16.
Maj
Marshall Deutsch
In Lancet
2002; 359: 1612-15, Le Couteur et al. present the hypothesis that the reason
why ageing is the main risk factor for atherosclerosis is that age-specific changes in the
sinusoidal endothelium of the liver result in an impaired clearance of chylomicron
remnants for subsequent uptake and metabolism by hepatocytes and that this exacerbates
postprandial hypertriglyceridaemia. Knowing about this subject only what is presented in
their paper, one could not argue with their thesis, but I suspect that their thesis is not
concordant with other published data on the relationships among fat metabolism, ageing and
atherosclerosis, and I would appreciate the comments of other skeptics concerning this
hypothesis. You should, of course, base your comments on the paper, and not on my brief
summary.- Marshall
20. Maj
Bogdan Sikorski
Dear Marshall and others
Having
briefly analyzed the report, I have following comments.
1. The mechanism of the liver damage proposed by the authors is probably valid, but its
relationship to vascular disease, I feel, is rather speculative and highly stretched.
Chylomicron remnants should be able to get into the arterial wall (if that indeed is the
way atheromas develop - can't see insulin promoting that one) even if the mechanism of
their removal by the liver is functioning well. That proposal linking poor liver function
to age also does not address the reason why relatively young people and children have
atherosclerosis, and as discussed previously by Prof Stehbens, unless they have inherited
"bad" liver or have liver disease. And what about animals such as elephants
which in the wild suffer from extensive atherosclerosis, particularly when the quality of
their pasture is poor. (As I recall atherosclerosis was observed in Jambos which were
culled because of persistent lack of pasture due to overpopulation). Would starvation
cause liver damage? I think, the best way to quickly remove chylomicron remnants from
blood is to persuade the body to run on fat, not sugar.
2. The paper clearly reinforces the argument made by Uffe in his book about the
experimental use of rabbit and chicken ", which have reduced fenestrations compared
with man and rodents, are vulnerable to dietary cholesterol, resulting in hyperlipidemia
and atherosclerosis", thus being
very poor choice for an experimental model of atherosclerosis. So what? - these animals
(and other, such as gerbils and hamster) are still being used extensively.
3. I have a problem with the proposal that the ageing alone is the cause of defenestration
in the liver. To me the most likely causes would be - a life-long abuse of the liver by
bad dietary choices, drugs and toxins found in food and the environment. BUT fat itself is
clearly not the culprit, although some may conclude that since chylomicron remnants are
the problem, thus having less of them transported in the blood will lower the risk of
liver damage. Few months ago, a Scandinavian group has shown that alcohol liver damage is
actually decreased by concomitant intake of fat. (Those with the now-how always drink
W(V)odka with fatty nibbles. In Poland, not so long ago, you could not buy wodka in a bar
without ordering a herring in oil (or mayo) or a similar side dish!). So, fat appears to
protect the
liver against the alcohol toxicity, but on its own it may nevertheless be bad - some may
argue. Not so! You may not be all familiar with Jan Kwasniewski's diet (so-called Optimal
Nutrition), but in his experience and in the experience of dozens of other medical
practitioners now practising fat-rich diet approach in treatment of various diseases,
including various forms of liver disease (e.g. cirrhosis, fatty liver), daily dietary
delivery of fat (mostly animal) at around 70% of energy produces a cure. One of such cases
(almost terminal) has been described in detail, in his book - Homo Optimus. Belive it or
not, in the last 30 years there were many cases like that, which were documented (but not
published) by JK. my own experience with a dozen or so senior members of AHOA suggests
that in all cases where the liver was a persistent health problem (e.g., pain after eating
"normal" low-fat diet), they all experienced an abetment of symptoms after
adopting fat-rich diet. Most of them have very low fasting
levels of triglycerides (<1 mmol/L), few have "abnormally" high total
cholesterol, but with relatively high HDL-C. Few weeks ago, I received a phone call and
later a letter from 77 y.o. male living in Adelaide (South Australia) asking for help with
interpretation of his hematology and clinical chemistry tests. Having been on a fat-rich
diet (a la JK's) for the last 8 months, he was worried (under pressure from his GP) about
his total-C increasing from around "healthy" 3 to 5.6 mmol/L (HDL- 2.1) and a
persistent mild thrombocytopenia. All other tested parameters were exemplary, particularly
triglycerides at 0.5 mmol/L. So much for the hyperlipidemia being caused by an advanced
age and "high-fat" diet. But just few months ago, he was not a very healthy man.
He told me that after
years of poor health (rheumatoid arthritis, visual disturbances, overall weakness,
persistent lesion on his scalp, et c.) he was free from most symptoms (including a marked
reduction in arthritic pain) and was feeling "like a 25-y.o.", and was planning
a trip to visit his family in Europe! Is it possible that his liver was also bad, but
improved so quickly just by delivery of good fat in a diet? According to JK's
observations, diet-induced liver damage (e.g. fatty liver) is most likely to occur when
the proportions of energy delivered as carbohydrates and fats are similar. Interestingly,
such proportions are also likely to result in cardiovascular disease and T II diabetes. Is
it therefore very likely, that described liver defenestration could be yet another piece
in the Syndrome X puzzle.
And finally some interesting statistics. Owing to recent budget proposals of our
government, including reduction in drug subsidy, The Weekend Australian has published a
list of top 10 drugs on the PBS (Public Benefit Scheme) - i.e. those which are heavily
subsidized by taxpayer. A whole subsidy cost is around AU$ 5 bln/year and apparently has
recently risen by 0.5 bln/year. (Arrival of better and
therefore more expensive drugs - u see!). As you would have guessed - top two positions
are taken by our favorites - simvastatin and atorvastatin (about 250 mln each) with a
pravastatin being
a distant 8th (80 mln). Most interestingly, 3rd is a proton-pump inhibitor (anti-ulcer
drug; 160 mln; and I was under impression that a whole population would have been
ulcer-free by now!, having ndergone repeated H. pylori eradications) and the 4th - Cox 2
inhibitor (anti-inflammatory; 140 mln; the use of this one clearly necessitates a
concomitant use of the 3rd place winner).The list also features two "popular"
antidepressants (6th & 10th), anti-asthma steroid (7th) and insulin (9th - at 75 mln
only!).
