• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Where I went wrong

carefixer

Active Member
Messages
39
Some time ago I posted extensively on the cure for type II diabetes which many readers tried and which resulted in a few people being cured. Further many people reported significant weight loss where they were also overweight. However “The Cure” which was based primarily on the work of Thomas Smith and in turn on published scientific research turned out not to be a general cure, i.e. it only worked fully for some people. While this of course is of benefit to some, many people including myself were disappointed. For this reason I have taken my investigations further to find out what went wrong.

My mistake was this: while I checked out the validity of the research behind “The Cure” as published by Smith it turns out that his model of type II diabetes is incomplete. In fact his model of type two is largely a description of the metabolic syndrome. At one point I even declared that there was no such thing as the metabolic syndrome because of this confusion. If Smith’s description of type II diabetes was correct then the metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes must be identical. I was wrong.

What is the metabolic syndrome? The metabolic syndrome is a reduction in an individual’s metabolic rate due to the poisoning of an individual’s body cells by the artificial trans-isomer fatty acids (ATFAs) produced during the partial hydrogenation of vegetable oil. These synthetic trans-fatty acids act in two basic ways to reduce metabolism:

Firstly they disrupt the electron transport chain reaction in normal body cells. The electron transport chain (ETC) is a membrane bound three-part chemical reaction which in most body cells produces a chemical called ATP (Adenosine Tri-Phosphate). ATP is known as the universal energy currency of the body and is used to produce the energy needed for most cellular processes. ATP production is ultimately powered by blood glucose, so a reduction in ATP production slows down glucose consumption.

Secondly ATFAs prevent the proper functioning of body cell pores at insulin receptors and prevent the proper functioning of insulin receptors themselves. Insulin receptors can become encapsulated in cell membranes and even end up floating around inside ATFA poisoned cells. This reduction in both insulin receptor effectiveness and numbers in turn prevents the take up of glucose by cells compounding the first problem of ATFA poisoned electron transport chain ATP production. Glucose take up by the cells (or glucose transport as it is known) is slowed down.

The result of these two effects is that the individual concerned suffers from a reduced metabolism. As the ATFA poisoning is progressive the metabolic syndrome is progressive also. Different individuals can suffer from it to a greater or lesser degree. It is also very likely that genetic factors will play a part in the degree to which the symptoms and conditions are expressed. It is worth noting that the reduction in glucose consumption and transport though cell membranes means that glucose is likely to remain in the blood for longer resulting in elevated blood glucose levels. The metabolic syndrome is in itself a form of diabetes.

When Smith cured himself of type II diabetes in the mid 1990s he might well have thought the cure was general. His reasoning is quite sound as far as it goes: Most body cells die off every couple of years or so to be replaced with new ones. If you remove the ATFAs from your diet and replace them with natural cis-isomer form oils and especially the essential fatty acids then you will grow a new body with normal electron transport chains and normal insulin receptors. And he is correct so far as it goes. The problem is that Smith does not have the complete model of diabetes. It just so happens that he is one of the group of people for which “The Cure” works. The reason why is revealed below.

Now while Smith could well have been convinced at first that his EFA treatment would be effective in all cases he must certainly know by now that it is not. This could very well explain something that has been running in the background. I was in email contact with Smith whilst I was writing on the subject a couple of years back. He was trying to help me with my own personal condition until he discovered I was posting on the forums here. When this was revealed he ceased contact with me at once and did not reply to my further emails. My suspicion now is that he knew I was heading for a fall. The problem from his point of view I suspect is that people would post their results and his treatment would be shown up for what it is: a very limited success. The reason I did not realise this was of course because I had the greatest difficulty in persuading people to post any data at all!

“The Cure” then is not a general cure for type II diabetes. It is however a cure for the metabolic syndrome which most people with diabetes II exhibit in some degree. The metabolic syndrome is the cause of modern obesity which is caused not by overeating and under exercising but by under metabolising. In extreme cases people can support a huge bodyweight on a sub-starvation diet. This is fully curable and we owe something of a debt to Smith for this.

What then is diabetes? In fact it is relatively recent research that gives the answer. Type II diabetes is damage to the plasma glucose sensing mechanism in pancreatic beta cells, like the metabolic syndrome it is caused by the ATFAs produced during the partial hydrogenation of vegetable oil. The mechanism is as follows:

Pancreatic beta cells employ a modified electron transport chain. The phosphorylation of adenosine is not allowed to go to completion it is stopped after the second stage so the modified electron transport chain produces not ATP but ADP. This ADP is used to fuel the production of both insulin and a glucagon inhibitor that is excreted by the beta cells used to switch off glucagon in the surrounding pancreatic alpha cells.

