Oh dear: “Inoculate vaccination commission from fake science”.

This is my minimalist approach, as I only want to illustrate a single, particular detail here – so bare with me!

We have the new US President proposing to appoint a Kennedy to chair a Commission into the collateral damage from vaccines. Well, he is clearly a maverick, a libertarian and one who has personally witnessed these problems so, to President Trump this needs sorting.

Which triggers the rearguard action, the institutional defence and as much heavy artillery as they can muster. Here is an article which typifies such – written in snooty, weknowbest professionalist manner and saying practically nothing other than to repeat many meaningless Offitisms.

However, after scanning/skimming through the article as writ, then look through the authors’ biogs, at the end of the piece. Ouch, another example of one who is so deeply in denial that he will not see the truth about his own kids……..

Article in “The Hill”, By Dr Ashley Darcy-Mahony and Dr Kevin Pelphrey – 01/30/17

After years of pushing back against scientifically discredited claims that vaccinations cause autism, health professionals and researchers are seeing results: vaccination rates are finally back on the rise in the U.S.

Yet just recently, a guest column by Dr. Daniel Neides, Chief Operating Officer of the prestigious Cleveland Clinic’s Wellness Institute and Robert Kennedy Jr.’s claim that then President-elect Donald Trump asked him to “chair a commission on vaccination safety and scientific integrity” have once again put the anti-vaccination cause back in the spotlight. President Trump’s team has since disavowed Mr. Kennedy’s claim concerning his selection to lead the committee.

These developments have the potential to derail longtime efforts to mitigate the negative effects of news around vaccines and autism. Despite the numerous, extensive and reproducible tests that prove that vaccinations do not cause autism, some public figures continue to feed conspiracy theories about vaccine safety. Using taxpayer dollars for an inquiry that may perpetuate harmful doubts, spread misinformation and possibly even lead to new immunization policies that are unsupported by science could have grave consequences for American families.

Nevertheless, if there is to be such a commission, health care experts and scientists have a responsibility to fully participate. This is the only way to ensure that the commission’s conclusions are not one-sided, but rather the result of a rigorous and open discussion that addresses the concerns of parents, eliminates myths and creates broad consensus on how to protect our nation’s children from devastating infectious diseases.

As researchers, nurses and doctors, the proliferation of discredited theories only makes our job harder and creates dangerous – and unnecessary – hurdles for safeguarding the nation’s public health. In fact, we have already seen the price we all pay for not vaccinating children, with recent outbreaks of measles, mumps and whooping cough across the US all directly related to parents’ refusals to vaccinate.

Because of such alarming stakes, we clearly recognize that we must do more to reassure and educate families while forcefully rebutting unsubstantiated claims. A full and definitive airing of all the scientific evidence by such a commission may present an opportunity to do so. If this presidential commission comes to fruition, these are the issues that should be addressed and settled once and for all:

  • First, the committee should weigh all the possible risks associated with the spacing of vaccinations. This means evaluating the CDCand AAPschedules as well as determining the harm that could be done if we space out or delay the vaccination schedule of children, thereby exposing vulnerable children to potential infection for an unnecessarily longer period of time.
  • Second, the commission should reinforce efforts by the National Institutes of Health to further increase scientific rigor and transparency in research. By leading efforts to verify that study conclusions are truly independent and not compromised by financial incentives, we can reassure families that, regardless of the source, the science is solid.

We must also acknowledge that there is clearly a need to address some outstanding myths that keep the discredited anti-vaccine movement alive within our society. Researchers, doctors, nurses and other experts must stand prepared to be a part of this committee, and we call upon our colleagues to join us in demanding that scientific experts have a seat at the table. Now is the time to fully assume our civic duties. Public health should not be a partisan issue.

As pediatric researchers, our job is to advocate for our patients and we understand that all parents ultimately just want the best for their kids. Making major decisions about a child’s health is a profound challenge – especially when you are unsure of whom to trust or what is simply true or false. If we can address outstanding questions and finally convince skeptical parents that the best way to truly protect their children is to vaccinate them, we will have performed a real public service.

Ashley Darcy-Mahoney is an assistant professor and neonatal nurse practitioner at the George Washington University School of Nursing and the director of infant research at GW’s Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute. Dr. Darcy-Mahoney’s research has led to the creation of programs that improve health and developmental outcomes for at-risk and preterm infants. 

Kevin Pelphrey is a neuroscientist who serves as the Carbonell Family Professor and Director of the Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute at the George Washington University and as a public member of the United States Government’s Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Dr. Pelphrey is also the father of a son and a daughter with autism. His research has identified the brain basis of autism spectrum disorders and created new tools for improving evidence-based autism treatments.

Posted in Big Med, Big Pharm, Offit, Vaccine damage denialism | 1 Comment

Complete index of titles todate


Here’s a complete list of all the posts on this blog up to date. Just control/click to get there (except 26, 27 and 29…..):

[It is worth noting that most of these pieces are largely unedited since they were posted and so will contain many subsequently corrected typos and just writing I subsequently deemed to be poor, irrelevant, or perhaps a mite too controversial! ]

1 – The Elephant in this Jungle

2 – Semantic systems biology meets evidence based medicine – a parable.