Considering the above and an additional cost borne by a patient, probably just over AU$ 1
bln is spend in Australia on just one class of useless, and as we know rather nasty,
drugs. It is also apparent that the cost of those two statins is around 1/3 of the cost of
total social security benefits paid this year. In the US$, it corresponds to about 0.5 bln
for a population of 19 mln
only. Thus, it appears that per capita, more is spent on statins in Australia than in the
US (was it 6 bln last year?). This is surprising considering that statins, as most drugs,
are probably more expensive in the US. I guess drug subsidies do make an unexpected
difference to the bottom line of drug companies - that is why they are happy to accept
much lower prices here. However, there is a rumor that some statins may be removed from
the PBS, or their use restricted by a higher threshold level of
cholesterol (just opposite to what Americans "experts" have proposed), but not
for obvious science-based reasons, but simply to reduce cost! Generic statins - here we
come!
How much money could be saved, and not just in Australia, if medical treatment
recommendations were based on real science? Then again, what would the savings be used for
- for a "war on terror"? - or as some would suggest - on a "terror of
war"? Greetings Bogdan
top
Stephen Byrnes
Bogdan
and Everyone: Saw this release today http://irweb.swmed.edu/newspub/newsdetl.asp?story_id=411 The article does not say what kind of fats
were used in the study and we know that it is vegetable oils that correlate to colon
cancer in the USA, not animal fats, as Mary Enig showed in her book. Any comments on this research would be
appreciated, though.
Steve
21. Maj
Bogdan Sikorski
Dear
Stephen and others
Lets not hit the panic button yet. That the secondary bile acids (deoxycholic, lithocholic
and ursodeoxycholic) are suspected of involvement in carcinogenesis in the colon is
clearly stated in any good toxicology book. But that suspicion is based on rodent studies,
although epidemiological data (as good as it can be) is supportive. Therefore, whatever
these guys have discovered appears to be yet another reinvention of the wheel! The review
of their findings as posted by Stephen is full of mistakes. I have not seen the original
article, but plan to do so soon. Clearly whoever wrote the review is full of sh.. (it).
Lets see!
Primo - The new findings show that at least part of the answer
lies in the body’s inability to cope with large amounts of lithocholic acid, produced
when the body processes cholesterol. The body produces bile acids when it breaks down
cholesterol, part and parcel of dietary fat. Those bile acids go to the small intestine
and are broken down into secondary bile acids, one of which is lithocholic acid.
(...) body's inability to cope with (...) when the body processes cholesterol? What
kind of crap is that?
As described in the very same text few lines below, the body has excellent mechanism to
cope with the build up of secondary bile acids! And what is it about this processing of
cholesterol. Always blame cholesterol!!!
Prime bile acids, as we know, are made in the liver using cholesterol skeleton. Thus
cholesterol is a building block of bile acid molecule, but this process is not an avenue
for elimination of cholesterol, as implied. Is the synthesis of steroid hormones a way of
elimination of cholesterol too? Obviously, bile acids are released into the small
intestine, but any breaking down to secondary acids happens only in the colon!, not in the
small intestine, and only courtesy of specific intestinal flora. Therefore, the following
statement is wrong! Much of it remains in the small intestine,
then moves into the colon, or large intestine. Secondary acids clearly can not
remain in the small intestine because they are not made there.
Secundo - Like the receptor that works in the liver, the vitamin D
receptor binds to lithocholic acid, then binds to a specific gene, called CYP3A. CYP3A
is not a gene but as some of you probably know - a Cytochrome P450 isoenzyme, responsible
for metabolic breakdown of certain chemicals (obviously also lithocholic acid). It is
found in the liver, intestinal wall and probably other tissues (heart, lung?)
And now a bit of background info. Most primary bile acids should be re-absorbed in the
ileum (obviously the more fat in the content the better reabsorption of bile acids). But
some (normally 5-10%) enter the colon where they can present a problem. Whether they do
depends on the bacterial flora. It is
important to realize that even a small change in the profile of diet may lead to marked
changes in the dynamic balance of bacterial flora, potentially resulting in marked
differences in types and amounts of bacterial products (toxins!) found in the content of
the colon. Many are absorbed into the portal vein. But the liver can deal with them. The
main worry are those which can activate proliferative responses in the colonic epithelium
leading to polyps, inflammation and ultimately hyperplasia and cancer. It has to be
mentioned that according to my textbook source, secondary bile acids are efficiently
inactivated by binding calcium. Furthermore, I recall a recent paper which claimed that
exposure to deoxycholic acid is in fact protective of colon cancer, because of this acid's
ability to induce apoptosis of aberrant epithelial cells.
I think it is fairly obvious that intestinal
bacteria are the key to it all. And they thrive only when intestinal content is full of
undigested carbohydrates. Any fibre is their choice food! More "good
fiber" - more bacteria - more secondary bile acids and other toxins - higher the risk
of colonic disease. Every single person who swaps dietary carbohydrates for fat quickly
experiences an amazing reduction in the intestinal gas formation - i.e., reduced
metabolic activity and mass of bacteria. In the so called "normal" dietary
condition most of the fecal mass is accounted for by microflora!!! Probably not so in
those eating true high-fat diets.!!! Fecal mass is typically very small. So what is this typical American high-fat diet
which is most likely correctly blamed for all those horror diseases, and because of which
the fat is blamed for everything that is bad. At
best, it provides only 30-40% energy as fat. To me it is not even a medium fat diet. That
level starts >40%. A true high-fat diet begins >60% of energy delivered as fat. And
only such proportion can bring a relief from many ailments, including any colon disease,
and even colon cancer. It goes without saying that many such cases have been observed in
Poland by medics who practice the high-fat therapy (few such cases have been described to
me). I have met a person who lives in Sydney and who has experienced a full recovery from
colon cancer with liver metastasis, but this recovery can not be attributed fully to
high-fat diet because the colon cancer was removed. But metastasis was not! So Joel, you may still reconsider, after all
you probably realize that all that flushing of your body with insulin (be it injected or
released) or taking insulin-sensitizing drugs (known to produce cancer in rodents and in
humans) gives you a greater choice of cancer and far better odds of getting one than are
typically available to a non-diabetic. You may want to consult the Grampian Hospitals in
Scotland or James Hays MD from Delaware, before you make your decision. After all you can
not trust some lunatic form Poland who "preaches" his diet brings miracles,
without publishing the evidence first! Regards Bogdan
Over to you Barry!
