Archive for Clark Russell

Prescription drugs: A major cause of diabetes

We all know that prescription drugs come with a variety of side effects in some people. Things like tummy upsets, constipation, headaches, drowsiness, dizziness and nausea are fairly common. Read more

What most of us don’t think about when handed a prescription by our doctor is that the medicine could set us on the path towards metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Yet, that is the shocking truth; not for some rarely prescribed drug for a condition you’ve never heard of, but for whole classes of commonly prescribed medications that together make up the vast majority of prescriptions written in the UK.

Two major recent studies showed that statins, the world’s best-selling drugs, were clearly implicated in increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes. Statins block the production of cholesterol in the liver, but in doing so they also block the production of a related substance called dolichol, which has an important role in sugar metabolism and insulin sensitivity. The sad fact is that, while they increase the risk of diabetes, statins actually do little or nothing to reduce the risk of a heart attack, the reason they were prescribed in the first place.

A class of frequently prescribed steroid drugs called glucocorticoids (such as prednisolone) are also known to affect blood sugar control and lead to type 2 diabetes. The medical community is well aware of “steroid diabetes” as a condition that arises in people who have to take these drugs for an extended period, such as kidney transplant patients. But if your GP prescribes you a glucocorticoid for your asthma, eczema or irritable bowel syndrome, you may not be warned of this risk. Glucocorticoids raise blood sugar levels by promoting insulin resistance in the liver and muscle cells. At higher doses, they also impair the function of insulin producing beta cells in the pancreas, reducing the release
of insulin.

Beta blockers
Another mainstay of drug based medicine, beta blockers are used to treat a wide variety of conditions, including high blood pressure, angina, abnormal heart rhythm, overactive thyroid, glaucoma, anxiety and migraine. These drugs not only increase blood sugar levels in those who don’t have diabetes, but may worsen blood sugar control in people with diabetes and also blunt the warning symptoms when hypoglycaemia occurs. A massive study involving nearly 20,000 patients established a clear connection between the use of older beta blocker drugs, such as atenolol and type 2 diabetes.

Several studies have linked the long term use of antidepressants, one of the most frequently prescribed kinds of medication in the UK, with a raised risk of type 2 diabetes. All types of antidepressants, including tricyclic and SSRIs, are implicated. A recent major study, which examined the health data of more than 168,000 people, concluded that, even after adjusting for weight gain (a common side effect of antidepressants), people taking these drugs had an elevated risk of type 2 diabetes.

The list goes on and on…..

Other classes of drugs have also been linked with raised blood sugar levels, metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes.

They include:

  • Blood pressure drugs, which a long term study found was associated with new onset diabetes in 20% of patients who took them and with a consequent increased risk of heart attack and stroke in these patients.
  • Diuretics, particularly the thiazide type, which reduce blood potassium levels and interfere with the release of insulin by the pancreas.
  • Mood stabilisers, such as clozapine, quetiapine and risperidone, which have been found to cause metabolic syndrome, including raised blood sugar and blood fat levels, abdominal obesity and high blood pressure.
  • Anti-epilepsy drug sodium valproate (Epilim), which is often also prescribed for bipolar disorder and can interfere with the mechanism by which cells take up glucose, leading to raised blood sugar levels.

I get the feeling we have only just scratched the surface and that prescription drugs could turn out to be a significant factor in the worldwide epidemic of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Big Pharma must be well aware of this, but why would they tell anybody about it when sales of anti-diabetic drugs are such a big earner for them?

If you already have diabetes or metabolic syndrome, it is vital that you are aware of the damage that the drugs mentioned above could do to your blood sugar control. Ask your doctor how any medications you are taking could affect your glucose metabolism (doubt he will know). Sometimes it is a case of weighing one risk against another, but often there are safer drugs or non-drug alternatives that can be just as effective. Just don’t stop any medication without letting your doctor know.

NB Do not follow Diabetes UK or the American Diabetes Association’s recommendations for diabetes control; they are highly flawed due to vested or conflicting interests.

Question Your Oncologist

We are taught to respect authority from an early age i.e. at school as well as the notion that truth comes from authority.

There are many reasons for this and one is to respect and obey everything your doctor or consultant says, and in this case we are talking about oncologists. Why is this? Medicine is big business, which we don’t seem to get in the UK because it’s free at the point of delivery; however £130 Billion a year is far from being free to the taxpayer.

Read more

Also the perception of being “free” can make many of us feel awkward about questioning the people who work in the service or the service in general.

But in reality we have paid for this service through our taxes and the doctors, consultants and managers make very decent salaries and the companies who supply equipment and drugs to the health service make very good profits, especially the pharmaceutical companies aka Big Pharma.

Bear in mind that we are not talking about a hip replacement or getting your appendix out, which for the most part are relatively straightforward and have decent recovery results. Unfortunately with cancer the procedures are more invasive and highly toxic, be it surgery, radiation or chemotherapy as well as causing many long term, permanent side effects, including secondary cancers as a direct result of these 3 conventional therapies.

Doctors are busy, but that is no excuse to be economical with the truth and facts about these highly dangerous interventions, especially when doctors are supposed to be bound by The Hippocratic Oath, which states that doctors should “Firstly do no harm”.

They’re just not telling patients everything they really need to know, by glossing over a lot of important stuff and consequently you are at a higher risk. Therefore you have to take the initiative by preparing yourself with questions and that is the reason for this blog; so without further ado, here is a list of questions to ask your oncologist.

What’s my diagnosis?

You need to find this out as it is important. What kind of cancer do you have? By the way, it’s a good idea to get a second and a third opinion to make sure that your diagnosis is correct. Don’t just trust one doctor’s opinion on your diagnosis.

Is this a fast-growing cancer or a slow-growing cancer?

