A cure for diabetes from 1806?

Roger Zoul wrote:
wrote:
::
:: But the point of this entire thread is not to debate curability but
:: to simply show that the medical profession has let down millions of
:: those they claim to be able to treat. For 200 years they've been
:: made aware of a treatment modality that has been shown on numerous
:: occasions and in many cases to be an effective treatment. Yet, they
:: chose to ignore it.

tunderbar:

It hasn't been 0ver 200 years....

Read your own reference.

1855 published in Medico-Chirurgical Transactions of Royal Medical/
Chirurgical Society

1844 Recognized the disease and obtained treatment recommendations

1858 Published the first edition as a book for wider circulation

1860 Wrote preface for the second edition of the book for wider circulation.

1861 Printer's date for publication of the second edition.

---------------------------------------------------------

You do real sloppy work as a phony researcher.

You make false claims as a result.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you also missed the near coincidence of the dates of this "low
carb" diet for diabetes and the original Banting publication of the "low
carb" diet for obesity in 1863...


Banting (1863)wrote a small booklet entitled "Letter on Corpulence
Addressed to the Public which advocated avoiding starch and sugar. He
had lost 45 pounds on a diet of lean meat, dry toast, soft boiled eggs
and a few drinks a day, but ended up his only customer. Virtually all of
this first edition was given away.

During the 1844 to 1863 period, there ware multiple instances of
advocacy of Meat but No Starch styles of eating for some aspects of health.

.................................................. ...............






I agree with this. Most of the rest of what you said is your own nonsense,
TC.
You seem to simpy hate people tho have "advanced degrees", too. That's sad
because that's not the reason with why the medical community has done such a
poor job.

Why? Because they have an advanced degree
:: rational argument out of a textbook that gives them the arrogance to
:: ignore real-world evidence.
::

Again, this has little to do with it. They may be arrogance and ignoring
real-world evidence, but it has nothing to do with "advance degree rational
argument out of a textbook". You spewing nonsense.


:: Tell me about how you are right because you base your opinions on
:: "evidence-based" medicine again and how I base my opinions of hearsay
:: and quackery. I need another good laugh.
::
:: Evidence-based medicine my ass. People like you should be shot in the
:: streets and made examples of.

Nonsense.

How's that for a dangling participle.
:: Did they teach you what that is at Carnegie Mellon Mass-Brainwashing
:: University?
::

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously brainwashed. Yep.

wrote:
:: On Jan 29, 12:56 pm, wrote:
:::: there is at present no known way to cause beta cell expansion in a
::: frank
:::: diabetic. It is the goal of much research only at this point.
:::
:::: Even stopping 100 percent all carb intake would not cause beta cell
:::: increase. We need go no farther with this level of opinion.
:::: Carbs do not cause diabetes and consuming few or no carbs does not
:::: "cure" it period.Proof? Put up or shut up. You keep yapping but
:::: all I hear is noise.
:::
::: 'Regulation of Pancreatic Beta-Cell Mass'
:::
::: Physiol Rev. 2005 Oct;85(4):1255-70.
:::
::: From the abstract:
:::
::: " Beta-cell mass regulation represents a critical issue for
::: understanding diabetes, a disease characterized by a
::: near-absolute (type 1) or relative (type 2) deficiency in the
::: number of pancreatic^ beta cells. The number of islet beta cells
::: present at birth is mainly generated by the proliferation and
::: differentiation of pancreatic progenitor cells, a process called
::: neogenesis. Shortly after birth, beta-cell neogenesis stops and
::: a small proportion of cycling beta cells can still expand the
::: cell number to compensate for increased insulin demands, albeit
::: at a slow rate. The low capacity for self-replication in the
::: adult is too limited to result in a significant regeneration
::: following extensive tissue injury. Likewise, chronically
::: increased metabolic^ demands can lead to beta-cell
::: failure
::: to compensate."
:::
::: With a diabetic having at diagnosis an estimated 50 percent of beta
::: cell death that continues, the above shows that even if the death
::: could be stopped instantly beta cell mass increase to normal
::: amounts do not happen. The bulk of the article is exploring the
::: ways beta cells might be caused to increase using externally
::: applied hormones etc. that are known to have cell proliferation
::: effects.
::
:: So the medically confirmed diabetic T2 has permanent damage to b
:: cells. He will never have 100% normal function.