It is thought that the membrane underlying the electron transport chain has a hole in it (in the semiconductor sense of the lack of an electron). You can imagine, if you like, electrons running down a membrane and disappearing down a hole so they cannot take part in the third phosphorylation stage. When an ATFA of the “right” size and shape is integrated into the membrane during a repair operation it is able to poison the membrane by bonding with the hole. The hole is now gone and instead of producing the desired ADP the modified electron transport chain produces ATP like the standard electron transport chain. In this way the beta cell sees lower and lower plasma glucose levels as poisoning of its modified electron transport chains by ATFAs progresses.

A full resolution of the way diabetes works requires the solution to something known as “The central problem of diabetes”. I solved the central problem of diabetes last year and hope to publish in the near future.

So how does all this new information tie in with “The Cure”? The answer is this: unlike most body cells, pancreatic beta cells are not periodically replaced. If diabetes is to be cured then the cells repair mechanism must be able to remove the offending ATFA from the poisoned membrane and replace it with a natural cis-isomer form fatty acid. This however is more difficult than replacing a natural fatty acid because the bonding between the ATFA and the hole means the ATFA/membrane combination is in a lower energy state, i.e. the ATFA is more tightly bound.

So why does “The Cure” work in some cases? The answer is simply this: some people are of a genetic type which produces a repair mechanism capable of removing the ATFA from the poisoned membrane. In fact the only reason these people have diabetes at all is because they are on a diet almost completely devoid of the right cis-isomer oils. A corollary of this is exhibited in the historical epidemiology of diabetes. In the early days all victims of diabetes were of a certain genetic type. Later on as the epidemic developed people not of this genetic type developed diabetes. It is for this group (or a subset of this group) for whom “The Cure” works. My current belief is that there are two genes involved so a possible four subsets exist for which diabetes is curable.

We do of course have evidence for this genetic relationship from our trial of The Cure. Both Aly and Karen, the first two people to report being cured of advanced diabetes also reported there was no hypothyroidism amongst their antecedents. Here is the smoking gun: the same modified and ADP producing electron transport chain is used in both brown fat metabolism and thyroxin production in the thyroid. Here we have direct evidence that poisoned beta cells’ modified electron transport chain mechanism is being repaired.

For most people at this time diabetes proper is not curable however the rate at which it progresses can be slowed by taking “The Cure”. Progression will not stop entirely because beta cells tend to die off naturally which will of course kill some of the better functioning beta cells and make the sufferers condition worse. Other benefits of taking “The Cure” include normalising metabolism thereby losing weight and increasing physical strength, also improving peripheral neuropathy, cardio-vascular function and reducing the possibilities of developing other trans-fat diseases such as hypothyroidism and Alzheimer’s disease which most people with diabetes are at high risk of developing for obvious reasons.

Other matters: When I started posting on the EFA treatment for diabetes I was in a very poor state of health indeed with crescendo angina and suffering 5,000 ectopic heartbeats a day. My metabolism was down to around 500 calories a day and so my mental functioning was not too good. I did make a few mistakes as I was being misled but the main thrust of what I was saying was correct and remains correct.

Diabetes is a ******** and most literally so because it is specifically aimed at people of a certain genetic type. The main motive appears to be financial but it could be even more cynical than that. The people behind diabetes do not want you to know the truth about the crimes they are engaged in and I suspect that it is for this reason my login has been removed and the password recovery mechanism has been set up so that I can no longer post under my old login or re-use it. It seems that the one person instrumental in curing a few people of diabetes is to be denied access to the forums. The forums are not public anymore. It does not surprise me; I was expecting this to happen. Accordingly I suspect this posting will be removed from the forums. I am only writing it to fulfil my obligations to people on this site. It will be posted elsewhere of course as will other new and interesting material on the biggest crime against humanity of all time.

JM
 
I have read this fairly quickly and in that manner, this doesn't make sense to me. It reads like paranoia and the victim syndrome. I'd need to study it carefully first and I never was completely happy with electron transfer chains :?
We all know that early glucose intollerance can be reversed, but I'm not sure about the mechanism quoted. I do wonder if the so-called "cured" diabetics, were challenged with a high carb meal, would they handle it?
I know of a number of diabetics who keep the condition totally sub-clinical, by careful diet and exercise, but are not cured.
In a good month, I can be one of them, but the minute the diet gets less strict, up goes the BG.
 
