What You’re Up Against

If you're a type 2 diabetic, the standard medical treatment of insulin supplementation is based on your continuing to eat a diet "rich in whole grains," sugar, junk, and so on. In essence, you're supplementing with a powerful hormone that does all sorts of damage to tissues long term, so you can eat cake, pie, bread, candy, sodas, etc.

You're taking a drug in order to eat inferior, less nutritious (or anti-nutritious) food. It's that factual; that simple.

Now, I certainly imagine a need for insulin supplementation for some few people, but I doubt most. Dr. Bernstein's free forum, for instance, is chalk full of former type 2 diabetics who became more knowledgeable than the doctors treating them, cut out the junk, went high fat, and cured their diabetes. Natural dietary fat is the key and secret.

The root cause of America's obesity and diabetes epidemic is ignorant fear of fat.

Now, today, a couple of readers send me a link to a BBC article.

Alzheimer's 'is brain diabetes'

When I saw the title, I assumed it might be something to substantiate what we paleo types continually drone on about: eat a nutritious diet, one that does not include non-nutritious, relatively empty calories like grains and sugars that push out the high nutrition of meat / fish, natural fats, veggies, fruits, and nuts. This will keep your insulin low, and consequently, you won't develop insulin resistance.

But instead:

Treating Alzheimer's with the hormone insulin, or with drugs to boost its effect, may help patients, they claim.

The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports insulin could protect against damage to brain cells key to memory.

UK experts said the find could be the basis of new drug treatments.

The article also says father on (twice, in fact) that those with type 2 are at higher risk for developing Alzheimer's. So, let's do 2+2. Both type 2, and now it appears, Alzheimer's, perhaps, are caused by insulin resistance, which means: your blood glucose is too high too much of the time (from eating too many carbs — grains / sugars — too often), your body pumps out the insulin to bring it down; and over a period of time, you become resistant to it. It doesn't have the same effect on you.

You're already familiar with this phenomenon. Try going drink for drink with an alcoholic. You'll be passed out before he's even slurring speech. Bum a smoke from a friend. If you inhale and finish it, you'll be green faced, sweating, heart racing, and likely hugging the porcelain soon enough. Many examples abound.

So, returning to the article, it ought to be clear enough, by now, that what you're up against is an out-of-control, state-protected industry (the FDA is a massive economic barrier to competition-scheme; it has little to do with protecting you) that conducts research with its only goal being new drug treatments.

Your doctors? Nowadays, most are no better than drug pushers. Drug pushers, however, retain some virtue in that they aren't parading around as "health experts."

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. John on February 4, 2009 at 11:22

    I'm a grad student in my last year of a phd in pharmaceutical sciences and its this attitude of treating the symptom and not the problem that has driven me out of research.
    You need to feed the beast and not solve the problem so you get funded next cycle so you put out these articles about potentially health related issues then you make vague suggestions that with "better living through chemistry" we can perhaps develop new treatments. Guess what the next RO1 is going to be focused on.
    Instead maybe we should spend that RO1 money on trying to convince people to live a better lifestyle and make the treatments obsolete before we spend the next 5-10 finding them.

  2. Richard Nikoley on February 4, 2009 at 12:21

    This is a comment from Keith Thomas at (he couldn't get it to post)


    Spot on! Your observation applies to many scientific advances in the field of human physiology. I don't know if scientists are carrying out their research primarily to develop drugs. And if they are whether they are motivated by a desire to help the ill or a desire for career advancement or to get rich. Perhaps tenure track pushes them to hang every possible positive on their work when they go public. Maybe it's the press who, likewise, beat up their report to get their story with their by-line the greatest prominence. However, the same approach is used in most reports of new discoveries or new research results in physiology etc. They become "medical breakthroughs" and reinforce the nutty idea that for every problem there is a pill – and probably a pill-for-life.

    In this case, however, the simple headline "Alzheimers is brain diabetes" certainly helps to focus the mind and even if it turns out to be a metaphor rather than straight science, I expect it will be around for many years – and it'll be helpful.

    And, can I add, Richard, that your brief summary of the way diabetes develops is the clearest one sentence explanation I have ever read. Thanks.

  3. gcb on April 7, 2009 at 10:37

    I seem to recall something about this (possibly in Gary Taubes' book GCBC) – that the same hormone that is responsible for destroying excess insulin in the body is also responsible for cleaning up the plaques in the brain that are implicated in Alzheimers'. As such, if the hormone is spending all its time trying to chew up insulin, it doesn't have time to do its other work, and Alzheimers is the unfortunate result.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k