I am most grateful to Dr Antti Heikkilä for permission to post this article here. It was first published in GreenMed Info. Background Insulin resistance is a state where cells cannot take properly sugar from blood to use it as an energy source. Cells become resistant to the action of insulin. It therefore takes more insulin to keep blood sugar in balance. People with insulin resistance syndrome will consequently have normal blood sugar levels but elevated insulin level Measuring insulin resistance There is no single test that would reliably measure insulin resistance. The diagnosis can be made through clinical symptoms and some laboratory tests. The insulin fasting value is an essential test but it is not the only one. The insulin values may temporarily vary without being insulin resistant. Another indicative laboratory test is The Triglyceride-to-HDL Cholesterol Ratio. In insulin resistance triglycerides start to rise and HDL decrease. The more important is TG/HDL-C ratio must be less than 2 in US values and in countries who use mmol/l like Europe, Australia and Canada TG/HDL-C less than 0.87. Normal official fasting values of serum insulin are 2–20mU/L, but I think that’s too high. It should be less than 5mU/L. Symptoms and diseases linked to insulin resistance We know that continuing insulin resistance leads to metabolic syndrome and thus prediabetes but it leads to many other diseases as well. According to studies 70% those...Read More
STOP PRESS! Healthy Eating: The Big Mistake is now available to pre-order on Amazon Kindle The kindle version of my book is only £0.99 until Feb 5th Kindle UK Version Kindle US Version You can also purchase a hard copy from my publishers at http://thebighealthyeatingmistake.co.uk/ I am delighted to announce that the book I have written with the help and support of Marika Sboros will be released on 8th February. It has taken the best part of three years to complete. The main focus is on the fundamentally flawed dietary guidelines that have had such a disastrous impact on the state of public health all over the world. We have now reached the point where there is absolutely no doubt that recommendations such as that in the UK, which advises the population to:“base meals on carbohydrates” are totally incorrect and directly responsible for ill-health on a scale that is unimaginable. Despite the overwhelming evidence, policies based on false premises continue to be implemented and there is very powerful resistance to any attempt to have them revised. As a consequence many people are given advice by the mainstream health professionals that causes a deterioration in their condition. Meanwhile, at the same time many are discovering for themselves that their diseases can be controlled or even reversed by following advice that is in direct conflict with the official line. Assessment of...Read More
299. Another Medical Martyr, Dr. Waney Squier (Part Four. The Implications of the Actions by the Tribunal and the Court)
A shortage of expert witnessess The fall-out from these decisions are very serious indeed. Although an expert may genuinely believe that he/she is expressing an opinion based on knowledge and experience, has been properly instructed and has been accepted as an expert by the court, a lay disciplinary tribunal can still override this. Despite the fact that the members of the tribunal themselves lack expertise, they have nevertheless concluded that a physician is providing evidence that is outside her area of competence. Not only that, they have decided that Dr. Squier should be struck off the medical register. Although this was reversed by the High Court, she was banned from acting as an expert witness for a period of three years. Clearly this experience has been extremely difficult and probably traumatic for Dr. Squier. Even more important is the message it sends out to other people who are could act as expert witnesses in other cases involving SBS. In view of the risks to a person’s reputation and career who can blame anyone for declining an invitation to be an expert witness in a case where the determination of the cause of SBS is critical. This is confirmed by the fact that two other SBS sceptics Dr Irene Scheimberg and Dr Marta Cohen have stopped giving evidence. A similar stance has been taken by two supporters of the diagnosis...Read More
Appeal to the High Court It is no surprise that Dr.Squier appealed against this decision of the General Medical Council (GMC) in the High Court. The hearing was held in October 2016 and the findings are in this report (1). From Dr. Squier’s perspective, the outcome was something of a mixed bag. The Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal (MPT), which acted on behalf of the GMC was severely criticised but some of the charges against Dr. Squier were upheld. In the introduction, the state of play on Non-accidental Head Injury (NAHI) (an alternative term for SBS) was explained. When Dr. Squier first started work in this field, the opinion of the great majority of those who practised in fields relevant to it – neurosurgeons, radiologists, ophthamologists/ophthalmic pathologists, neuropathologists and forensic pathologists – was that, even in the absence of any sign of other injury, the coincidence of a triad of conditions, subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage and encephalopathy, was at least strongly indicative NAHI. Dr. Squier initially shared the majority view but, by about 2002, came to doubt it. Majority opinion has remained essentially the same. She, as she has always acknowledged, is in the minority. During the case the evidence presented by Dr. Squier in several different cases together with the conclusions and procedures of the MPT were subject to detailed examination. The witnesses The judge noted that the MPT was...Read More
Dr. Squier “struck off” by GMC As part of the campaign initiated by D I Welsh, a complaint was made to the General Medical Council (GMC) about the role of Dr. Squier as an expert witness in court cases involving Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). The GMC conducted a hearing in which the evidence presented by Dr. Squier in these cases was subject to detailed examination. Here is a summary of the findings (1): “The tribunal has determined that you have shown a blatant disregard for the fundamental tenets of the medical profession. You have breached the requirements of Good Medical Practice not only in terms of your honesty and probity, but also in your failure to respect the skills and contributions of your colleagues and recognising the limits of your knowledge and competence in giving evidence. Your attitude towards your colleagues was shocking, openly displaying your disdain for their expertise and opinions. You repeatedly gave evidence both in your reports and in court that fell outside your own field of expertise and competence. You deliberately and dishonestly misinterpreted, misstated and misquoted research literature to support your own opinions. The tribunal considers all these breaches to be very serious. You have caused harm to the reputation of the profession and the tribunal cannot be satisfied that there would be no repetition of your misconduct.” Furthermore: “The tribunal has determined that...Read More
- 306. Opioids
- 305. A Comparison between the approaches to Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) by Dr David Unwin and Diabetes UK
- 304. Sulphonylureas increase cardiac deaths but are still recommended for use after Metformin in type two diabetics in Scotland.
- 303. Statins: Why it is crucial to have a comprehensive picture
- 302. The Conventional Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D)
- If you are being advised to take #statins, you should invest in this excellent book showing there never was a convi… https://t.co/Nz8LAtqztm
about 3 weeks ago
- UK policy on T2D is an absolute shambles.
about 3 weeks ago
- Dr Peter Wise asks genuine ethical questions about the use of chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer.
about 3 weeks ago
- @lowcarbGP achieves extraordinary positive results for fatty liver disease with a diet low carb diet.
about 3 weeks ago
- Time to abandon current disastrous policy on T2D.
about 3 weeks ago