How long has this been growing in my body? This is important because if it’s a slow-growing cancer, you may have a lot more time than you realise. This will alleviate the sense of urgency that maybe your doctor or whoever may be trying to impose on you. If you have a slow-growing cancer that’s been growing on your body for 5 or 10 years or maybe longer, guess what? You probably have more time. You need to know how much time you really have in the sense of, “Is this fast-growing or slow-growing?”

Do you think an unhealthy diet, or pollution, or stress have anything to do with this?

You’ll be surprised how many doctors say, “No, it’s not your diet. No, stress doesn’t have anything to do with it. No, you’re just unlucky”. Luck is not a factor in cancer development, nor a factor in health, and has no place in the discussion.

What treatment do you recommend?

Very simple; they’re going to outline it, “Okay, we think you need surgery and chemotherapy and you need radiation.” You want to take really good notes. Take a notepad and write down everything or even better take a Dictaphone and record the conversation for future reference. You can obviously be polite by asking permission, but remember it’s your right.

What are the side effects of these treatments?

This is important for obvious reasons. What you need to know is chemotherapy drugs cause brain damage, heart damage, liver damage, lung damage, immune system damage, hearing loss, kidney and bladder damage, intestinal damage, internal bleeding, peripheral neuropathy (that’s where you lose the feeling in your fingertips and toes, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently) and chemo drugs can cause new, secondary cancers to form in the body.

If they’re not mentioning all these potential problems, then they are omitting some serious complications. This is what the conversation may go like, “Well, you’re going to throw up, you’re going to lose your appetite, you’re going to lose your hair, you’re just going to feel bad all round, food is not going to taste very good”.

If that’s all they’re telling you, then they’re feeding you all the trivial (by comparison) side effects that everybody knows about, and hiding the major damage that chemo drugs are going to cause in your body short and long term.

In 2015, a report was published that said nearly one in five new cancer cases are secondary cancers; that’s 20% of new cancer cases are secondary cancers. This basically means that cancer patients are developing new types of cancer in different parts of their body caused by treatment of primary cancers.

Since 1970, the amount of secondary cancers has increased by 300%. Secondary cancers can come quickly within the first few months or few years of treatment, or they can come decades later. It’s important that you know that. Your doctor should acknowledge that when you talk about this.

Are these drugs the latest innovation?

You would think that the older the drug, the better, because it’s been extensively tested. That’s the way the oncologists try to talk up these drugs, “We’ve been using these drugs for years.” The truth is, the top 10 most prescribed standard chemo drugs are between 20 and 60 years old.

  • Methotrexate, Fluorouracil (that’s 5-FU) and Cyclophosphamide were developed in the 1950’s
  • Doxorubicin was developed in the 1960s
  • Cisplatin was developed in 1978
  • Gemcitabine was developed in the 1980s
  • Etoposide was developed in 1983.
  • Chlorambucil was developed around 1984
  • Docetaxel and Paclitaxel were developed in 1992

Does that give you a whole lot of confidence in what they’re doing, the fact that they still have to resort to drugs 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years old? The cancer industry is constantly boasting about new innovative life saving treatments. Yet, they’re still using drugs that are decades old; something is amiss.

Is this treatment palliative or curative?

Curative means it will get rid of your cancer and palliative basically means your condition is terminal, but the drugs will give you a wee bit of extra time. They may give you a few months, but you will be miserable in pain and discomfort.

A study concluded that two thirds of patients think they were getting curative treatment, when in actual fact they were being treated palliatively. Their doctors knew there’s no way this treatment was going to cure them. You need to know the difference and make sure you ask that question.

If they say, it’s curative treatment, then ask them,

What’s the recurrence rate after this treatment?

They will probably throw a figure or percentage chance at you. Ask them where they got it from. It needs to be from an unbiased source; hint, not a drug company or Government agency.

How much time do you think I have to live if I do this treatment?

You may or may not want to know, but bear in mind two things; firstly they are only guessing themselves and secondly, oncologists have been known to inflate the survival time to coax you into taking the treatment.

Remember the Big Pharma industry runs Governments and conventional medicine. See here.

How much time do you think I have to live if I do nothing?

Usually, it’s always going to be, “You’re going to live less time if you don’t do treatment.” We know that’s not the case. See here.

What is the five year disease free survival rate for my specific diagnosis with your treatment protocol?

It’s all about the words here; we are not talking about “survival rate” because that could mean you are not that well, but since you are alive (just), they record it as a survival success. That’s the Government for you. Make sure you use the words DISEASE FREE.

What is the five year disease free survival rate for my specific cancer if I do nothing?

They won’t know this, but you can ask them anyway. The truth is it is higher by doing nothing. See “How much time do you think I have to live if I do nothing?” above.

How much does chemotherapy contribute to five year survival for my type of cancer?

An extensive study in The Journal of Clinical Oncology (2004) concluded that chemotherapy contributed only 2.1% towards the five year survival rate i.e. not that much. Some drugs were better than others and some have a zero contribution to the five year rates, so you will have to check your own cancer in this study.

I wouldn’t bring this study up with them as it won’t make a blind bit of difference.

NB Although the study is 11 years old, the chemo drugs used then are still being used today.

May I have copies of the safety data sheets on all the drugs I’ll be taking? I like to take them home with me today if possible.

The safety data sheet is the drug insert that pharmaceutical companies have to provide to doctors for each drug; it lists all of the known side effects and damages to your body, including any known counter indications with other drugs. This is your right and comes under the Health & Safety Act. Make sure you don’t leave until you get copies of the data sheets on these drugs.

Would you (the oncologist) or your family do this treatment if you had the same diagnosis as me?

90% of oncologists would refuse chemo for themselves and their family if they had cancer. See here. That’s pretty damning, don’t you think?

Is it true that chemotherapy drugs can make cancer more aggressive?

Absolutely is the accurate answer, but let the oncologist talk just to see how honest he is going to be; he may just brush it off or say it’s not that big of an issue. It certainly is and is called chemo resistance and is driven by cancer stem cells, which become resistant to chemo and radiation. Here is a great article for your information.