top
23. May
Barry Groves
Hello Joel. Bogdan has really said it all. I have some stuff
on my website that may be of interest ( http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diabetes.html
). I have also spoken today to the Diabetic clinic at the King Edward IIV Hospital in
Windsor (UK). They have started to put overweight diabetic patients on low-carb diets. I
don't know many details yet as the doctor doing this is away today, but I do know that he
has found, like Dr James Hays, that blood lipid profiles improve dramatically on a
low-carb, high-fat diet. Best wishes Barry
Hello Bogdan
I found your e-mail particularly interesting as I am trying to research gut
flora at present. I am interested in the species of bacteria and other organisms that
should inhabit the human colon. I am aware that they are very different from those
that inhabit the gastrointestinal tract of herbivores -- particularly as the gut flora of
a carnivore require an alkaline environment and those of a herbivore need an acid
environment. Can you enlighten me please or point me at a publication that may help
me? A profile of
other primates' gut flora would also be useful to demonstrate the difference between
us and the herbivorous apes.
I am also concerned about the consumption
of products (usually yogourt) that contain Lactobacillus as I can't see any benefit
with these to those of us on low-carb, high-fat diets. Or would these bacteria, perhaps,
benefit people on a high-carbohydrate diet? Kind regards
Barry
top
24. May
Malcolm Kendrick
Bogdan,
I always find that I agree with quite
a lot of what you say. But then, to me, you start making statements that switch me off
completely. A few months ago you were claiming that a high fat diet cures type I
diabetes....I can't believe this. Now you appear to be claiming that a high fat diet cures
colon cancer.... I can't believe this either. When you make statements regarding cures for
type I diabetes and cancer - areas in which thousands of researchers are spending billions
of dollars - you have to expect two basic responses:
a: Rubbish, or
b: Prove it - in more than
just one patient (As a clinician I have seen a few people who have apparently 'recovered'
from cancer. Some later died, one or two are still alive and free from the disease - so
far). If you think that a
high fat diet can cure colon cancer then I would suggest you try to prove it, using
accepted scientific methodoloy, not single case studies.
Malcolm
P.S. Joel. I thought you were taking the p****
with your cake recipie. (Did I misread this?)
top
Bogdan
Sikorski
Well, Malcolm and others
Not only am I claiming that T I can be "cured", but I might be able to support
my claims with published evidence. Of course, if I see my friend living in Sydney who
after 21 years of being T I, has cured herself - that is simply not true!!! Clearly I am
imagining things. Funny that, that was exactly what her specialist said - her case must
have been misdiagnosed - she must have been T II (she got it when she was 19 y.o. - very
thin (no obesity influence as required according to you for T II). No - clearly 21 years
on insulin was a con, she is a hypochondriac. But hang on - even if she had T II - this
one is also incurable!!! - especially by eating 150 g of fat a day. That is a suicide
diet. Poor Zoe, she will obviously die soon (maybe of colon cancer- fat u see). In
the mean time she is pregnant with her 4th child, this one will be a full Optimal Baby -
conceived 2 years after the mother has taken up the diet. Her other 2 young children are 5
and 3, both for the last 2 years eating mum's food.
Returning to the published evidence. It so happens, that few medics working in Jastrzebia
Gora (near Gdansk) have accumulated a cohort of around 500 diabetics, with over 100 being
T I (maybe imaginary - according to some). Now of those, only two (2) are still receiving
any medication - insulin and only at very low doses. These results are presently being
written up and hopefully will be submitted to a "reputable" journal, soon.
Coming back to your statement on cancer recovery - of those that have been successfully
cured from cancer by modern medicine - how many of them survive beyond 5 years. As far as
I know, the survival rate is pretty poor. But in recent years a major improvement has been
documented because the ability to diagnose cancer early has improved markedly, and not
because treatments have gotten much better. And as you would know, for most
cancers, early treatment means a greater chance of recovery. But - when for instance a
breast cancer has metastasied - as far a I know - there is still no hope. So much
for marked improvements in treatment of cancer. Every year there is a major announcement
about a great new discovery for
cancer treatment being just around corner - and nothing. Is not that a little bit odd.
With thousands of researchers spending billions of dollars - and nothing. Te answer is
simple - people will do anything for money - science these days has been totally
prostituted and there is basically no hope, unless
the way the research is founded will change, and unless drug companies are prevented from
dictating what is good for a patient (their drug of course). It is also a fact that
so-called accepted scientific methodology is skewed towards those that have mega bucks.
You can not do "acceptable" for
regulatory agency clinical study on a shoe string. Thus, controversial projects will never
be funded, even by government bodies, because the advisors (professors) employed by them
have too much to loose, and are in the pockets of drug companies. So if you want to see
the evidence you have to see patients-miracles (100s, maybe 1000s), but many given such an
opportunity still refuse to make an effort. Oh well, such is live. I am not claiming that this patient has been cured from
cancer by high-fat
diet. But there is a strong link. Plus her body clearly started to get a proper nutrition
and have had enough strength to fight it. As we know - insulin (high-carb diet) is one of
the strongest tumor growth promoters - less insulin - less tumor growth - more chance for
recovery.
Bogdan
PS
Malcolm, coming back to our previous discussion topic - have you read the article by
Zammit et al (2001) posted for the group by someone few months ago. Let me quote:
"Due to the quantitative importance of muscle as a site for insulin-sensitive glucose
metabolism, these effects may initiate the
metabolic vicious cycle that results in the development of the metabolic syndrome, well in
advance of overt obesity or the diagnosis of type-2 diabetes". I think, this says it
all! B
top
Tom
Clayton
Dear List:
Iwould like to provide a second opinion here regarding what we think
must be objective "proof." The main example besides cholesterol
that I am going to use does not apply to anybody who is not a US
citizen, but the analogy is clear.