You made no such distinction at the beginning of this thread. You're simply
"morphing" your argument now. So obviously this T2 will never be cured of
diabetes. Thank you.

:: But he will have
:: significanty improved symptoms with proper diet.

Good that you finally agree.

:: And anyone not
:: having sufferred such damage

As in a non-diabetic.

:: and is on his way to a diabetes or a
:: pre- diabetes or a metabolic syndrome diagnosis can be helped
:: significantly and may even be cured.

He's not cured if he hasn't suffered any dysfunction. I doubt many of us
who use LC have a problem with using it in the fight to avoid becoming
diabetic. Of course, I 've heard claims of people who still became diabetic
even after switching to LC.

::
:: You are still only playing semantics. I say regardless of the damage,
:: low carb will improve the condition significantly and will stop
:: further damage.

We don't need you to tell us this because many of us live this everyday.

:: And those with little or no permanently damage can
:: reverse other tissue damage due to elevated blood glucose and
:: insulin.

This is your mindnumbing rant here, as you're not a scientist or a doctor of
any kind, though you claim to have spent thousands of hours in the library
reading textbooks.

Those with little or no permanent damage don't have much ot fix, right?

::
:: There is more damage than just the b cells. Elevated bgs and insulin
:: damages the blood vessels thruout the body and various organs and
:: cells as well. Much of that damage can be reversed or stopped in its
:: tracks by proper diet and the time needed for the body to heal.

The word according to Dr. TC to whom we should all listen....

"So the medically confirmed diabetic T2 has permanent damage to b cells.
He will never have 100% normal function. But he will have significanty
improved symptoms with proper diet. And anyone not having sufferred such
damage and is on his way to a diabetes or a pre- diabetes or a metabolic
syndrome diagnosis can be helped significantly and may even be cured.

You are still only playing semantics. I say regardless of the damage,
low carb will improve the condition significantly and will stop further
damage. And those with little or no permanently damage can reverse other
tissue damage due to elevated blood glucose and insulin."

Obfuscation, minimizing, and tap dancing, tactics now familiar and
expected. You requested proof and it was supplied to show your claim
that control will result in beta cells "healing themselves" and increase
of beta cell mass was not valid. Much of above I had already said in
other words, happy you can now reflect same more accurately.

Carb intake is not the cause of diabetes and few or no carb intake will
not cure it or improve beta cell mass period. Balancing available
insulin with glucose intake can aid in control along with whatever other
treatments that aid in doing so. That is the dr. bernstein approach, an
evidence based scientific approach and he never claims "cure" but as
best controlled as possible because he too knows what you were claiming
can not be supported by the evidence.

DesertHare wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
:
:
: On Jan 28, 2:24 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
: wrote::: " There is no cure for diabetes, now or in
the past. Even when


You guys will never agree on if the glass is half-full or half-empty. Some
people will say it's a cure and some will say it's just under control.
It's not worth going to battle over.



Amend that to state that some people do not understand what "cure"
means, and I agree.

This is a sad discussion.
What's lost in all technical blabbery is the
insight that the original post had a very good
point about a LC solution for diabetes patients.
Please don't use the group for such exchange.

On Feb 22, 10:03 pm, "H.L" wrote:
This is a sad discussion.
What's lost in all technical blabbery is the
insight that the original post had a very good
point about a LC solution for diabetes patients.
Please don't use the group for such exchange.

Well, thank you very much. I thought it was a darned good point too.

