7 steps to curing diabetes

[ukbill]

I found this and thought it might be interesting.

I have copied an extract from the article because is says and proves everything I have been saying about sugar!

OK I'm gloating! please let me have this one small gloat!

"So what’s worse, having a cocaine addiction or a sugar addiction?
Of course it is sugar, as it’s responsible for many more deaths worldwide.
Sugar is a legal drug. Cocaine is illegal. One must remember that T2 Diabetes
is a lifestyle disease centered around sugar and as it is legal and as addictive
as cocaine, its use is far more widespread. Both cocaine and sugar are bad for
the body as they both induce illness and disease and ruin the fabric of society.
Our lifestyle and food choices can cause us to have, or save us from,
diabetes – the choice is yours"

The whole text can be found here

www.themaasclinic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Curing-Diabetes-in-7-steps-cribbed.pdf

Gloat gloat gloat!

OK that's a bit too much gloating I know.

So where is the sense in feeding an HFI child sweet foods? Because they are "Cultural"

If you live in a drug infested household is it right then to feed your children Cocaine?

So why remove an HFI child's natural safety net of avoiding sweet flavoured foods by feeding them Glucose (which is contaminated with Fructose) or Dextrose, which may be contaminated??

Just so they can fit in with the rest of their "druggie" mates getting high on sugar?

That is a kind of sense that makes no sense to me.

[lucky]

I don't know if others feel this way, but....

I am a mother. A mother in charge -and- challenged with the health of my children. Our family's relationship with fructose is complicated, and as such, I welcome the sharing of all information, both personal and medical. However... I'll be damned to feel shamed into another's view. There is a difference between sharing/supporting one another and the undertones of all-or-nothing messages alongside posted links.

My son is not HFI, so I try to limit my responses to have more of a supportive type relationship with others who's undiagnosed children are undergoing the extensive testing my son has had to endure. The chaos, the stress... the unknown. Terrible, terrible thing.

No HFI parent or other 'pushes' sugar or it's alternatives.
No specialist knowingly does either.
If a child is safe on an approved and monitored diet -a child is safe.
If a child is healthy, happy and thriving (socially, medically), that IS success.

If a child has a natural disdain for anything sweet, that's beyond wonderful. That innate protection is the greatest gift. I don't think anyone would push 'safe' sweets on them. There's no reason. When a child is happy with an equally good alternative, a child is happy. That's the point.

BUT... for those that don't have an instinctual aversion, or those that have a different variation of fructose issues, there are HFI approved sweeteners. If a child is healthy (long term) with a balanced diet and body, I see no harm in an occasional treat... if it is wanted. Only if it is wanted. And as long as there is still medical monitoring. That way, should there be any change in health, diet can be further modified.

Society does not dictate what I do for my child.
Nor does one person.

But if my child is one of the unfortunate souls to often fight the allure of sweet smells --he is asked to have more willpower than most far, far beyond his age. So, the greatest gift I can give him (after his health being stabilized long term) is to teach him limits. And to teach him how to stay on a healthy diet that not only suits his dietary needs, but also occasional wants, too. Those are the life skills that will empower him through out life. Through trial and sometimes error, he will learn -under my safe supervision- as he finds his own way in life and diet. And if he is able to find a safe alternative (in rare circumstances) to satisfy a craving, so be it. If I prepare my child for other things in life, diet restrictions and understanding it's limitations is just another on the list.

Nothing in life is rigid. People cheat. But if my child does, it will be on a safe alternative. And, if we find issues arise, it will be assessed, cut back, or eliminated.


Information sharing is the strength of this board.
Rigidity is it's weakness.
Don't TELL -- share.

No one wants to be lectured. Educated, yes.
And then, like in all other aspects of parenting, each can decide with their doctors what -if any- approved artificial sweeteners they are personally comfortable with, and at what point in health development.

[Tammy]

Here's to Lucky! I couldn't have said it better myself.........

I soooooooo agree with all you said. Of course I do believe everyone on here already knows where I stand.

[charlie]

Oh Lordy, lordy, lordy Bill......................... What are we to do with you.


NO YOU CANNOT HAVE A GLOAT ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT.

It is a typical case of finding an article that suits your argument. Personally, although it is an interesting article and could help some (I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet though), it is also a very DANGEROUS ARTICLE. Anything that claims to CURE something like diabetes in whatever form is in my personal opinion dangerous.

I have googled the gentleman in question out of interest and see he is a fellow osteopath with a good training and has a multitude of other qualifications and course acknowledgements to his credit so obviously very intelligent. However he is not a medically trained doctor although he says he has taken advice from some but he would know that to make such a claim is extremely dangerous. Certainly he can claim to help improve diabetes type II, it is a well known fact that alot of cases are dietary abuse in origin, but that word cure and to put cannabis down as a lesser risk is scandalous, they aren't even in the same world.

Type II diabetes is on the increase, yes, but not just due to sugar, its due to the whole mismanagement of lifestyle, poor diet full stop, too many refined carbohydrates full stop and too little exercise. All this, if addressed can help improve cases but they will always have that underlying risk of it returning.

Lucky has voiced the concerns well about parents being dictated too and fortunately got there before Tammy........ who may not have been quite so polite................ So very well said Lucky. One can advise and educate parents but it has to be at their own discretion and common sense. A little sugar in a safe form, used sensibly can make a massive difference to a childs mental wellbeing, I should know, Megs is a classic example of this and I use my common sense to educate her and keep it safe, but the dog and the chocolate story a few years ago goes to prove the problems if you completely deny.

so as Lucky has said "Educate don't Dictate"

And wipe that gloat off your face!!!!!!!

[Tammy]

Oh but Charlie, this article HAS to be entirely true. You can read it on the internet. Don't you know everything you read on the internet is true? hehehe.

[nicoleh]

Charlie, I just wanted to comment about your 'not a medical doctor' comment. honestly, much of what I have seen medical doctors write about obesity and diabetes is utter garbage. I would much rather take the advice of a very experienced and well trained nutritionist, when it came to these diseases, than that of most doctors (not all). why is it that people seem to think that if one is a medically trained doctor, that one can write whatever and have the last word and be the one that is correct - but if you're not, then by definition you don't have the authority to make claims about disease? i.e. - since when did modern western medicine become the default owner of medical truth? It's not like a nutritionist is stepping out of his area of expertise when talking about diabetes. yes, if he was advising on surgery that would be better coming from a surgeon, but a properly trained nutritionist probably has a better handle on diabetes management. So I'm not sure that it's fair to imply that his word is automatically less credible than that of a doctor.


I do think that sugar is responsible for a massive massive chunk of the ill-health and even death in this world today, BUT I have read a few pages of the article and I don't love it. He lost me at "Laurens Maas has discovered that many people are unknowingly infected with a high
level of internal ‘fermentation’ due to yeast and other fungal activity" but then I am a stickler for decent grammar in a publication. Dear Mr Maas: you can't be infected with fermentation!!!

[nicoleh]

yeah, I"ve just read some more. his comments on fungi are based on some science somewhere, but given that I've just finished a major assignment on mycotoxins, I'm happy to say that I'm pretty confident that he has leapt to some outright crazy conclusions. even his description of what mycotoxins are/do is wrong. for a start, he claims that fungi use mycotoxins to eat their hosts. um, what?

sorry bill, he might be right that sugar is bad for you, but it's otherwise not a great article.