One of the greatest scandals of modern times is the advice offered by the mainstream medical and healthcare professionals to those who are diagnosed with both Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) and Type 2 (T2D). With respect to diet, they are encouraged to reduce their intake of fat and to increase complex carbohydrates. The inevitable result is that there is no improvement in the condition: Invariably it gets worse.

On top of all this, the incidence continues to increase as do the costs to the NHS. The issue is not restricted to the UK: there is a similar pattern in many other countries. The extent of debilitation and suffering experienced by those affected can realistically be compared with other large scale disasters such as war or famine.

The unique aspect of diabetes is that it is comparatively easy to resolve. It has been established that the cause of T2D is excessive consumption of sugar and carbohydrates. There is compelling evidence and numerous case histories, which demonstrate conclusively that the disease can be controlled successfully by switching to a diet low in carbohydrates and high in healthy fats (LCHF). This is in direct conflict with the standard advice from the mainstream sources.

Despite repeated submissions and requests for a thorough review of the current national policies, politicians and leaders of the professionals remain in denial and persist with policies that are self-evidently not working.

In the UK, Government and officials simply pass off the responsibility to the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) which produced a report on “Carbohydrates and Health” in 2015 (1). The report itself is absolutely pathetic. It simply lumps together the results of various investigations and invariably concludes that there is “no association” between T2D and the intake of total carbohydrates. There is not the slightest indication of any attempt to understand what causes T2D and why the incidence continues to grow. There is no reference to the outstanding work of Gerald Reaven, who has worked out the theoretical framework for the “Metabolic Syndrome” (2). This provides valuable insight the relationships between a wide range of diseases/conditions including T2D, heart disease, obesity, hypertension, stroke and cancer. The common factor is hyperinsulinaemia (too much insulin), which is primarily caused by excessive consumption of sugar and carbohydrates. When there is an excessive amount of insulin in the body, this causes insulin resistance (IR), which is very often the start of a process that results in a chronic disease. The failure to address these issues means the report lacks credibility.

Personal case histories

I have lost count of the number of cases related to me by individuals with the same story, which is this:

“I was diagnosed with T2D and followed the advice by my GP/dietitian to reduce my fat intake and increase the carbohydrates. My health deteriorated so I did my own investigations using the internet (or I watched a television programme) and decided to try the LCHF approach. Within a short time I had lost weight and began to feel much better. Over a longer period, tests on my blood confirmed that I was getting my blood sugars under control.”

If this was just one or two isolated cases, they could be discounted. The fact that it has been repeated hundreds of times and is in agreement with reliable research studies means that there is at least a prima facia case that the effects are genuine. If further proof was needed, then go to Southport where GP Dr. David Unwin is successfully using this approach to treat patients with T2D and in the process, his practice is saving £40,000 in the cost of drugs prescribed (3).

It simply beggars belief that the politicians are so inept that they are incapable of challenging the so-called “experts” in order to implement a policy that would solve one of our intractable problems.


I am struck by the uncanny parallels that can be drawn with how the politicians are dealing with Brexit. I am grateful for the insight on this provided by Richard North who remarkably posts a new blog every day (4). Here are some of his comments. Richard has spelled out that the obvious option for the UK is to apply to join EFTA so that the country can remain in the Single Market indefinitely. This would be in compliance with the result of the referendum but enable the current trading arrangements to be maintained. Because the politicians have decided that the EFTA option should be ruled out the consequences for the UK economy will be disastrous. This is because once the UK is no longer in the EU (or the Single Market) it automatically becomes a “third country” in terms of trading relationships with EU countries.

Recently David Davis, the Brexit Minister, met a committee of MPs. Here is how Richard comments on his performance:

“But he also admitted that “trading delays” were “potentially as big a problem as tariffs” (although the MPs, obsessed with tariffs, failed to follow up on what this could involve). Davis hoped we might be given an extension of the “electronic, light-touch customs checks” that allow 10,000 of our trucks a day to move goods anywhere in the EU without border controls. What he still doesn’t seem have grasped is that the moment we leave the EU (and the European Economic Area) without a deal, automatically to become a “third country”, we are automatically excluded from EU electronic databases, on which international customs system rely. And in the absence of a data sharing facility, we would have to revert to paper-based systems and inspection procedures which could soon have lorries backing up from Dover to London and beyond. Davis did, in passing, mention the need for “phytosanitary” (plant health) checks, but not the rules for veterinary inspection of our exports of live animals and “animal products”, including cheese and eggs, which would now have to be diverted to an EU “Border Inspection Post”. The nearest, at Dunkirk, is so small that it would require massive expansion, and an army of new inspectors, with trucks waiting days for clearance. Davis blithely hoped that we can somehow secure “mitigation” of all the rules and customs procedures which are the very essence of the EU (although it is hard to imagine how we could negotiate “mitigation” through a deal we walk away from). But what beggars belief further is the idea that we could negotiate all this and far more in just two years.”(5)

In other words, businesses that depend on trading with countries in the EU will face massive disruption, which mean many of them will no longer be viable. The result will be massive job loss that will decades to recover. The complacency and ignorance of the politicians are mind-blowing.


These are just two examples of how government is completely failing to deliver based on whatever criteria you can suggest. If one operates a business, especially a small one then it is essential that most decisions are correct. If products and services are developed that are unsuitable for the market place, and this happens repeatedly, then the inevitable consequence is that the business fails to survive. In fact a successful business is dependent on getting a whole range of decisions more or less correct on a consistent basis. Yet governments seem to be able to continue with policies, which are not working, for a very long time. It is difficult to come up with an answer for this particular issue. I can only hope that an increasing number of the population appreciate what is happening and generate the pressure from the grass roots for an improvement in the performance of government.

I drafted this before the General Election. Obviously there is plenty of debate and discussion to explain the results. It will be interesting to see how things develop from here. For me there are a number of important implications. First, politicians should never take the electorate for granted. Secondly, politicians need to listen to people and take note of their concerns and opinions. There is a need to improve the performance of government by utilising high quality individuals with a proven track record, rather than relying aides who just parrot the party line.


It is extremely unfortunate that the conclusions of the blog have been demonstrably confirmed by the dreadful events at Grenfell Tower. All of this was predicted by the Grenfell Action Group. In a blog published in November 2016 (6) it stated that:

“It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO, and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders.”

It went to say:

Unfortunately, the Grenfell Action Group have reached the conclusion that only an incident that results in serious loss of life of KCTMO residents will allow the external scrutiny to occur that will shine a light on the practices that characterise the malign governance of this non-functioning organisation.”

The blunt truth is that much of political life is dominated by incompetence and corruption. Above all those who are in positions of responsibility continually refuse to listen to the concerns of the individuals. The system is broken. Perhaps recognition of that fact will be the first step towards getting it fixed and facing up to the reality that things have got to change.