Does chemotherapy kill cancer stem cells?

They will say yes they do for sure; however that is only part of the story. They cause heavy collateral damage to healthy cells, as well as failing to kill cancer stem cells, which cause chemo resistance, increased malignancy and secondary tumours. Also there are many natural plant compounds that outperform chemo with no side effects. See here.

I read that chemotherapy drugs are carcinogenic. Can this treatment cause more cancers in my body?

Yes they are, but the oncologist in all probability will down play it or use the drug company’s official (biased and inaccurate) data.

Most if not all chemo drugs are registered carcinogens at the Government level. Even the ones which have slipped through the net are cancer causing. Why? In simple terms they destroy the mitochondria (the energy producing part of your cells) of your healthy cells, which not only cause healthy cell death, but cell proliferation; cell proliferation is the hallmark of cancer, in this case secondary cancers.

How do we know this? Well Professor Thomas Seyfried wrote a ground breaking book in 2012, “Cancer as a Metabolic Disease”, which postulates that mitochondrial damage or dysfunction leads to DNA damage, in turn cell proliferation i.e. cancer.

What other options are available besides standard treatment?

They will probably say “other options don’t work” or “these are the best options that we have”. This is actually nonsense as there are many natural plant extracts that are more effective than chemo and actually kill the cancer stem cells, the main cause of secondary cancers and increased malignancy.

What do you recommend I eat while I’m doing chemotherapy?

They will probably tell you to go ahead and eat anything you want. This is shocking and demonstrates their lack of training and understanding in nutrition. Cancer cells are ravenous for glucose, which they get mainly from carbohydrates of all kinds. Hence limiting carbs (using a ketogenic diet), will help starve cancer cells. See here.

What’s the best anti-cancer diet? What is the best diet for a cancer patient?

They will have no clue; sorry, but this is the sad reality of modern cancer care in the UK and further afield. What they should be saying is a low carb, mainly plant based diet with raw organic fruits and vegetables, green juicing, probiotic and prebiotic foods and sprouted seeds e.g. broccoli seeds, with at least 80% of the diet coming from raw, uncooked foods.

Are there any foods that I should avoid?

They will probably reiterate what they said above and that was to eat anything you like. Instead they should be saying, NO grains e.g. wheat, cereals, corn, rice etc., NO sugar, NO refined vegetable oils, NO alcohol, NO processed or junk foods, NO charred foods.

How many patients do you treat per year? How many do you see per day?

He or she may say, “I treat a thousand patients a year, or something.” By the way, you’re setting them up for the next question. You want to ask this one first.

How many patients have you cured of my disease?

He or she may have just been boasting about how many patients he treats, and now you’re saying, “How many of them have you cured?” You can follow this up with…

I’m just really nervous about this. I’d like to get references. Can I speak to five patients with the same cancer as me that you’ve cured that are cancer free after five years? Is that possible?

They will probably say that we can’t give that information out, since it is confidential. Then you can say well could you call them and ask if they would talk with me directly; I’m sure they would only be too happy to sing your praises if you helped them back to health.

Do you have any former patients that have been in remission for over 10 years? That’s even better. I would really love to speak to them if you have any. 

This may sound a bit much, but think about it logically; if you were having a new roof on your house or a new kitchen fitted, you would want references from the tradesmen surely.

This is your health, which trumps every other part of your life so you will want some kind of references into the oncologist’s success rates. There is nothing unreasonable about it.

What about Insulin Potentiated Therapy

They won’t have a clue in all probability since it is not part of their training and it would never be considered as such, since it only uses 10% (in a highly targeted fashion) of the standard drug doses; one tenth is not a lot of drug, which would equal a fraction of the chemo drug profits compared to the profits that would be reaped when the standard doses of drugs are administered.

You can make the point that there is much less collateral damage to healthy cells due to the highly targeted (directly to the tumours) delivery system and then ask them, would that not be in line with the Hippocratic Oath, which states that doctors should firstly do no harm?

You can say to your oncologist, if you would like some time to research it, I can point you in the right direction and you can give them this article to read.


Diabetes UK: A Sham

I have had ongoing disputes with Diabetes UK and Professor Mike Lean (Glasgow University) for a few weeks, which has finally lead me to lose my patience.

Read more

I intended to write a full cross examination of Diabetes UK’s decision to award Mike Lean and Glasgow University, £2.5 million for a study, which in my opinion and the opinion of others, is a waste of money and that it will not solve the diabetes epidemic; however I have other commitments at the moment. Fortunately I stumbled across an article, which raises some of the issues I was intending to address, saving me some time thankfully.

Here is the article that has saved me a lot of time on this. I will however raise a few issues about the study before proceeding to the direct email communication with Diabetes UK below.

A quick snapshot of their proposed very low carbohydrate diet (VLCD), reveals their “food” of choice is a shake used by The Cambridge Diet (no vested interests there), delivering 600 calories per day. Contained in this shake are vitamins, some of which are in synthetic form and as such, don’t absorb well in the body. Their source of magnesium, the most important mineral in the body, responsible for at least 300 metabolic reactions and the prevention of type 2 diabetes, is magnesium oxide; magnesium oxide is basically a cheap junk form that only delivers a 4% absorption rate!

If you are going to limit calories (not necessary anyway if you use a high healthy fat diet), then at least make sure the nutrients are maximized and magnesium oxide and synthetic vitamins doesn’t cut it. Most people are magnesium deficient as it is and this would have been an opportunity to ensure that good quality magnesium is used in the study, especially when type 2 diabetes is linked to magnesium deficiency.

Our next ingredient is gluten, public enemy number one, even worse than sugar, and responsible for over 200 diseases. Type 1 diabetes is included in this extensive list; so if you don’t have type 1 diabetes, you could possibly get it by guzzling down Professor Lean’s shakes (Nice!); this could happen via an autoimmune response to the gliadin proteins in the gluten, which damages pancreatic tissue.

