Type II diabetes

The discussion of the Linus Pauling vitamin C/lysine invention for chronic scurvy

Moderator: ofonorow

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Type II diabetes

Post Number:#1  Post by ofonorow » Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:17 am

godsilove: My dad and grandfather both have Type II diabetes, so I infer that I am at risk of developing it later in my lifetime.


This was a quote from another topic, and rather than change the subject there, I have started a new topic.

The word "have" implies that both your father and grandfather are alive. If so, you have an opportunity to witness an unproven alternative therapy at work in your own family. I learned about Thomas Smith and his theory of Type II diabetes from an article in the Australian magazine Nexus. (That article was an excellent overview, but I am currently unable to find it on the Internet. For the next best thing, you can study Smith's postings at http://healingmatters.com.

In a nutshell, from memory, Smith was diagnosed as a Type II diabetic with blood sugar over 400. His doctors were unable to control his blood sugar, and he began to take matters into his own hands. He did a thorough literature search and discovered that medical science had identified the cause of Type II, but had kept this knowledge away from doctors treating the disease. Basically, Type II can be viewed as a disturbance of cell membranes that inhibits the uptake of glucose into cells, leading to increased glucose in the blood stream. (We became interested because ascorbic acid and glucose share the same insulin-mediated transport mechanism into cells. In theory, a diabetic would also have a hard time with the uptake of ascorbic acid into cells.)

The discovery of the cause has to do with cell membrane maintenance and repair, an ongoing metabolic process. If the quality of fats in the diet is poor, then these poor fats (e.g. trans fats) will be used to maintain the integrity of the membrane, but the repair will be faulty. As the disease progresses, more and more cells have faulty membranes inhibiting glucose uptake.

The fix is to eliminate trans fats and replace with healthier fats. I believe Smith's protocol eliminates ALL fats for a certain period, and then introduces certain Omega 3/6s. In his case, his blood sugar returned to normal after 90 days (again, if memory serves) but others with more advanced disease (more disturbed cells) may require a longer period. The good news is that because the process of maintaining cell membranes is ongoing, the damage caused by trans fats (or some impurity induced during the creation of the fat) can be reversed. (I have many messages from people who learned about this here, visited Smith's site and tried the protocol, and were successful. Maybe people where the protocol failed do not contact me?)

So you have a simple experiment (if you can get your dad and granddad off the junk foods) that you can monitor in your own family. (If you want really spectacular results in measured blood sugar, slowly introduce vitamin C.)
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

Dolev
quack
quack
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 3:01 am
Contact:

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#2  Post by Dolev » Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:04 am

I once read that when there are omega-3 fatty acids close to the glucose transporter, it works better.
Dolev

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#3  Post by godsilove » Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:01 pm

There are good reasons to minimize intake of trans-fats, although I doubt this is THE cause of type II diabetes.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#4  Post by ofonorow » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:26 am

Again, the science exists, but it hidden, so I'll wager you are wrong. So how do we prove it?
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#5  Post by godsilove » Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:24 am

ofonorow wrote:Again, the science exists, but it hidden, so I'll wager you are wrong. So how do we prove it?


There's also a unicorn in my basement, but it is invisible. How do I prove it's existence?

Smith apparently came across this science by doing a literature search, so I presume that literature still exists. Ergo, it is not "hidden".

phughes

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#6  Post by phughes » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:01 am

Keep in mind that type II diabetes was virtually non-existent before 1900. Trans fats were introduced into the diet in the early 1900s. It is clear that something we did in the 1900s has caused this disease. It didn't just come out of nowhere.

Does that prove unequivocally that trans fat is THE cause of type II diabetes?
No.

Does that prove unequivocally that trans fat is NOT THE cause of type II diabetes?
No.

Is the possibility that trans fat is THE cause of type II diabetes worth examining?
Absolutely.

Will the American Diabetes Association ever examine this possibility?
You gotta be kidding.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#7  Post by ofonorow » Sat Dec 26, 2009 4:26 am

godsilove wrote:
ofonorow wrote:Again, the science exists, but it hidden, so I'll wager you are wrong. So how do we prove it?


There's also a unicorn in my basement, but it is invisible. How do I prove it's existence?

Smith apparently came across this science by doing a literature search, so I presume that literature still exists. Ergo, it is not "hidden".


I don't follow your analogy but I did set a little trap to illustrate the unfairness supplements are faced with. While you can "prove" the transfat/diabetes theory wrong (if you are the one with the parent and grandparent with Type II), given a good faith effort to test it, should the therapy fail. Consider that even if your dad/granddad lowered their blood sugar and recovered, it would not "prove" the theory is correct.

This is how science operates. There is the parable of the swans and the hypothesis that all swans are white. No matter how many white swans are observed, it does not prove the hypothesis. Science is the process of searching for a black swan, because it only need find one to "prove" that the hypothesis is wrong.