We all want "evidence" that
something is true or false. If we do not have the "evidence," then
we think that we cannot conclude as to whether something is true or not until that
"evidence" is found, proven to be
valid by repeated tests or whatever, and is rock solid. But what is thought to
be evidence varies among people, even experts, and in a multiple variable situation it may
be IMPOSSIBLE to ever get enough proof to clearly show a cause and effect of the type that if I put a blue dye tablet in a
glass of water the water will turn blue, and this will happen every single
time.
What about the
"evidence" that proves that heart disease is
caused by high cholesterol levels, enough so to make an entire nation of classically
trained intelligent doctors treat their patients as well as themselves? The lack
of what we consider to be evidence does not dissuade
them from
"concluding" that they have cause and effect and that therefore what they are
doing is valid and good. When you try to tell them that something is wrong, they think
that YOU are the one that is wrong. This is an example of coming to conclusions based
on a
consensus of
evidence that does not in fact exist. As Goebbels said, if you tell a lie long enough it
becomes the truth. Such is the case with an entire nation
believing that everyone
owes federal
"income taxes." Like the cholesterol hypothesis, the belief is so
ingrained that anybody who questions it is a tax protestor or a kook or simply
does not know what they are talking about.
But when you objectively
analyze the evidence in the law itself, you come to the logical
conclusion that most US citizens do not nor have they ever owed federal income taxes.
It is a very clever deception, but if you back up for a moment and look at the BIG
PICTURE, that is, the basic element (like molecular biology) that shows that it
MUST be true, then it makes
perfect sense. The
element is that under the Constitution Congress can only tax areas over which it has
jurisdiction, and it has jurisdiction over foreign and international commerce, but
DOES NOT have jurisdiction over intrastate commerce
(commerce that occurs entirely
within one of
the 50 states). The fact that this is found in the law, provided that you know what to
look for and where to look then makes perfect sense but it is the opposite
of what people have been led to believe, like cholesterol. That proof is
now in a graphical video form that is much easier to understand: www.theft-by-deception.com And easier than the written proof
"Taxable Income" found for free at: www.taxableincome.net
My point (besides the above) is this: There are many situations that may well
be valid where the "evidence" necessary to prove the assertion does not
appear to exist, but may never exist because t is too difficult to isolate
(like the income tax deception before the Internet). Does this mean that we continue
to pay income taxes that we can now prove that we do not owe? Does this mean
that we do nothing about the diet therapy until the proof is in? No it does
not.
Certain assertions have
been made regarding diabetes and diet. Is there proof in the form of 10,000
diabetics that have been cured by this and this alone? Not that I know of,
but does that mean that evidence does not exist, that there aren't 10,000
diabetics who have stumbled on this therapy and cured themselves privately?
Does that mean that we should NOT try it and even champion it because of
the results in a few patients? No it does not, particularly when there is
nothing to be lost by doing so. Regarding cholesterol and the income
tax, many people will not even LOOK at evidence unless it comes from an
"expert," yet all the experts have been wrong. What
is the harm in making the claim so that diabetics will at least try it?
Even though the evidence is not in (and may never be
in with sufficient rigor to prove cause and effect). We have to get off our
"expert" high horses, because this is the real world of what
people consider "evidence." To me, trying to live in this world
and be relatively healthy, you have to make compromises that
are in and of themselves relatively harmless. I have a summa cum laude degree in
theoretical mathematics, so I know what proof is under the most rigorous of
circumstances. But am I going to live my life like one of the professors that
laughed at Louis Pasteur when he told his theory? No, I am not. I am going to do what
seems to make sense, double-blind proof or not. Tom Clayton, MD Texas
top
Malcolm
Kendrick
Bogdan, Acepted scientific methodology cannot be skewed
(although you may prefer Baysain to classic statistical analysis, as I do). Result
interpretation, that is a different issue. The power of money to create bias, again a
different issue. Scientific methodology, however, is an ideal that is beyond the power of
any to influence. One thing that scientific
methodology would state is that a single case history can, and should be dismissed. The
possibility of misdiagnosis is high, for a single case. Subjective observer bias is also
high. A thin women developing diabetes could well have an underlying cause e.g. Cushing's,
steroid use, pheochromocytoma, polycystic ovary syndrome, even depression can trigger
reversible insulin resistance severe enough to be diagnosed as diabetes. I agree that most
of these conditions are not self-limiting (but they can be, especially depression).
In short, if you are claiming a cure for type I diabetes, in which the beta-cells are
irreversibly destroyed, you are inevitably going to have to provide a level of evidence
which is absolutely watertight. Plenty of people will swear on the bible that they have
seen ghosts, or spaceships. Are we to believe them, just because they say so? Personally,
I look for evidence that is a little more robust. Although as a confirmed skeptic, I store
all information in one of three places: probable, possible, highly unlikely. Regards
Malcolm
P.S. I fully believe that insulin resistance, whether caused by peripheral obesity (type
II diabetes), or excess cortisol secretion (Syndrome X), precedes overt loss over control
over blood sugar levels (usually termed type II diabetes). There is an interesting study
from Mexico demonstrating very clearly that patients with severe CHD, with no sign of loss
of control over blood sugar levels, (or any lipid abnormalities) do demonstrate
hyperinsulinaemia post OGTT (no other signs).
top
Bogdan Sikorski
Malcolm I fully agree with what Tom has said. But
returning to your arguments - I am not saying that the scientific methodology is skewed -
it is the access to or ability to initiate such studies that is. It is in no one's
interest to performed a well-funded and broad diet intervention study on diabetes. Who is
going to benefit? You (not personal) - nope. You loose patients!
Drug companies - nope -they loose billions of dollars in income. Researchers (experts) -
nope - they loose billions in funding? Government - nope - they loose all of the above,
and potentially a trust of millions of diabetics who have been deceived up to now. Food
industry - they have the most to loose - they are simply flags in the wind - after years
of investment in to low-fat foods, they would have to invest billions in new products and
in marketing.
And what about agriculture? It may be surprising for some of you to learn, but government
agencies like the one I work for, are almost totally, in many cases, dependent on drug
companies for funding of their operational costs. So if we get rid of some of global
diseases - where is the money gona come from for "my" wages? I love science and
its methodology - but in todays world controlled by big money, and obvious interests -
such methodology has been made inaccessible for most to use. Only select few can pay for
it. And they are funded accordingly. Are they likely to go against their life line? It
would probably be of greater benefit for the humanity, if the research was founded based
on a random selection of projects from a common coffer - only then we would see a real
picture. Isn't that what science methodology demands?