NB We are not talking about Celiac disease; gluten sensitivity is enough to produce antibodies and studies have been published, concluding that everyone has gluten sensitivity to some degree.

Our final ingredient in the snapshot look at the The Cambridge Diet shake is the artificial sweetener, aspartame, which can worsen insulin sensitivity, raise insulin levels as much as sugar, ultimately leading to type 2 diabetes (the very thing they are trying to cure!). There are also other conditions linked to aspartame such as fibromyalgia, IBS, autism and cancers; see here.

Finally once patients finish the diet, they are referred to their GP practice for ongoing support and dietary advice. Seriously? GP’s know nothing about nutrition and neither do their support staff. In fact the NHS’s protocol is to refer people to Weightwatchers, that great dinosaur of the diet world.

Now on to the emails. 

From: []
Sent: 25 September 2015 15:12
To: Barbara Young
Subject: Re: Complaint about Professor Mike Lean

Directly below is my last email to the CEO (now replaced), Barbara Young.

Dear Barbara,

Further to our recent communications regarding Mike Lean, as I indicated to you in the previous email, I will be writing a blog on the trial funding issue, but this will take time as there are many issues to consider and articulate.

However for now the other issue is concerning Mike Lean’s role in a “healthy” pizza company (, where he acts as a nutritional adviser. This is not on and and is a conflict of interest and is misleading the public.

Diabetes UK obviously turned a blind eye to this or was it an oversight? Surely you would not deem a pizza made with wheat flour as healthy? Here are some of wheat’s highlights in the human diet.

  • Wheat is not needed in the human diet
  • Wheat is a known neurotoxin
  • Gluten in wheat is linked to at least 200 diseases, including cancers and Alzheimer’s
  • Wheat in any form has a higher insulin spike than sugar (yes sorry about that, as uncomfortable as it may be); therefore it is worse than sugar in causing diabetes.
  • Wheat is a major cause of obesity
  • Wheat is a major cause of leaky gut syndrome; as Hippocrates said once, “all disease begins in the gut”

In view of the above, I am requesting that you ask Mike Lean to stand down from the pizza company due to a clear conflict of interest. If you need any evidence to back up the aforementioned claims, then let me know. However I would be shocked if people on your board do not know about the dangers of wheat and gluten, which gets lost in the media due to sugar. Wheat is actually worse and it is being ignored. I don’t know how some people sleep at night; the system is corrupt and broken and Lean is one example of many.

I won’t be letting this go; it’s too important.


Clark Russell

Below is the reply from Diabetes UK:

Dear Mr Russell,

Thank you for your email to Barbara Young dated 25 September. As you will know, Barbara Young has left Diabetes UK. I am replying on behalf of our new Chief Executive Chris Askew.

You have asked if Diabetes UK was aware of Professor Lean’s role in the development of the “Eat Balanced” pizza range, suggesting that it represents a conflict of interests and is misleading to the public. You have also made a number of assertions about the role of wheat in human nutrition.

I would make the following observations:

  • As you know, Professor Lean is an employee of the University of Glasgow and not Diabetes UK. Many scientists are involved in the commercialisation of research. This is ultimately a necessary part of the process of delivering the benefits of academic research to society and universities have their own governance procedures to ensure that this does not represent a conflict of interests with the employer.
  • I can see no conflict of interest between Professor Lean’s involvement in “Eat Balanced” and his receipt of grant funding from Diabetes UK, which is on an unrelated topic.
  • From the publicly available materials relating to “Eat Balanced” I do not believe that Professor Lean is “misleading the public”. It is clear to me that “Eat Balanced” has highlighted the high levels of salt and fat, low levels of fibre and limited information on vitamin and mineral content in commercially available pizzas, and that they are marketing their product as having an appropriate nutritional balance and lower calorie content than other pizzas. This rather laudably demonstrates the principle that there is no good reason why types of prepared meals that are currently unhealthy cannot be made significantly more healthy by manufacturers.
  • Your objection seems to stem primarily from your views about wheat, on which we will have to agree to differ. Some people have an identified medical reason to avoid wheat. Others may prefer to do so as a matter of personal choice.  However for people who have not been recommended to avoid wheat on medical advice, there is no reason why food containing wheat should not be included as part of a healthy balanced diet.

Yours sincerely,


Alasdair Rankin PhD
Director of Research

E | Diabetes UK 10 Parkway, Camden, London NW1 7AA |

W  | Facebook | Twitter

My response to the email directly above from Diabetes UK.

He (Alasdair Rankin) said “As you know, Professor Lean is an employee of the University…..

(Me) Who is Prof Lean’s employer has no relevance on the issue. Secondly, I don’t know what benefits to society (of this academic research) he is talking about; is it the health destroying wheat pizza (Yummy!) or the £2.5 Million diabetes study?, this red herring of a study could easily be ditched and replaced (without any money spent) by a more effective, high healthy fat diet (ketogenic), saving £2.5 million of public donor money for other uses.

Thirdly the University’s governance procedures are obviously not working, as they do not have any clue about wheat’s health impact or they don’t want to know, because Lean has just secured £2.5 million revenues for the University.

The next point from Diabetes UK states, that “I can see no conflict of interest…….

(Me) Seriously is this for real? A wheat flour based pizza with all the aforementioned points I made on its detrimental effects to health including diabetes, and Diabetes UK can see no conflict of interest. Think about the hypocrisy of that for a second, we have a Professor in charge of a diabetes study, also acting as the Chief Nutritional Officer in a pizza company. Come on this is morally bankrupt.

The next point goes on to state, “From the publicly available materials relating to “Eat Balanced”…….

(Me) They have reduced the salt, added a couple of vitamins (probably cheap, synthetic ones), reduced the fat (less cheese I guess), but unfortunately the vitamins would not absorb well, not only due to the possible synthetic component, but also the fact that gluten inflames the gut, in turn preventing the absorption of nutrients. They have also added sunflower and rapeseed oils, which in the non-cold pressed form (cheaper and used by all fast food and convenience food makers) are highly inflammatory to the body, leading to a multitude of disease, again diabetes, heart disease and cancers.