Back to your parents, you have an opportunity to rule out the hypothesis that Type II is a cell membrane disturbance that can be corrected over time by eliminating hydrogenated oils and fats, and replacing with natural Omega 3s and perhaps 6s. If you follow the protocol and neither parent reacts favorably, then you have sufficiently "proven" that this is nonsense. However, as I mentioned, should the therapy work as it reportedly works in all others, that is still not "proof" of efficacy. Very unfair, don't you think?

By hidden, it is not generally known by the doctors and physicians who treat the disease, because it has not appeared in the medical journals they read.




Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#8  Post by godsilove » Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:53 am

phughes wrote:Keep in mind that type II diabetes was virtually non-existent before 1900. Trans fats were introduced into the diet in the early 1900s. It is clear that something we did in the 1900s has caused this disease. It didn't just come out of nowhere.


On what evidence are you basing the statement that T2D was virtually non-existent before the 1900s? :?:

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#9  Post by godsilove » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:09 am

ofonorow wrote:I don't follow your analogy


Any statement to the effect of "the evidence exists, but it is hidden" is meaningless.

but I did set a little trap to illustrate the unfairness supplements are faced with. While you can "prove" the transfat/diabetes theory wrong (if you are the one with the parent and grandparent with Type II), given a good faith effort to test it, should the therapy fail.


There are other ways to test this hypothesis without having to subject my family members to an idiosyncratic and possibly futile diet.

Consider that even if your dad/granddad lowered their blood sugar and recovered, it would not "prove" the theory is correct.

This is how science operates. There is the parable of the swans and the hypothesis that all swans are white. No matter how many white swans are observed, it does not prove the hypothesis. Science is the process of searching for a black swan, because it only need find one to "prove" that the hypothesis is wrong.


We can make this an issue about induction once we establish that all observed swans are white. In other words, let's first examine whatever evidence there is to suggest that trans-fats are the cause of diabetes.

I'm not asking for proof, I am asking for evidence.

Back to your parents, you have an opportunity to rule out the hypothesis that Type II is a cell membrane disturbance that can be corrected over time by eliminating hydrogenated oils and fats, and replacing with natural Omega 3s and perhaps 6s. If you follow the protocol and neither parent reacts favorably, then you have sufficiently "proven" that this is nonsense. However, as I mentioned, should the therapy work as it reportedly works in all others, that is still not "proof" of efficacy. Very unfair, don't you think?


As I said, there are other ways to put this hypothesis to the test, than to experiment with my family members' diet. For instance, we know there is a strong hereditary component involved in Type II diabetes, and there are certain genes that have been implicated with a higher risk of developing it. We could see whether these genes are linked to trans-fats or "cell membrane disturbances". We could also take healthy laboratory animals and subject them to a diet of high trans-fats and see if they develop symptoms of type II diabetes; subsequently, we can see if it can be reversed by following Smith's protocol.

None of this would be "proof", but it gives us a starting point.

By hidden, it is not generally known by the doctors and physicians who treat the disease, because it has not appeared in the medical journals they read.


Then where has it appeared?

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#10  Post by godsilove » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:11 am

Just to add, I've taken a look at the American Diabetes Association's clinical practice recommendations, and under the dietary fat intake section, it says:

* Saturated fat intake should be <7% of total calories. (A)
* Intake of trans fat should be minimized. (B)


So while it doesn't suggest that trans fat is the one true cause of all type 2 diabetes, it clearly recognizes that lower intake of trans fats is beneficial for the prevention and management of T2D. Hardly "hidden", is it?

phughes

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#11  Post by phughes » Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:33 pm

* Saturated fat intake should be <7% of total calories. (A)
* Intake of trans fat should be minimized. (B)

Interestingly the following study that followed 84204 women for 14 years does not agree with American Diabetes Association's clinical practice recommendations regarding saturated fats

Am J Clin Nutr 2001 Jun;73(6):1019-26, Dietary fat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in women.
From the article above.
"CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that total fat and saturated and monounsaturated fatty acid intakes are not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in women, but that trans fatty acids increase and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Substituting nonhydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids for trans fatty acids would likely reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes substantially."

On what evidence are you basing the statement that T2D was virtually non-existent before the 1900s?

I'll post the reference as soon as I can locate it.

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#12  Post by godsilove » Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:14 pm

phughes wrote:
* Saturated fat intake should be <7% of total calories. (A)
* Intake of trans fat should be minimized. (B)

Interestingly the following study that followed 84204 women for 14 years does not agree with American Diabetes Association's clinical practice recommendations regarding saturated fats

Am J Clin Nutr 2001 Jun;73(6):1019-26, Dietary fat intake and risk of type 2 diabetes in women.
From the article above.
"CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that total fat and saturated and monounsaturated fatty acid intakes are not associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in women, but that trans fatty acids increase and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Substituting nonhydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids for trans fatty acids would likely reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes substantially."


I believe the ADA's recommendation is partly based on the results of the KANWU study that was conducted in Finland. The researchers randomized patients to receive either a diet made up primarily of saturated fat, or one made up of primarily mono-unsaturated fat, and they found that those in the former group had decreased insulin sensitivity whereas those in the latter group did not.

chachazoom
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:56 am
Contact:

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#13  Post by chachazoom » Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:19 am

high transfat consumption goes hand in hand with processed high carb and sugar consumption. The top foods with high trans fat are: baked goods, spreads, pre packaged frozen foods and fast foods.