Don't worry about those guys. I find it entertaining to see what
ridiculous points they bring up to distract from the real points being
made. I expect these food industry trolls to trash anything I say and
all it does is confirm and strengthen my arguments. You know that
anything that brings these rats out from under their rocks has to be
close to the truth. They don't like simple clear points of facts that
show up the current mainstream paradigms to be the fraud that it is.

I know that people like you read what I write and see some little
nuggets of wisdom in it. And the more the trolls trash it, the longer
my posts sit where others can see and read them. And the sillier their
arguments, and they are all silly to some degree, the more my points
make sense. Their counter-points make my points seem like pure genius
by comparison.

TC

H.L wrote:
:: This is a sad discussion.
:: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the
:: insight that the original post had a very good
:: point about a LC solution for diabetes patients.
:: Please don't use the group for such exchange.

What you don't seem to get is that some of us have been using LC for control
of diabetes for a long time - hence we know the issues involved.

We can use the group for whatever in the hell we want, and that mostly
accurate information. Telling someone who has diabetes that they are cured
is scary, scary business.

wrote:
:: On Feb 22, 10:03 pm, "H.L" wrote:
::: This is a sad discussion.
::: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the
::: insight that the original post had a very good
::: point about a LC solution for diabetes patients.
::: Please don't use the group for such exchange.
::
:: Well, thank you very much. I thought it was a darned good point too.
::
:: Don't worry about those guys. I find it entertaining to see what
:: ridiculous points they bring up to distract from the real points
:: being made. I expect these food industry trolls to trash anything I
:: say and all it does is confirm and strengthen my arguments. You know
:: that anything that brings these rats out from under their rocks has
:: to be close to the truth. They don't like simple clear points of
:: facts that show up the current mainstream paradigms to be the fraud
:: that it is.
::
:: I know that people like you read what I write and see some little
:: nuggets of wisdom in it. And the more the trolls trash it, the longer
:: my posts sit where others can see and read them. And the sillier
:: their arguments, and they are all silly to some degree, the more my
:: points make sense. Their counter-points make my points seem like
:: pure genius by comparison.
::
:: TC

Are you drunk or what?

Roger Zoul wrote:
wrote:
:: On Feb 22, 10:03 pm, "H.L" wrote:
::: This is a sad discussion.
::: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the
::: insight that the original post had a very good
::: point about a LC solution for diabetes patients.
::: Please don't use the group for such exchange.
::
:: Well, thank you very much. I thought it was a darned good point too.
::
:: Don't worry about those guys. I find it entertaining to see what
:: ridiculous points they bring up to distract from the real points
:: being made. I expect these food industry trolls to trash anything I
:: say and all it does is confirm and strengthen my arguments. You know
:: that anything that brings these rats out from under their rocks has
:: to be close to the truth. They don't like simple clear points of
:: facts that show up the current mainstream paradigms to be the fraud
:: that it is.
::
:: I know that people like you read what I write and see some little
:: nuggets of wisdom in it.

Minuscule is a better word than little here. Infinitesmal may be
overdoing it.

:: And the more the trolls trash it, the longer
:: my posts sit where others can see and read them. And the sillier
:: their arguments, and they are all silly to some degree, the more my
:: points make sense. Their counter-points make my points seem like
:: pure genius by comparison.
::
:: TC

Are you drunk or what?




Well, I think it is "or what".

And has been for a long time.

Roger Zoul wrote:
H.L wrote:
:: This is a sad discussion.
:: What's lost in all technical blabbery is the
:: insight that the original post had a very good
:: point about a LC solution for diabetes patients.
:: Please don't use the group for such exchange.

What you don't seem to get is that some of us have been using LC for control
of diabetes for a long time - hence we know the issues involved.

We can use the group for whatever in the hell we want, and that mostly
accurate information. Telling someone who has diabetes that they are cured
is scary, scary business.



Well said.