Also you should get fibre from fruits and vegetables not grains; high fibre grains are junk foods dressed up with a health halo. The higher fibre pizza is just a red herring; a pile of nonsense really. Finally they mention a lower calorie pizza; not that old chestnut again; this is another example of outdated dogma. Someone forgot to tell them it is quality not quantity that is the key to health and weight control.

They talk about nutritional balance; it’s a vague term that is used by all Government and affiliated agencies including health charities to basically cover up the fact that, the balance is highly skewed in favour of starchy carbs (like the NHS “Eatwell Plate”), the main driver for all modern disease including diabetes. What they really should be saying is a macronutrient content highly in favour of healthy fats and low in carbs with moderate protein. That’s the proper balance for optimal human health and there are 23 high quality studies confirming this; unfortunately this clashes with the food industry (e.g. Tesco and Diabetes UK partnership), Big Pharma profits and academic research funding for universities.

The final point states, that “Your objection seems to stem primarily from your views about wheat………

(Me) I can’t believe that the Director of Research of a diabetes charity could state all the comments in the last point; gluten must have damaged his brain, it’s a neurotoxin after all.

Everyone has an immune response to the gliadin protein in gluten and therefore all people, although they may not know it, have created an inflammatory response in their body; this response when exposed constantly over time to the foreign body (gliadin in this case), leads to systemic or chronic inflammation, which sets the stage for multiple disease processes further down the road. There have been 4 groundbreaking books on wheat’s deleterious effects in the past 3 years, here, here, here and here and to deny the potential health effects from wheat is to live in complete denial of the facts.

Diabetes UK should be disbanded, Professor Lean stripped of his title and the £2.5 million of public donor money returned to whoever can do the job of combating diabetes effectively without the interference from cronyism, academic egos and vested interests.

I think a petition is in order. Stay tuned for the next part of the Diabetes UK soap opera.



Breast Cancer: They Knew!


Covering Up The Causes of Breast Cancer Since 1985: AstraZeneca's BCAM

Did you know that AstraZeneca, manufacturer of two blockbuster breast cancer drugs (one of which is classified as a known human carcinogen), is behind Breast Cancer Awareness Month?

Read more

Why is it, do you think, that during Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) you never hear the word “carcinogen” mentioned, but are barraged a million times over by the word “cure”?

Truth be told, BCAM should be renamed Breast Cancer Un-Awareness Month, as it has nothing to do with generating awareness about the true causes and solutions for the breast cancer epidemic and everything to do with making the public focus on a presumably not-yet-existent “cure” to be produced through the pharmaceutical pipeline somewhere off in the future only after enough money is raised.

Instead of identifying and addressing the known causes of cancer, like the many mammary carcinogens now identified in body care products, GMO and processed foods, and our polluted environment, the mission of BCAM is to make people think that the best way to prevent breast cancer is to “detect it early.”

And how?

By subjecting their breasts to radiation-based diagnostic screening that we now know actually causes breast cancer, and which has lead to over one million cases of falsely diagnosed and unnecessarily treated breast cancers in the past 30 years in U.S. women alone. One recent review on the topic of mammography concluded that they are harmful and should be avoided, and yet you will hear countless messages this month that breast screenings are safe and effective for reducing breast cancer mortality — technically, a lie.

This viral meme describes the underlying agenda succinctly:

Back in 2012, when we first wrote “The Dark Side of Breast Cancer [Un]Awareness Month,” in order to shed light on this travesty, the real history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s origins was still relatively unknown despite the fact that it was a matter of public record. According to the Wikipedia page on the topic:

“NBCAM was founded in 1985 as a partnership between the American Cancer Society and the pharmaceutical division of Imperial Chemical Industries (now part of AstraZeneca, maker of several anti-breast cancer drugs). The aim of the NBCAM from the start has been to promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer.”

The reference link listed on Wikipedia for the paragraph above comes from the BCAM website, but is now dead. For reasons that remain a mystery, the BCAM website was taken offline by AstraZeneca in the intervening years. Despite this, the BCAM domain name — — still links directly to AtraZeneca’s HealthCare Foundation page; astounding evidence that AstraZeneca owned and controlled BCAM and still does. You can still view the WayBackMachine’s archived NBCAM website here if you are curious.

And so why is this connection so important? 

What is so disturbing about AstraZeneca’s founding role in BCAM is that it “just happens” to make two blockbuster breast cancer drugs, Tamoxifen and Arimidex — a conflict of interest so flagrant, its hard to ignore. Even more disturbing is that Tamoxifen is actually classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a known human carcinogen! A carcinogenic “treatment” for breast cancer?  No wonder BCAM won’t allow the word “carcinogen” mentioned in any of its campaigns. 

Back when AstraZeneca kept the BCAM website functioning, it was easy to prove how BCAM and AstraZeneca had pinkwashed the concept of the true causes of cancer (carcinogens) from the public mind. You used to be able to plop the word “carcinogen” into the site’s search engine feature and you would retrieve the following highly suspect results:
Your search – carcinogen – did not match any documents. No pages were found containing “carcinogen”.

Likewise, back in 2012, on Susan G. Komen’s website, the term “carcinogen” only emerged twice, and both in the context of denying the likelihood of there being a connection between smoking and breast cancer. If you search the site today, the term has been further scrubbed, with no informative results retrieved with the term.


Clearly this is strategic. There are literally thousands of possible and known carcinogens identified in various public databases, such as Roundup herbicide, for instance, was recently reclassified as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. If the goal is really to protect women and reduce breast cancer morbidity and mortality, shouldn’t Breast Cancer Awareness Month focus on identifying and reducing exposure to probable and/or known carcinogens?  Failing to do so is equivalent to deceit, if not malfeasance, is it not?