It is a well known fact that a random selection of stocks always brings better return on
the stock exchange, over the returns offered by expert advise. Malcolm, none of the sticks
you are trying to poke in that case of diabetes have found their target. She was simply T
I diabetic, but lucky enough to have some beta function preserved, as is the case for most
of them. Thus most of them can be healthy again, but will they be brave enough to try.
Some are, but unfortunately not many. Oh, and those in the medical profession who would be
brave enough to help them face a real risk of crucifixion!
After all, they are disputing accepted expert opinion. When I suggested to my friend that
he should try CoQ10 on some of his patients - he said - where is the evidence, and where
is the expert committee statement supporting its use. That would be it for now. Bogdan
Uffe and other
sceptics
As much as a miracle of "cure" from T I diabetes (or for that matter some other
equally "permanent ailments") courtesy of JK's diet is totally unbelievable to
some of you (no published proof, obviously), that concept pales into insignificance
compared with the "ridiculous and totally outrageous" idea flagged at the site
shown below . www.lutec.com.au
There are some engineers in our group, perhaps they would like to comment.
But be very careful about what you are about to see. You see, it goes totally against the
"science" as we know it, and against the opinion of most of the experts in the
field. Rings a bell, at lest for me. Imagine the consequences of implementation of that
idea? God, it is scarry!!! Enjoy
Bogdan
top
26. May
Fred and Alice
Ottoboni
Dear Bogdan:
You have raised a very important issue, namely
the impact of pseudo science on the public's perception of the causation, prevention, and
treatment of diseases. Complex science, long time lapses between cause and effect,
and hopes for miracle cures make the health field particularly susceptible to sales
promotions based on pseudo science.
The free electricity generator you mentioned is
an example of a product based on faulty science that does not fit into same
(easy-to-fool-people) category as does disease prevention or cure. Such a
generator can be easily tested by measuring the energy input and output. It will not
pass this test because the generator will be quickly seen to violate one ot the laws of
thermodynamics: It is a perpetual motion machine. Creating energy with no input of
heat or other energy source is not possible.
As you may know, we are just now finishing a
book on the subject of health and nutrition. The scientific literature is quite
clear as we have described in our book. And it supports your viewpoint about the
powerful impact of pseudo science. What you see on TV and read in the papers
regarding nutrition, health, disease, and prevention is not the same as you will find if
you read the scientific literature. We were so concerned by this that we decided to
include a whole chapter in our book on the problem of the combined effects
of pseudo science and the mass media on people who are trying to eat right and care
for their health.
Think for a moment what is
occurring. Scientific facts are available that straightforwardly show the cause
(and how to prevent) the obesity and type-2 diabetes epidemics that have come upon us
in the last 50 years. But the general public does not read the scientific
literature. Most of what the public knows is what they see on TV and read in the
papers. It is reasonable to believe that the general public will base their
decisions on what they perceive to be true. It follows therefore that the scientific
literature will not be a determining factor in the behavior of the general public.
The determining factor will be what they see on TV and read in the papers. You have
indeed described a most important and fearful phenomenon.
Fred and Alice
top
27.
May
Malcolm Kendrick
Bogdan, I read the
lutec information i.e. how it works. You can get back 1,500% more energy from this machine
than you put in, apparently. Oh well, that's the energy crisis solved. Free energy
forever. I presume that this 'free' energy is coming from a parallel universe - I hope
that the inhabitants of this parallel Universe don't decide to charge us for it. If the Lutec machine works then
all of physical science is wrong. Then again, maybe it doesn't work, for if it did it
would be the greatest scientific breakthrough in human history, and I suspect that I would
have heard about it before now. Malcolm
Tom
- Perhaps I come across as an absolute scientific
purist of the 'ivory tower' variety. Maybe I am.
However, scientific method does
not require double blind, placebo controlled, cross-over trials. What it does require is a
few absolute basics. Firstly, independent verification of claims by a disinterested party
- or as disinterested as possible. Also, some plausibility - i.e. how could a high fat
diet 'cure' diabetes. I can fully understand that you can lower the blood sugar level, but
hyperglycaemia is a biochemical marker for the underlying disease. Curing a disease, and
normalising a factor in the blood, are two different things. No-one 'cures' hypertension
by lowering the blood pressure with drugs.
Curing type I diabetes would
mean, as I understand it, restoring beta-cell function to its pre-disease state. Is this
what you would think, or do you believe a 'cure' to be something else. As with many
things, if you are going to have a debate, then first agree on what it is that you are
trying to debate.
Malcolm
P.S. My screensaver uses the
quote from Albert Einstein 'Not everything that matters can be measured.' I do agree that
the procrustean bed of medical research mitigates against non' commercial' studies.
top
Tom
Clayton
That's the point that I was trying to make;
what the PUBLIC PERCEIVES to be true is what is important. So what is
worse: making a claim that does not have double blind proof, like diet and
diabetes, or making a claim that does not have double blind proof like the cholesterol
theory of heart disease? Trying to be humorous...my point exactly. Tom Clayton, MD
top
Bogdan
Sikorski
Dear Sceptics
The type of responses to the lutec generator was predictable and fully anticipated. It is
after all - the sceptics group. However, this group has every right to be skeptical about
a bad name the cholesterol has been getting, because we do now science behind it and the
facts! Stating the obvious to us truth about the cholesterol to the "health
experts" I deal with on a daily basis evokes exactly the same response as that given
by some about the lutec. Now, I did indicate that you should be careful. And clearly some
of you were very careful not to express their opinion too soon or too openly.
My stocks will no doubt further diminish by what I am about to say below. But here it is
anyway.
The problem is that this invention really works!!! And that has been demonstrated on a
number of occasions, both in Australia and New Zealand.
Those of you who might want to spend some time on that should also investigate the
so-called Adams generator, developed and patented by Dr Adams (in New Zealand) some 20
years ago. Dr Adams (now retired) was then working as an energy expert for the government
there, and because of his original invention (similar to lutec) his crier was destroyed by
the very people he was working for (clearly there are two possibilities - he was either
mad or (more likely) - very dangerous). There is plenty of info about him and his
invention on the Net and on the Nexus site.