One thing I should mention is that the absence of hypothyroidism in your parents of grandparents does not mean you can necessarily be cured of type 2. This is because they may have had or been developing hypothyroidism but it may have been undiagnosed.
 
hanadr said:
I have read this fairly quickly and in that manner, this doesn't make sense to me. It reads like paranoia and the victim syndrome. .

The paranoia as you call it is there for an obvious reason.....
 
sugarless sue said:
Hello John,welcome back!!Long time no see on the forum.

Hi Sue. Yes it has been a long time. I have been engaged in some very interesting work on diabetes and the issues with "The Cure" have been resolved as you can see from the above posting. It has taken much effort to work out where I went wrong although it is quite obvious now.

Can I have my OLD login back so I can ditch the paranoia?

John
 
sugarless sue said:
Hello John,welcome back!!Long time no see on the forum.

Sue,

Note I have been involved in the extreme stress testing of my cured metabolic syndrome. I used to weigh 20 stone and eat 500 calories a day. After the EFA treatment my weight dropped to 13 stone while I quadruppled what I ate over the course of a year. Over the last eighteen months I have been doing silly things like eating three steak dinners with a couple of gallons of ale over a weekend and I still have failed to reach 14 stone! The waist size collapse was brilliant. I never ever would have believed that 32 inch waist jeans would be slack on me!

J
 
sugarless sue said:
If it is still active John ,try and use it.I can't reactivate it,only Admin can.

It doesn't work. I just tried it. My last and current passwords should be the same (if you have a view?) When I try the I forgot my password option, that doesn't work either. From memory I think it fails to recognise my username (carefix).

J
 
Hi John.

As Sue says, if your user name is still active you need to contact Admin about this. However, this one is working fine so why not stick with it ?

Ken.
 
cugila said:
Hi John.

As Sue says, if your user name is still active you need to contact Admin about this. However, this one is working fine so why not stick with it ?

Ken.

Ken,

I've had to use my wife's email address to get on and I'd rather use my own! I'll address the issue at a later date.


John
 
I'd need to study it carefully first and I never was completely happy with electron transfer chains :?

My description is from recent memory and I've forgotten most of what I new about ETCs over thirty years. I am trying a top down approach to solving diabetes so I don't need to get bogged down in the mass of detail needed for a comprehensive understanding of the ETC. My description is approximate. It needs to be refined for publication but I don't need in depth right now so I have'nt bothered. At the moment for me the electron transport chain is being used as an abstraction. Really it is a chemical reaction so the plural " chains" can cause puzzlement. I'm kind of re-defining the ETC to be the substrate on which it is based to ease modelling. The poisoning of the substrate is the cause of type 2 diabetes proper.

I do wonder if the so-called "cured" diabetics, were challenged with a high carb meal, would they handle it?

Ask them if they are still around.

J
 
One thing which always puzzled me about diabetes was how it could be that even after not eating for five days and after taking 150% of maximum medication over the same period my blood sugar would persist at 19mmol/l. At the same time I know that in type 2 people have background insulin levels which are much higher than normal. It was not conceivable that my blood sugar was elevated because of something I ate many days previously as in any event I must have had some residual metabolism. Eventually I realised that I was producing this blood glucose myself. The term “insulin resistance” is misleading. There is no such thing (unless you use the term to describe the reduced impact of insulin on ATFA damaged insulin receptors – but this is part of the metabolic syndrome). The term is applicable only in a phenomenological sense. The fact is I was producing too much glucagon. The main problem in type 2 diabetes is nothing to do with reduced insulin production. It is the other half of the control loop which is the cause of high blood sugar. More glucagon is being admitted to your body causing the liver to convert glycogen into glucose. I call this phenomenon “glucagon admittance”. It is the double inverse if you like of “insulin resistance” and a rather telling term.

J
 
carefix
I got my degree, involving electron transfer chains in 1970. I never truly understood them in depth, so although I could avoid them in exam questions( principally on photosynthesis), I could regurgitate stuff I'd memorised and the context. So thus it's nearer 40 years than 30 since I neede to know about them and as I've admitted, I knew "about" them, but didn't truly understand them.
 
Back
Top