Particularly when it comes to grains (and especially wheat), we have a tendency to grind it, puff it, flake it, roll it, and generally beat it into submission so we can form it into any number of processed foods. This has the effect of doing some of the work of our digestive systems before the food even goes into our mouths. It’s really no wonder that these foods are turned into sugar so efficiently within minutes of being in our bodies. The starches that are most rapidly digested are those made from flour (including whole grain flour) and most breakfast cereals.

"A central problem of the industrial revolution was the preservation of flour. Transportation distances and a relatively slow distribution system collided with natural shelf life. The reason for the limited shelf life is the fatty acids of the germ which react from the moment they are exposed to oxygen. This occurs when grain is milled; the fatty acids oxidize and flour starts to become rancid. Depending on climate and grain quality this process takes 6 to 9 months. In the late 19th century this period was too short for an industrial production and distribution cycle. As vitamins, micronutrients and amino acids were completely or relatively unknown in the late 19th century, taking out the germ was a brilliant solution. Without the germ, flour cannot become rancid. Degerminated flour became standard. Degermination started in densely populated areas and took approximately one generation to reach the countryside. Heat-processed flour is flour where the germ is first separated from the endosperm and bran, then processed with steam, dry heat or microwave and submerged into flour again."

Now add in the coca cola co. in the late 19th century, which I believe occurred within the same decade as mass distribution of degerminated flour took off and the unprecedented consumption of high carb, sugar began. People went from whole unprocessed foods to greater and greater quantities of crap.

sugar- high carb- transfat food. So my guess is that when the transfat is cut out so is alot of sugar in the form of white sugar and processed flour which quickly converts to glucose. Unlikely there was much type 2 diabetes before.
Years of this kind of over consumption taxes the insulin production system and it becomes out of whack and inefficient as the cell receptors become less and less able to uptake.

when the insulin system is damaged, less is able to get to cells for immediate energy use so more is converted to fat storage. So you have a nation of fat, tired people whose brains tell them to eat more high carb sugar foods because their energy is so low, and they keep choosing foods that give them the quickest boost, flood the system. Add on all the hormonal problems this is responsible for. It is a vicious cycle, a terrible trap that can only be stopped one way, by giving insulin production a complete rest and allowing it to slowly re-regulate itself. This is why obesity and type two diabetes go hand in hand.

So when you cut out trans fat you ARE likely cutting out white flour and sugar too and for the very damaged systems, one must avoid even natural sources high in carbohydrates such as potatoes, corn and beans as well as fruits high in sugar like mangoes, bananas etc. Keep ones food intake restricted.

ofonorow
Ascorbate Wizard
Ascorbate Wizard
Posts: 15822
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: Lisle, IL
Contact:

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#14  Post by ofonorow » Sun Dec 27, 2009 6:32 am

We can make this an issue about induction once we establish that all observed swans are white. In other words, let's first examine whatever evidence there is to suggest that trans-fats are the cause of diabetes.

I'm not asking for proof, I am asking for evidence.


Thanks to phughes for providing evidence.

The swan story is merely to illustrate how and why medical science (and apparently global warming science as well) is not really following the scientific method. These "scientists" spend a great deal of effort counting white swans, while ignoring black swans (or in the case of global warning, dying the black swans white). Any contrary evidence that might harm sales of the drugs being tested is disregarded or ridiculed.

Real scientists work in entirely the opposite way. They criticize and try to poke holes in the previous work, to rule out incorrect hypothesis. Such scientists would not last long in a drug company - just ask Shane Ellison http://www.thepeopleschemist.com/view_learning.php?learning_id=11
Owen R. Fonorow
HeartCURE.Info
American Scientist's Invention Could Prevent 350,000 Heart Bypass Operations a year

godsilove

Re: Type II diabetes

Post Number:#15  Post by godsilove » Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:38 am

ofonorow wrote:
We can make this an issue about induction once we establish that all observed swans are white. In other words, let's first examine whatever evidence there is to suggest that trans-fats are the cause of diabetes.

I'm not asking for proof, I am asking for evidence.


[color=#000080]Thanks to phughes for providing evidence.


Huh? He provided an abstract of a cohort study suggesting that trans fats increase the risk of type II diabetes. This is still a long shot from your exaggerated claim that trans fats are THE cause of type II diabetes.

The swan story is merely to illustrate how and why medical science (and apparently global warming science as well) is not really following the scientific method. These "scientists" spend a great deal of effort counting white swans, while ignoring black swans (or in the case of global warning, dying the black swans white). Any contrary evidence that might harm sales of the drugs being tested is disregarded or ridiculed.


The problem of induction is not limited to the science with which you disagree, Owen. It applies to physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, etc. Perhaps your statements in the context of this thread would be more meaningful if you could give some concrete examples. What are the "black swans" that have been ignored by diabetes researchers?


Return to “Heart Disease: Linus Pauling's Vitamin C/Lysine Therapy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 59 guests