But how can I possibly say that this free energy generator works?
Because a friend of mine, an engineer of thermodynamics has explained the theory to me.
And it all make sense, in the same way as it made sense to me that the fat is it!!! And I
have been living the fat experience for the last 5 years.
I say no more about this free energy because I am out of depth here. But maybe you should
read the words below written by that friend. I
do have few more outrageous surprises, but lets stick to cholesterol - it is much safer
there.
Bogdan
Dear Malcolm
Does definition of T I diabetes include, apart from well know parameters, e.g., blood
sugar, - at least a loss of, for instance, 30% of functional beta-cells. AS far as I know
it dose not. If a person is able to lead a "normal life", has normal blood
sugar, and has no other obvious pathologies - is that person free of the disease? Or would
you describe someone like that as diabetic just because when they eat too much sugar, they
have a transient rise in blood sugar which is above "normal" value. Of course,
that very person can eat a specific, low-carb diet without any symptom of diabetes,
resulting in the maintenance of blood sugar within a range of values which at times might be slightly above an
artificially set threshold value of 6.2, or 7 or even 8 mmol/L..When a person looses a
limb, they no longer have a use of it. When a person looses 85% of functional beta-cells
they can still eat "normal" food provided a "set by their condition"
limit of sugar is not exceeded. To me that person is free of disease as long as they do
not exceed that limit. And the alternative is amazingly stark - a life of misery,
suffering and taking of drugs including insulin, but only if they insist that "normal
diet" should include a very artificial amount of carbate. Which one would you choose?
So stuff the semantics and definitions - the reality is clearly far more important, as it
should be even to the most disinterested party. Oh,
and you are spot on about a failure to cure hypertension by drugs. But, isn't there a cure
for it yet? You,ve guessed it. Yep! There is! And I have seen it work too many times I
care to remember. Yes, this time I am adamant - JK's dietary approach cures hypertension
(most types) within a few days for most, in the rest no longer then in 2 weeks!!! And you
have not heard about that one too, but it works. And its been around for 30 years!!!
It is not right, is it?
However, a brake from the prescribed regimen of the diet results in many cases in a rapid
return to hypertension. Is it a cure or not? I can put you in touch with a young medical
practitioner in Poland who can give you specific facts and provide information on a number
of patients he has successfully "treated" or should we say guided to health.
However, there is no disinterested party to back up his experience - as all other parties
that could potentially be asked to comment are very interested in his, and others like
him, message not getting through or being published. And that is a sad reality. By the
way, this information is free to anyone, just as is the energy of the universe. Bogdan
top
Tom
Clayton
This SCAM has been around for a while, as
well as variations designed to extract money from dummies. And I do not mean
"dummies" as in stupid people, I mean those who do not know enough to realize
that the principle of conservation of energy is
inviolate in Newtonian/Euclidean space (certainly to the extent that this
claim is made).
Malcolm: I understand where you are coming from
completely. In some ways, I am a very exacting person, such as the proof of the
income tax deception. Everything had to be consistent in order for the proof
to be valid. It just took a unique intellect like Larken Rose to understand it and
put it in a stepwise form that all could understand. In retrospect, it is remarkably simple (asking what the
law means by "source" instead of "assuming" that it meant
"anywhere"), but the truth was buried deep in a pile of words. But
that is often the case when searching for the truth.
In the law, one is looking for what
somebody has written, and it is either there or it isn't, like most of mathematics; it is
either correct or it is not correct. Finding the truth in medicine is much more
difficult. Finding cause and effect is sometimes impossible because isolating a
situation to one variable is often impossible. Therefore, exacting proof of
cause and effect may NEVER be possible, even though the relationship is
strongly "suspected." It is important to have standards,
and it is important to have ivory tower people who help to create and maintain those
standards, but as we have too often seen, they can be unable to listen to and
understand new information. This is not always the case, of course. Worse is when their
"reputations" have been built on a certain body of knowledge, and that
knowledge is subsequently found to be without evidentiary basis, then they will FIGHT to
maintain the status quo. It is human nature for accountants to deny the
income tax deception at first, but the proof is irrefutable. The experts are
always the LAST to be dragged to the
table when things change. This is odd, because we have been led to believe that they
are scientists, and that the scientific method is more important than any petty human
foibles, that they are ALWAYS objective and that it is simply a matter of showing
them the evidence to make them change their opinions. It is in this
setting that we must live, so there are times when we have to decide what we think is
right, regardless of whether it has solid proof behind it. And that is what I was
trying to convey; not to be "sloppy" but to be able to deviate from the paradigm
when it seems necessary. Welcome to the REAL world, Neo..... (Matrix). Tom
Clayton, MD
top
28.
May
Chris Allan
Dear Skeptics: I would like to point out that the
"Scientific Literature" is not necessarily the "truth" either.
There are also the issues of experimental interpretation and individual ego which can
drive information in the wrong direction. I have observed over the years that scientists
tend to be smug, in that since they are "trained" scientists they know the exact
truth. Many of us have lost touch with philosophy and objectivity, particularly
when the objectivity indicates that one's own ideas are incorrect. To blame the media only
seems to be an escape for some.
I believe, for example, that epidemiology for
non-infectious disease is a poor science, and has not served the human race well. But
those of you who work in this area would probably disagree. It is true that all of us must
come to terms with our livelihood and how it shapes our objectivity.
Just my opinion,
Chris
top
29.May
Malcolm Kendrick
Tom, In the longer term
perceptions can be changed, but objective, observable, repeatable facts cannot. The
Cholesterol myth can only be destroyed by persistantly pointing out the scientific 'truth'
that there is no causal connection between dietary fat intake, cholesterol levels and CHD.
If you make what will be perceived to be 'wild' claims e.g. a high fat diet cures type I
diabetes, then you will be dismissed as a crank, and all of your other claims will be
dismissed as well.
Just because, with Cholesterol, public
perception is wrong, and medical scientific orthodoxy is wrong, and wild claims are made,
does not mean that it is correct to fall into the same trap. Two wrongs definitely do not
make a right.
Scientific methodology may be far from perfect,
but if you choose to discard it, then we are back in the dark ages where faith is a far
stronger weapon than reason, and the most powerful orator can sway the crowd in any
direction he or she wishes.
