, credentialled practitioners are insurable. This, in effect, neatly creates a special kind of money that can only be spent within the orthodox medical and drug industry. No other industry in the world has been able to manage the politics of convincing people to accept so large a part of their pay in a form that often does not allow them to spend it as they see fit.
The financial and political influence of this medical community completely controls virtually every diabetes publication. Many diabetes publications are subsidised by ads for diabetes drug suppliers. No diabetes editor is going to allow the truth to be printed in his magazine. This is why the diabetic only pays about one-quarter to one-third of the cost of printing the magazine he depends upon for accurate information. The rest is subsidised by diabetes drug manufacturers with a vested commercial interest in preventing diabetics from curing their diabetes. When looking for a magazine that tells the truth about diabetes, look first to see if it is full of ads for diabetes supplies.
And then there are the various associations that solicit annual donations to find a cure for their proprietary disease. Every year they promise that a cure is just around the corner — just send more money! Some of these very same associations have been clearly implicated in providing advice that promotes the progress of diabetes in their trusting supporters. For example, for years they heavily promoted exchange diets,4 which are in fact scientifically worthless — as anyone who has ever tried to use them quickly finds out. They ridiculed the use of glycaemic tables, which are actually very helpful to the diabetic. They promoted the use of margarine as heart healthy, long after it was well understood that margarine causes diabetes and promotes heart failure.5
For 40 years, medical research has consistently shown with increasing clarity that diabetes is a degenerative disease directly caused by an engineered food supply that is focused on profit instead of health. Although the diligent can readily glean this information from a wealth of medical research literature, it is generally otherwise unavailable. Certainly this information has been, and remains, largely unavailable in the medical schools that train our retail doctors.
Prominent among the causative agents in our modern diabetes epidemic are the engineered fats and oils that are sold in today’s supermarkets.
The first step to curing diabetes is to stop believing the lie that the disease is incurable.
In 1922, three Canadian Nobel Prize winners, Banting, Best and Macleod, were successful in saving the life of a fourteen-year-old diabetic girl in Toronto General Hospital with injectable insulin.6 Eli Lilly was licensed to manufacture this new wonder drug, and the medical community basked in the glory of a job well done.
It wasn’t until 1933 that rumours about a new rogue form of diabetes surfaced. This was in a paper presented by Joslyn, Dublin and Marks and printed in the American Journal of Medical Sciences. This paper, “Studies on Diabetes Mellitus”,7 discussed the emergence of a major epidemic of a disease which looked very much like the diabetes of the early 1920s, only it did not respond to the wonder drug, insulin. Even worse, sometimes insulin treatment killed the patient.
This new disease became known as “insulin-resistant diabetes” because it had the elevated blood sugar symptom of diabetes but responded poorly to insulin therapy. Many physicians had considerable success in treating this disease through diet. A great deal was learned about the relationship between diet and diabetes in the 1930s and 1940s.
Diabetes, which had a per-capita incidence of 0.0028% at the turn of the century, had by 1933 zoomed 1,000% in the United States to become a disease seen by many doctors.8 This disease, under a variety of aliases, was destined to go on to wreck the health of over half the American population and incapacitate almost 20% by the 1990s.9
In 1950, the medical community became able to perform serum insulin assays. These assays quickly revealed that this new disease wasn’t classic diabetes; it was characterised by sufficient, often excessive, blood insulin levels.
The problem was that the insulin was ineffective; it did not reduce blood sugar. But since the disease had been known as diabetes for almost 20 years, it was renamed Type II diabetes. This was to distinguish it from the earlier Type I diabetes, caused by insufficient insulin production by the pancreas. Had the dietary insights of the previous 20 years dominated the medical scene from this point and into the late 1960s, diabetes would have become widely recognised as curable instead of merely treatable. Instead, in 1950, a search was launched for another wonder drug to deal with the Type II diabetes problem.
Cure versus Treatment
This new, ideal, wonder drug would be effective, like insulin, in remitting obvious adverse symptoms of the disease but not effective in curing the underlying disease. Thus it would be needed continually for the remaining life of the patient. It would have to be patentable; that is, it could not be a natural medication because these are non-patentable. Like insulin, it would have to be highly profitable to manufacture and distribute. Mandatory government approvals would be required to stimulate physicians to prescribe it as a prescription drug. Testing required for these approvals would have to be enormously expensive to prevent other, unapproved, medications from becoming competitive.
This is the origin of the classic medical protocol of “treating the symptoms”. By doing this, both the drug company and the doctor could prosper in business, and the patient, while not being cured of his disease, was sometimes temporarily relieved of some of his symptoms.