This all makes greater sense when you understand the history behind BCAM’s founder AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca was formed through the merger of Astra AB and Zeneca Group (a pharmaceutical subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries) in 1999. Imperial Chemical Industries, a multinational corporation responsible for producing breast cancer causing petrochemical derivatives such as vinyl chloride and pesticides, founded National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, in partnership with the American Cancer Society, in order to promote the widespread adoption of x-ray mammography, whose failings if not horrors we have documented extensively elsewhere.

This means the very corporation that contributed significantly to accelerating the breast cancer epidemic also profited and still profits from new diagnoses of breast cancer and their treatment.

fracking for the cure

Sadly, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a time of increasing awareness not of the preventable causes of breast cancer, but of the breast cancer industry’s insatiable need to both raise money for research into a would-be “pharmaceutical cure,” and to promote its primary means of “prevention”: early detection via x-ray mammography.’It’s also a cause-marketing feeding frenzy with a disturbingly vast array of carcinogen-containing products sporting Susan G. Komen’s pink ribbon, presumably “in support” of raising awareness, including the hot pink fracking drill bit pictured above.

Please, before you consider going on a march, donating to the “cause,” or buying a pink-ribbon-bedecked product this month, consider the true origins of the year’s most widespread brainwashing event. For real information on the real causes and solutions for cancer watch the upcoming Truth about Cancer documentary series, of which I will be a part. It promises to be the much needed antidote to the propaganda that has spread as viciously as cancer itself. You can also use our Cancer Research database with thousands of articles and study abstracts on treating cancer naturally.

Finally, please share the meme below (save to desktop and re-upload to Facebook and other social media platforms), with the link to this article:

I will be putting up another blog on this in the next week or so, with strategies to reduce your risk as well as treatment options for breast cancer.

Published with permission from


Alzheimer’s: Same Old Tune

Alzheimer’s will affect 1 in 3 newborns at some point in their lives according to a new study, and this life robbing disease will affect women more than men.

The researchers at Alzheimer’s Research UK call it a ‘looming national health crisis’ and warn that girls born today are at a 10% higher risk of developing dementia later in life, compared to boys of a similar age whose risk is 27%.

Read more

Dr. Matthew Norton, head of policy at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “Dementia is our greatest medical challenge and, if we are to beat it, we must invest in research to find new treatments and preventions.”

Well in response to Dr. Norton’s comments, the prevention strategies are already here and have been for some time, so why aren’t they promoting them widely and secondly why are they even mentioning new treatments, when they have been largely ineffective to date and based on Big Pharma’s record on producing drugs in general with poor efficacy, there is nothing to suggest that after millions more of further investment, this is about to change. So when you see the next sensationalist media headline such as “Alzheimer’s Breakthrough” or “Game Changer”, just ignore it and here is the reason why.

Let’s face it their record is abysmal for most, if not all disease types including cancer. Incidentally the BBC journalist made reference to the success of cancer treatments and asked why Alzheimer’s is lagging behind. I’m not sure where he got his information from, but cancer is not much better after the Billions spent on research and treatments.

In 2012, a researcher then at the biotechnology company Amgen wrote in Nature that when his team tried to reproduce 53 landmark cancer studies, they could replicate just six; that’s only 11%.!

Medicine doesn’t care about the root cause of diseases or a permanent cure

I know it sounds cruel and callous, but this is unfortunately the reality. Why? Because Big Pharma have been controlling the medical establishment for years, resulting on an emphasis on detecting disease and subsequently prescribing drug therapies to “treat” the symptoms.

The problem with this approach is twofold; firstly, you’re only masking the root cause and secondly, once disease has taken hold; it is usually too late or very difficult to reverse the damage.

Why should they pursue such a futile strategy? Simple! There is no money in cures in contrast to the multi-billion dollar profits in treating symptoms. Think about it logically; if doctors taught their patients (if they were trained in natural medicine, a big IF) how to avoid diseases and stay healthy, a $750 billion per year medical industry would be drastically reduced to treating rare disorders and accidents.

Most people never consider that medicine is a profit driven business, especially in countries like the UK with the NHS, where treatment is “free” at the point of delivery; however the reality is that the NHS costs a whopping £115 Billion a year.

Would it not be smarter to address the root causes of disease?

For example, Alzheimer’s, dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases are caused by 3 interdependent factors:

Control these 3 conditions and you reduce the risk or slow down the disease. NB Mitochondria are the energy producing “batteries” of the cells, which turn food into cellular energy, namely adenosine triphosphate or ATP. Our modern lifestyles conspire against the mitochondria’s ability to produce energy optimally, leading to increased free radicals and cellular inflammation. This sets the stage for multiple diseases, including neurodegeneration.

What causes mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation and free radical damage?

  • Pesticides and herbicides – they are difficult to eliminate totally, but buying the organic version of the most contaminated produce and washing produce in water helps. Improving gut flora helps remove toxins; using probiotic foods or supplements.
  • Harmful ingredients in foods and beverages – these include MSG, saccharin and aspartame.
  • Toxic metals in the air, water, and consumer products – toxic metals including lead, cadmium, mercury and aluminium.

They find their way into certain fish, such as tuna, shark, and swordfish; drinking water, the air you breathe, household products, such as antiperspirants and aluminium cookware.

If you use fluoridated water or toothpaste, even in small amounts, it will increase your aluminium and flouride absorption and trigger a dramatic destruction of the same brain cells we see destroyed in Alzheimer’s patients. Flouride causes the calcification of the pineal gland, which is now implicated in the onset of Alzheimer’s. Chlorine is also a calicifier of the pineal gland.