Just to repeat, scientific methodology is the
only protection we have against the ever present desire of humans to believe in whatever
fits most comfortably with their prejudices. As Albert Einstein said (sic) what we call
common sense is but the prejudices that we build up before the age of 18. Much of science
appear counter-intuitive, if only because it does not sound like sense. The cholesterol
hypothesis sounds like 'sense' because it has been repeated endlessly for the last fifty
years. That makes it very difficult to fight against. But I would choose reason as a
weapon, not 'wild' claims. Regards Malcolm
top
Fred
and Alice Ottoboni
Dear Malcolm:
You speak with wisdom. In the long run, continuous
attention to scientific method and to sorting out the bad science from the good science is
the best hope. The situation is difficult now because the mass media is being used
to manufacture "truth"
The good part is that many of us have been able
to identify the good science and to write useful papers and books. The result is
that average citizens who wish to know the truth about diet, cholesterol and heart disease
can find it in a number of books. Some examples are the Cholesterol Myths
by Ravnskov, Entering the Zone by Sears, The Heart Revolution by McCulley, The Omega
Diet by Simopolous, Know Your Fats by Enig, Protein Power by Eades, and Dr Atkins New
Diet Revolution by Atkins.
We will soon be publishing a
book on these issues. Our view is that we cannot wait for the mass media to change
its message, because this may never happen. In that case, a rule of nature will
prevail: Those who seek the truth will benefit and those who do not will pay a price
despite our best efforts.
Best wishes to everybody Fred and Alice
top
30.
May
Tom Clayton
Malcolm:
You are absolutely correct that two wrongs do not make a right, and it was not until just
now that I realized how you were perceiving at least some of what I was saying. I was
talking in general terms of what we all realize, namely some of the
frustrations of getting at the truth and the enormous barriers both psychological as
well as financial that often stand in the way.
I don't know if a
high fat diet will or will not "cure" diabetes, but certainly for type II
diabetics it deserves a very close look. Rather than making a claim that everyone in
"power" would reject,
I was thinking more
in terms of small moves; such as encouraging more people to try it and
see what happens. I
agree that blanket claims should not be made to the general public or in an iconoclastic
style (i.e., there is no other explanation or all other
explanations are wrong) without some statistically significant evidence
to back it up. A claim without evidence is an assertion and those are easy to make. "The moon is made of green
cheese." "All US citizens who work within the 50 states owe federal income
taxes." Neither of these statements should be made because there is ZERO evidence
that they are true; and in fact there is considerable evidence that they are not
true.
I just want more
people to consider the fact that the truth seems to lie below the surface in many things,
and to keep looking for the truth; not
to close their minds. The scientific method of objectively analyzing the evidence to come
to a logical conclusion is crucial, and in that respect, I could not agree with you
more. We just have to keep in mind that there will always be some things that are
not amenable to this type of proof, and I do NOT mean religion. (O: Tom
Clayton, MD
top
Malcolm Kendrick
Tom,
Cheers.
Firstly, a high fat diet has been used in type II diabetes. Specifically,
the Atkins diet, and it was found to be 'safe' and to lower both fasting
sugar levels and HbA1c levels (it also lowered LDL levels and raised HDL
levels - for what that is worth). So you have disagreement from me that a
high fat diet in type II diabetes may be a good thing - probably.
The UK PDS study (long-term study on outcomes in diabetes care) has, however,
hinted that tight blood sugar control leads to more macrovascular
complications.
One of the major
problems in diabetes is that people become obsessed with blood sugar levels (almost to the
exclusion of everything else). If the blood sugar level is low, this is good. If it is
high, this is bad - which is true to an extent. However, the blood sugar level is, in
reality, a sign of an underlying metabolic malfunction. It is not even a symptom, as
no-one can tell, from how they feel, what their blood sugar level may be (unless it gets
very very high).
A high blood sugar
level may have, independent, underlying damaging properties, but in general treating the
'signs' of a disease is unlikely to have impact on the underlying disease process. You may
as well state that lowering the body temperature through the use of paracetomal 'cures'
the flu. In short, normalising a 'sign' may or may not have an effect, but I wouldn't call
it a cure. Anyway, enough of curing type I and type II diabetes.
With regard to the
other issue, namely that those with the money drive the research agenda. I can only state
that this is not a good thing, but it was ever thus, and ever will be so. But I do believe
that the distortions created by this 'money factor' are not that great, and generally
level off over time (although that time period may take decades to come into effect). The
truth is always out there, and in time it will always be found. Regards Malcolm
top
26. Juni
Malcolm Kendrick
Tom - Would you accept that, if I
could find a person with severe CHD and, no excess stored iron, that your hypothesis were
wrong. Alternatively, what ad-hoc hypothesis would you put forward to explain such a
finding i.e. the reason why you can't find any excess stored iron in this person with
severe CHD is that....Malcolm
Tom Clayton
Malcolm and others:
Finding one exception to a theory may be a problem to a
theory. However, if the theory explains 99% of
patients without heart disease (having low stored iron levels), for example
elderly males that are supposed to have sex immutable "risk" for CHD, then one
exception does not disprove the theory.
On the other hand, many exceptions to a theory make it very likely that there
is something fundamentally wrong with the theory (such as high cholesterol and saturated fat causing
CHD) but then since when does this little problem matter to the medical community of the
United States? If the vast majority of CHD (atherosclerosis)
does not occur in the setting of low stored iron levels, then that suggests
that stored iron has something fundamental to do with it, whether or not there are
other factors. It is possible that a person has a genetic tendency to CHD because of
some failure in the low stored iron/no heart disease metabolic pathways OR there is
something else that can rarely cause the disease in the setting of low stored iron
levels. I comment on these issues to make the point that even though all the
proof is not in, there is enough evidence to make ME
keep my stored iron levels (ferrritin) below 20 and to recommend
strongly to others that they undergo phlebotomy to do the same. Whether I am wrong
or not (and I do not think that I am), there is no "risk" in doing so. As you
can tell from previous comments, I get fed up with the constant generation
of pseudo scientific crap from the mainstream medical community making claims
that cannot be proven, are wildly exaggerated, or are just plain wrong as
they fail to zero in on the few things that can and do make a difference (such
as low stored iron levels) BECAUSE it will make the research dry up and there is nothing
to SELL
to the public to get INCOME. But enough of this. Let's agree to talk in terms
of percentages rather than one exception. If 98% of a certain older age group of
a population with low stored iron levels do not have CHD, if you knew nothing else
you might have a case for saying that low stored iron may not be the correct explanation,
but, on the other hand, with what we know today, it is very likely that it is. When
are we going to get off the small sample group pseudotechnobabble
endless permuations of issues that will never be solved by this type of methodology and
look at large populations of people with low iron levels while asking the RIGHT
questions (whether or not they lead to drying up the research)?