Additionally, natural medications that actually cured disease would have to be suppressed. The more effective they were, the more they would need to be suppressed and their proponents jailed as quacks. After all, it wouldn’t do to have some cheap, effective, natural medication cure disease in a capital-intensive monopoly market specifically designed to treat symptoms without curing disease.
Often the natural substance really did cure disease. This is why the force of law has been and is being used to drive the natural, often superior, medicines from the marketplace, to remove the “cure” word from the medical vocabulary and to undermine totally the very concept of a free marketplace in the medical business.
The Commercial Value of Symptoms
After the drug development policy was redesigned to focus on ameliorating symptoms rather than curing disease, it became necessary to reinvent the way drugs were marketed. This was done in 1949 in the midst of a major epidemic of insulin-resistant diabetes. So, in 1949, the US medical community reclassified the symptoms of diabetes10 along with many other disease symptoms into diseases in their own right. With this reclassification as the new basis for diagnosis, competing medical speciality groups quickly seized upon related groups of symptoms as their own proprietary symptoms set. Thus the heart specialist, endocrinologist, allergist, kidney specialist and many others started to treat the symptoms for which they felt responsible. As the underlying cause of the disease was widely ignored, all focus on actually curing anything was completely lost.
Heart failure, for example, which had previously been understood often to be but a symptom of diabetes, now became a disease not directly connected to diabetes. It became fashionable to think that diabetes “increased cardiovascular risk”. The causal role of a failed blood-sugar control system in heart failure became obscured.
Consistent with the new medical paradigm, none of the treatments offered by the heart specialist actually cures, or is even intended to cure, their proprietary disease. For example, the three-year survival rate for bypass surgery is almost exactly the same as if no surgery was undertaken.11 Today, over half of the people in America suffer from one or more symptoms of this disease. In its beginnings, it became well known to physicians as Type II diabetes, insulin-resistant diabetes, insulin resistance, adult-onset diabetes or, more rarely, hyperinsulinaemia.
According to the American Heart Association, almost 50% of Americans suffer from one or more symptoms of this disease. One third of the US population is morbidly obese; half of the population is overweight. Type II diabetes, also called adult-onset diabetes, now appears routinely in six-year-old children.
Many degenerative diseases can be traced to a massive failure of the endocrine system. This was well known to the physicians of the 1930s as insulin-resistant diabetes. This basic underlying disorder is known to be a derangement of the blood-sugar control system by badly engineered fats and oils. It is exacerbated and complicated by the widespread lack of other essential nutrition that the body needs to cope with the metabolic consequences of these poisons.
All fats and oils are not equal. Some are healthy and beneficial; many, commonly available in the supermarket, are poisonous. The health distinction is not between saturated and unsaturated, as the fats and oils industry would have us believe. Many saturated oils and fats are highly beneficial; many unsaturated oils are highly poisonous. The important health distinction is between natural and engineered.
There exists great dishonesty in advertising in the fats and oils industry. It is aimed at creating a market for cheap junk oils such as soy, cottonseed and rapeseed oils. With an informed and aware public, these oils would have no market at all, and the world would have far fewer cases of diabetes.
About the Author:
Thomas Smith is a reluctant medical investigator, having been forced into curing his own diabetes because it was obvious that his doctor would not or could not cure it. He has published the results of his successful diabetes investigation in his self-help manual, Insulin: Our Silent Killer, written for the layperson but also widely valued by the medical practitioner.
1. National Center for Health Statistics, “Fast Stats”, Deaths/Mortality Preliminary 2001 data
2. Dr.. Herbert Ley, in response to a question from Senator Edward Long about the FDA during US Senate hearings in 1965
3. Eisenberg, David M., MD, “Credentialing complementary and alternative medical providers”, Annals of Internal Medicine 137(12):968 (December 17, 2002)
4. American Diabetes Association and the American Dietetic Association, The Official Pocket Guide to Diabetic Exchanges, McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Distributed Products, 1998
5. American Heart Association, “How Do I Follow a Healthy Diet?”, American Heart Association National Center, http://www.americanheart.org
6. Brown., J.A.C., Pears Medical Encyclopedia Illustrated, 1971, p. 250
7. Joslyn, E.P., Dublin, L.I., Marks, H.H., “Studies on Diabetes Mellitus”, American Journal of Medical Sciences 186:753-773 (1933)
8. “Diabetes Mellitus”, Encyclopedia Americana, Library Edition, vol. 9, 1966, pp. 54-56
9. American Heart Association, “Stroke (Brain Attack)”, August 28, 1998; American Heart Association, “Cardiovascular Disease Statistics”, August 28, 1998
10. “Diabetes Mellitus”, Encyclopedia Americana, ibid., pp. 54-55
11. The Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Co-operative Study Group, “Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina”, New Eng. J. Med. 311:1333-1339 (1984)