  • Various sugars and sugar substitutes –  ditch the artificial sweeteners and use stevia, erythritol, raw honey or a little date paste. Aspartame is a potent excitotoxin that can literally excite brain cells to death. Instead, use natural sugar substitutes, which are safer and won’t cause inflammation or generate free radicals.
  • High carb diets – increase the risk of Alzheimer’s by 89%. They produce way too much glucose, which eventually leads to insulin resistance in the brain and associated inflammation, oxidative stress (from free radicals) and mitochondrial dysfunction, in turn leading to cell death. Hence the reason why the disease is often referred to as type 3 diabetes. In fact the brain does not need glucose and can manage very well with ketone (fats) bodies for fuel. This is one of the reasons why coconut oil is so effective at slowing the diseases’ progression.

    Also avoid grains, which cause high insulin spikes and contain anti-nutrients including the most damaging of all. namely gluten; gluten is a neurotoxin and should be re-classified as a health hazard, since it has been linked to at least 200 diseases and removal of it from the diet can actually induce recovery in Parkinson’s.

    Grains and other poor starchy carbs include wheat flour (bread, pasta, cereals, noodles, pies, pastries, ready meals), oats, potatoes, corn, rice; stick to sweet potatoes, squash and root vegetables. Also replace some starchy carbs with more fibrous vegetables.
  • Omega-6 fats (mainly from refined vegetable/cooking oils) – omega-6 oils beyond the smallest amounts will cause brain inflammation and that inflammation will excite the microglia into destroying your brain cells.

What’s more, the inflammation will cause more free radical activity that can overwhelm your antioxidant defences, causing a steady deterioration of brain cell function.

Omgea 6 oils line the supermarket aisle and are used in cooking, baking and salad dressings. The ones to avoid include; soybean, sunflower, canola (rapeseed), corn, safflower, refined olive oil, peanut or groundnut and generic vegetable oil.

Only use butter (preferably grass fed), virgin coconut oil, organic ghee and lard from a grass fed animal for cooking and EV olive oil, avocado oil, macadamia and cold pressed seed and nut oils for dressings.

Eat plenty of Omega 3 foods including oily fish like mackerel, sardines and salmon (preferably wild). Salmon contains astaxanthin, arguably the “king of antioxidants” as does krill oil, which would be useful for supplementing your Omega 3 intake. Good vegetarian options include ground or milled flaxseed (linseed), walnuts and cold pressed flaxseed oil.

Other healthy fats for a healthy brain include; nuts, seeds, avocados, olives and free range, organic eggs.

Other Causes:

  • Vaccines (including flu shots) – one of the world’s leading immunologists, Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, has conducted studies showing that those who receive the flu vaccine yearly for 3 to 5 years increase their risk of Alzheimer’s ten fold.
  • GMO foods – genetically engineered foods represent one of the most widespread and underestimated dangers of our time. Among other toxins and other health-disrupting contaminants, GMO foods contain glyphosatea horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume.
  • Excitotoxins – these are substances that excite the microglia (brain’s immune cells) and cause a storm of inflammation and free radical production and they include chemicals added to foods e.g. MSG and aspartame as well as elevated homocysteine levels caused by poor diet induced inflammation.
  • Household and beauty products – are toxic and as such trigger the vicious cycle of inflammation and free radicals and more inflammation and mitochondrial damage.
  • Poor gut health – causes poor immunity; 70% of immune cells are made in the gut; microglia (the brain’s immune cells) are crucial for brain cell protection.
  • Low levels of the master antioxidant, glutathione – moderates the brain’s immune system, resulting in inflammation and free radical production, the two brain destroying culprits you must control to avoid neurodegenerative (ND) diseases.
  • Infections, brain injury, strokes, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, harmful foods, environmental toxins such as mercury, lead, and aluminium, and also high levels of glutamate, which deplete your body’s store of glutathione.

Find a doctor practicing holistic or integrative medicine who can administer heavy metal detox through IV chelation therapy, and while you’re at it, get a glutathione IV drip. This one-two punch will give your brain a big boost of protection.

Mercury is also highly toxic to your brain and immune system, and it’s the main ingredient in amalgam dental fillings. If you still have this type of filling, see a qualified dentist for their proper removal.

Other risk factors:

 What else should you do to help protect yourself?

  • Take the Sage Test to assess whether you are showing any symptoms of cognitive decline.
  • Fasting – this helps control insulin levels, which have been shown to be a factor in ND diseases; Alzheimer’s is often referred to as type 3 diabetes.
  • A high healthy fat diet (see healthy fats above) – reduces the risk of Alzheimer’s by 44%. Believe it or not the brain is 60% fat, so why on earth would the Government and all their health cronies advocate a low fat diet? Simple, to appease the food companies who make Billions from low fat, junk foods, which make you ill, and the Big Pharma companies who make Billions selling you drugs in a futile attempt to “cure” you, but all they do is poison you.
  • Either install water filters in your home or stick to mineral spring water to avoid flouride, chlorine and other toxins.

Increasing evidence suggests that the brain is not pre-programmed or pre-destined by some genetic blueprint. Instead, we are interacting with and “updating” this blueprint with every one of our actions, mainly via the epigenome, the level above the gene, which interacts with our environment.

This means that our diet, exercise habits, supplementation routines, emotional health, sleep patterns and relationships all play a role in determining our brain health. Even the quality of our thought patterns (whether they’re positive or negative) can change our brains accordingly.

You and I both know that these “treatments and preventions” will certainly not involve alternative healthy breakthroughs, but rather ineffective, highly damaging chemical drugs that are foreign to the body and as such pose many other risks, while at the same time having little to no efficacy.

Developing policies to clampdown on junk food manufacturers, curtailing the use of pesticides and the over-prescription of antibiotics and other medicines and advocating at least some of the aforementioned supplement options would be a start.

However money, power and scientific egos are so intertwined, that they prove time and time again to be a tough nut to crack. Hopefully by reading this, it will provide food for thought and the confidence to take control of your own health by making the lifestyle changes necessary to help protect you from this life stripping disease..

