So I recently found this "Diabetes Resource Guide, the Power to Heal Diabetes in Indian Country." Not only is it full of misinformation and lacking science, it is encouraging people to adopt a high soy-based, high grain based VEGAN diet to "heal" their diabetes.
As a T1D of four years who manages her blood sugar with a low-carb, higher fat and heavy on the greens diet, my main concern with this "resource guide" is the human rights issue. Aren't more people certain to get WORSE diabetes and/or develop diabetes when encouraged to eat macaroni soup, ramen soup, and bread pudding with SIX CUPS of whole wheat bread?!?! This is misinformation beyond belief, not backed by science and not relevant to diabetes care.
Also, as a Native woman, this pulls at my heart to think that this misinformation is actually just PETA propaganda. What a nightmare. The main "MD" behind this guide is really an animal rights activist who is putting animals before human health. He is not only at the head of the Physicians for Responsible Medicine, (a PETA front) but also the main reporting physician for PETA.
My goal is to create a comprehensive resource guide about diabetes that is culturally and scientifically sound, not just vegan propaganda. Thanks for listening and any advice appreciated.
I eat a moderately high carb diet (150 g per day)but this is over the top. "Unlimited fruit" and potatoes - also known as rocket fuel - as a power food to reverse diabetes. The whole concept of reversing rather than controlling or managing diabetes is suspect as it is.
Maybe some scientist should bio-engineer a huge Venus Flytrap to eat PETA members when they move from advocacy to deception.
Maurie, thank you for that hilarious reply!! That is a great idea.
Seeing as these PETA people disguised as PCRM professionals are actually contributing to nutrition classes at the Tribal College I attend, this should happen soon.
I will be looking out for that giant Venus Flytrap.
And not a carb count in sight! That plan is absolutely criminal. While it might be considered healthy for a nondiabetic, I cannot imagine any medical professional having the gall to recommend it for people with D, let alone say it could reverse it.
My heart goes out to you. Sadly this has been a systematic pattern for years, an organized campaign to get people to adopt a diet that is "animal friendly" but sadly destroys your health. This is but a single step in this plan. We talked about Gabriel Cousens "vegan raw food" cure for T1 starting back in 2008 and since. That movie and program was also funded by PCRM. PCRM has been successful in getting the Academy of Nutrition and Dietitics (AND) to accept a vegan/vegetarian diet as good for diabetes (despite lack of evidence) and yet the AND refuses to recognize low carb or ancestral diets despite strong evidence that they work. And the latest has been efforts to get dietary recommendations for all americans changed to include "sustainability" which is code word for plant based diets, again despite evidence that they are either healthy or sustainable.
I think all we can do is fight the war on all fronts. I regularly question and confront propganda that I see in the on-line community. For instance a recent post about a study by PCRM founder Neal Barnard resulted in my own scathing review of their "research."
I believe all of us deserve access to good information so that we can make appropriate choices. Lying and deception about such an important topic is tantamount to a crime and harms thousands of people and those responsible should be accountable.
Creating a comprehensive resource guide that counters the propaganda that is spewed by PCRM and PETA would be similar to preaching to the choir. Those who subscribe to PCRM and PETA claims normally embrace it like a religion and are both deaf and blind to any factual information that may challenge those beliefs. It is similar to the resistance one already sees regarding the diet-heart hypothesis and the entire cholesterol-saturated fat debate. Objectivity is rarely an integral factor in the equation. This is borne out by the vast majority of dietitians who still continue to recommend HCLF diets for diabetes. Dr. Bernstein mentioned in one of his monthly telecasts that his greatest concern is that there will be no one who will aggressively pick up the low-carb mantle after he is gone (Doc B will be 81 in June). That may have been a key factor in his "Diabetes University" production and his increased, active participation in various online interviews such as the upcoming Diabetes Summit 2015. The Summit is free and begins on Monday, March 23rd. However, registration is required to gain free access. I would recommend that interested members use a "throwaway" email address to skirt around the sales messages that inevitably accompany all free sessions hosted by InfusionSoft.
I think it is important to distinguish between professionals who can be resistant to new information and counter-theories and propagandists who ignore them because their primary goal is to advance an unrelated agenda. I am sure that almost all CDEs who support HCLF diets really try to put their clients first.
Maurie - I try to be kind when sussing out any source’s motivation. I agree with you that there are many medical professionals with their heart in the right place but blindly following their education and group-think mindsets. What I have little patience with is the continuing resistance to the low carb high fat way of eating. This way of eating has been around for decades and continues to attract new adherents in both the patient and medical professional groups.
Any critical thinking person should, from time to time, examine the basis for their beliefs. I think many medical professionals, including dietitians, stubbornly cling to old beliefs in the face conflicting real world experience. The world changes and science constantly updates the state of the art. This type of behavior in a medical professional loses my respect. It’s especially egregious in clinicians that see the actual blood control of people that use LCHF but then reflexively fall back on the “safe doctrine” that misleads and actually harms their patients.