top
Uffe
Ravnskov
Tom and Malcolm I
think you are ignoring that atherosclerosis and CHD are two different conditions that with
all certainty have different causes. CHD is caused by lack of oxygen in the
myocardium and may be secondary to atherosclerosis, but remember that 15-20% of all
patients with myocardial infarction have no atherosclerosis whatsoever. Thus, there is
room for several causes of CHD: obstruction of the coronary vessels from any cause
(congenital malformation, embolus, rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque, arterial or
arteriolar spasm, etc); insufficient blood flow through these vessels due to a sick
myocardium, to massive bleeding, to insufficient dilatation of the coronary arteries
during heavy exercise, etc., etc. It is simply highly unlikely that there is one
single cause of CHD. Therefore, CHD in a patient with extremely low
cholesterol doesn't prove or disprove anything. But severe atherosclerosis in such a
patient is very, very difficult to explain by the LDL-receptor hypothesis. Uffe
top
Malcolm
Kendrick
Uffe, When I use
the term CHD, I mean CHD secondary to atherosclerotic plaque development. Malcolm
Jerome
Sullivan
If
I find a dead person with a bullet hole through the head, but no bullet, this does not
disprove gunshot wound as the cause of death. I am sure that many die of severe CHD and
coexisting iron deficiency anemia at the time of death. Disease established in earlier
iron replete decades of life will not necessarily be treatable by iron depletion. The
example of coexisting end stage CHD and iron deficiency does not disprove a primary
preventive effect of iron depletion.
I don’t know to what degree established CHD may be treatable by removal of iron
stores. Success in prevention and failure in treatment is not an impossible asymmetry.
Giving up tobacco may prevent lung cancer, however giving it up will not cure an
established malignancy.
The question posed by Malcolm includes the phrase “excess stored iron.” The iron
hypothesis cannot be properly debated without a careful definition of this term. As I have
noted before, the hypothesis posits a primary protective effect of iron depletion against
ischemic heart disease. It is possible that the protective effect is seen only in those
who have never been iron replete. It is possible that even a small burden of stored iron
exerts a permissive effect on other risk factors, including traditional risk factors such
as cholesterol. Adding iron to an established load of stored iron may add relatively
little risk compared to the transition from near iron deficiency to iron sufficiency.
These issues are lucidly presented in a just published paper (Facchini FS, Saylor KL.
Effect of iron depletion on cardiovascular risk factors. Studies in
carbohydrate-intolerant patients. Ann NY Acad Sci 2002;967:342-51, see attached Abstract).
Jerome
Skeptics -
Belief that the iron hypothesis is “non-disprovable” evidently does not prevent
critics from trying to disprove it. The straw man hypothesis articulated by Dr Kendrick
may be non-disprovable. However, the iron hypothesis suggests a primary protective effect
of iron depletion and is therefore highly disprovable, as described in previous
publications. To date, there has been no Kuhnian acceptance, but neither has there been a
Popperian falsification of the hypothesis. Jerome
top
Barry Groves
Hi - Can I add to
Uffe's words. CHD may be caused by a lack of oxygen in the myocardium -- or it may be
caused by a lack of fuel. The majority of MIs occur in the morning. Many in the
western world eat either no breakfast or a carbohydrate based breakfast. Those with no
breakfast may well be in a hypoglycaemic state, while the latter results in hypoglycaemia
-- could not a lack of glucose also precipitate a heart attack? In this case,
the 'prudent diet' might not be so prudent. Barry
top
27. maj
Jerome Sullivan
Malcolm - I
applaud your approach of attempting to attack any new hypothesis as hard as you can. At
the same time, we must carefully guard against prematurely rejecting an idea on the basis
of non-rigorous arguments. Influential proponents of the cholesterol world view have made
superficial, dismissive arguments against the iron hypothesis that have been very
successful at delaying a definitive test. I have the impression that the cholesterol
camp's objections have been based on inadequate understanding of the hypothesis. It seems
that what they know of the iron hypothesis comes from press accounts, not from a detailed,
fully engaged study of the published scientific literature. Against a new hypothesis
regarding the leading cause of death in the industrialized countries, this is
unacceptable.
A definitive test of the hypothesis would be in a properly designed prospective randomized
clinical trial. Descriptive epidemiology is good at raising possibilities but not so good
at providing definitive results. For example, in the hypothetical situation you propose,
we couldn't begin to draw conclusions regarding the hypothesis without knowing the iron
status and the iron status histories of the women and the men in the population. Without
such studies, a population in which there is little sex difference in iron status may be
inadvertently selected.
Suppose for the sake of argument there were a factor, e.g. a cultural dietary practice
followed only by the women, that boosts women's iron levels in an environment that causes
the male population to be at unusually high risk of iron loss. In this case, the CHD rates
would tell us little about the relationship between iron and disease.
Or, to consider another possibility, there may be genetic polymorphisms in your
hypothetical population that diminish the impact of iron on disease development. Looking
at persons homozygous for the well known hemochromatosis genes, it is clear that some of
them do not seem to be affected appreciably by rather high iron loads. A high frequency of
genes that reduce susceptibility to iron load might make your hypothetical population less
relevant to the sex difference in Western heart syndrome. With best regards, Jerome
top
Fred and Alice Ottoboni
Dear Malcolm:
Thank you for your insightful commentary. The point you made is something
that we all need to keep in mind. Many of us have contended that high serum
cholesterol is a symptom of an unhealthful diet (too much sugar/starch)
rather than a cause of cardiovascular disease. We need to make more use of
the fundamental principle you mentioned to support this contention. Again, thank you.
Fred and Alice Ottoboni
top
|