The Scoop on Carbs

This is by far the most confusing food group due to the amount of choices in our supermarkets, which contain carbs in many guises e.g sugars, wheat flour, other flours and starches. By choosing the right type of carbs (allowing for treats), in the right amounts and ideally at the right time, you can use carbs to your advantage in weight control and optimum health.

Read more

Why do carbs need to be controlled?
When you eat a big meal, which is loaded with carbohydrates (carbs), e.g. pasta, rice, bread, potatoes etc, it sends your blood sugar soaring. The body immediately releases the hormone insulin whose job is to move the sugar out of the bloodstream; sugar (glucose) is toxic in the blood; hence the reason why the body, with the help of insulin moves it from the bloodstream and transports it into body tissues e.g. muscle cells and the liver.

NB Carbs get broken down mainly into glucose, regardless of the type.

Insulin escorts glucose into muscle cells for immediate energy, but when the muscle cells don’t need it (e.g. you don’t burn enough energy through exercise and daily activity), it gets shuttled into the fat cells. That is why insulin is also known as the “fat storing hormone”.

NB Some glucose gets stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen for emergency needs. However the glycogen “tank” can only store so much, then the excess glucose gets coverted to fat and then stored, often referred to as “fat spiilover.”

Insulin does its work with the help of an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL), which is the “fat storing enzyme.” LPL takes triglycerides from the bloodstream, divides them into smaller parts (fatty acids), and then promptly helps store these fatty acids in your fat cells.

If insulin remains in the bloodstream, it effectively locks the doors to the fat cells; they won’t open up and you won’t burn fat until insulin levels come back down. Of course, the more you continue to eat the same high carb diet, the less your insulin levels go down.  Now you can see how it is impossible to burn fat when you have high insulin levels in your blood.

How do you burn fat?
Insulin has a sister hormone, namely glucagon and it’s a critical component of your fat burning biochemistry.

When you need more energy and food isn’t available, glucagon is secreted from the pancreas. Its purpose is the exact opposite of insulin; glucagon enters the cells and signals the release of fat and does so with the help of a fat burning enzyme, namely hormone sensitive lipase (HSL).

Much like glucagon is the opposite of insulin, HSL is the opposite of LPL, the fat storing enzyme mentioned  above. HSL breaks down triglycerides, the form of fat stored in your cells into fatty acids and glycerol, allowing them to be released into the bloodstream and burned for energy or excreted. This glucagon/HSL axis is what is called the “fat burning switch”.

Fat burning and weight loss/control won’t take place unless the fat burning switch, glucagon/HSL is turned “on”. The fat burning switch is in the “off” position as long as insulin levels are high. Insulin levels are high whenever blood sugar is high, and blood sugar is typically high in response to not only highly refined carb meals, but also high carbs in general.

Keep blood sugar in a nice, moderate range (a combination of fats and proteins does this) where it won’t trigger excess insulin. By keeping blood sugar and insulin down, you allow glucagon/HSL aka the “fat burning switch”, to work its  magic.

If you want to trigger your “fat burning switch”, you have to learn to eat in a way that won’t trigger excess insulin. Fortunately, that isn’t that hard to do as the simple and tasty ideas are included in this book.

So when you do eat carbs, choosing the right types of carbs, in the right amounts and ideally at the right time, will allow you to use carbs to your advantage in weight control and optimum health. Let’s look at all three factors below.

The type is important due to insulin response, calories and level of nutrients. For example grains for the most part have a higher insulin response (risking fat storage) than most other carbs, they are calorie laden, which in itself is not the be all and end all; however they have little nutrition and actually contain opiod peptides, which makes them mildly addictive. Hence the term “carb cravings”. They also have low satiety i.e they don’t keep you feeling full for long compared to fats and proteins.

For the best types of carbs to eat, see under “carbohydrates” in the “Foods to eat” section above. Similarly for the worst carbs to eat, see under the “Foods to avoid (or keep to a minimum)” section above.

Amounts are important due to the fact that the average human can only use so much glucose (depending on energy expenditure) per day and store so much glucose (as glycogen) per day in the muscle and liver tisues. Once these two options have been exhausted, the body has no option other than to store the excess glucose as fat, often referred to as “fat spillover”.

In terms of the proportion of macronutrients in your diet, at least 23 high quality studies have confirmed that a high healthy fat diet (about 55%) with a moderate quantity of protein (about 25%) and lowish amounts of carbohydrate (about 20%), will give optimal results for health and weight control.

The daily carb amounts below are a rough guide to your overall ability to regulate your weight and attain optimal health. Obviously exact amounts depend on activity levels and metabolic differences.

You can also cycle your carb intake to coincide with your activitiy levels e.g. on a workout day, you could have 200g of carbs and on a non workout day, you could titrate down to 50g. For an explanation on why this is an effective way to eat for weightloss and/or weight control, see “Timing” below.

NB We are not talking about grams per weight of food type e.g 100g (by weight) of sweet potato contains 20g of carbs, so a medium sized sweet potato is about 350g and would contain 70g of actual carbs. See the “Carb values for common foods” table at the end of the book.

  • 20g to 50g is akin to a ketogenic diet; hard to maintain, but you will burn lots of fat.
  • 50g to 100g represents the weight loss sweet spot; you will find fat loss fairly easy.
  • 100g to 150g will give you (in most cases) effortless weight maintenance; you will maintain body composition.
  • 150g to 300g will cause insidious weight gain; you will store more fat, leading to obesity.
  • 300g and above represents an immediate danger to your health.

It is best to eat the bulk of your carbs post workout or on active days, since your insulin senstivity is at it’s highest i.e. your body will process carbs more efficiently, allowing them to be used for immediate fuel and glycogen (stored glucose), lowering the chance of fat storage.

For example on workout days, you opt for a meal with sweet potato and on non workout or inactive days, you would be better opting for fibrous vegetables in place of starchy carbs with your protein e.g. chicken or salmon with broccoli (lots of) or fish with cauliflower cheese (lots of).