3 – Ghenghis Clohn

4 – Battlefield Blues

5 – Genetics subverted – by its establishment

6 – Scandals in the works – BSEM meeting, London, Feb2011.

7 – The natural history of infection

8 – Beware Psociety’s Determinista

9 – Just because.

10 – How’s this for Dogmatism?

11 – Uta Frith

12 – Am I a bioterrorist?

13 – Sin-thetic Biology

14 – Why are socialists so in awe of science?

15 – On patents and India

16 – Deepest Congolese Disease

17 – Putting Mars through some Wiking – another Saga.

18 – “Wheat Belly” brings me Full Circle – and the Missing Puzzle Piece

19 – Munchausen Syndrome rebranded. (The “Winscale, oh, sorry, I mean Sellafield” effect.)”

20 – Sieving Acres of Gold?

21 – Weinstein’s Question

22 – It really makes me sick

23 – The Curious Case of Panorama’s Blind Reportage – SSPE, MMR and the limitations of Sarah

24 – One Flu over the Cockoo’s Nest

25 – Missing puzzle pieces?

26 – Medicine Men

27 – What is “Evidence based” information?

28 – I didn’t know this but……..

29 – If Andy Wakefield were a bond trader…..

30 – The Annul Hypothesis

31 – Institute to Investigate the Damaging Physiological Outcomes of Vaccination, IDPOV

32 – One Gene to Rule Them All and in the Darkness Bind Them

33 – So? Annul the Institutionalised Bias!

34 – A Very High Potentiation?

35 – When is an antigen not an antigen? Answer: when it’s an adjuvant!

36 – Andy, this is very difficult for me to write…..

37 – Viral passports?

38 – Aaronovitch – the man who wants to bolt the gates shut on everyone

39 – Wilby, won’t he?

40 – Haw Haw – Psychological Warfare

41 – Is this the White Flag?

42 – John “Turncoat” Humphreys and a little Tees

43 – Jennerism – keeping the 21st century back in the 18th

44 – So how do we contract Typhoid? Enteric bacterial sagas and those cash rich vaccinators

45 – Professor Mark Kendall – I wonder if he’ll get this one to stick?

46 – The Leninist-Stalinist perspective or Animal Farm revisited

47 – Of course there always was an alternative to Vaccination via Needle

48 – The Technician

49 – The Voodoo of Vaccination

50 – I know WHO not to believe

51 – More than my jobsworth, part three

52 – Herd all the noise and the accusations?

53 – The Nature of Institutional Thinking (Sinking…fast?)

54 – I’ll Huff and I’ll Puff and I’ll lie like the best of ‘em -ington Post

55 – Of a Finn, flu jabs and corruption – same ole story, really!

56 – On infant dosed antibiotics and childhood obesity – setting the scene for the adult obesity plague?

58 – On Vitamin C

59 – The Jab Patrol? Tightening the Grip?

60 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part One – I have a dream.

61 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Two – Jenner in every pore.

62 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Four – Methinks they do protest too much

63 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Four – Methinks they do protest too much

64 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Five – Towards a Bio-Medical Ecology

65 – Bad Science. Very Bad Science.

66 – Compare and contrast Vaccines and Antibiotics – for good or evil!

67 – A proposed mechanism for the acquisition of high levels of allergy in modern human society.

68 – Sometimes you just gotta laugh……….

69 – Nadine’s Cri de Coeur

70 – When did high tech science get grafted into the Vaccine Voodoo?

71 – “So, it’s like a great big conspiracy, is it?”

72 – Jenner’s application for funding from the MRC and the Pearly Gates’ Foundation.

73 – A short note on 2015 Flu provision – note my phrasing!

74 – Wheat Belly Up

75 – The Voodoo Ponzi Scheme.

76 – Akin to a bottle of whisky for an alcoholic the Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and – NHS resolve to give annual flu jabs to all the obese in the UK.

77 – Meningitis B a dead cert Money Maker

78 – Vive la révolution!

79 – Another convert from the medical profession

80 – Patches – we’re dependin’ on you………

81 – Ebola? Not here!

82 – Now hold on a moment

83 – Distemper bad temper……….

84 – Conclusion to book – no really, I am going to stop and publish it now. Just you watch…..

85 – Type 2 Coeliac Disease

86 – The biomedical ecology of three sugars – sucrose, glucose and fructose.

87 – Confessions

88 – A modern voodoo?

89 – Dancing Cats, Silent Canaries

90 – The Artefactual Life of Antibodies


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Artefactual Life of Antibodies

The whole science of Vaccinology and its parent Immunology is based on the need to provide a rational underpinning to the practice of vaccination. To justify Jenner.

Being as Jenner is unjustifiable, nor the practice he bestowed us with, we have to revisit the assumptions of these two sciences, to ascertain which, if any, we can continue to use and in which circumstances.

So “immunoglobins” – “antibodies” – are a case in point. As is the generic title “The Immune System”. They are labelled as having a specific intent, as being an evolutionary outcome. But this labelling is, or has been, made looking backwards, using the justification process. I certainly feel that such labels cannot be so derived but should be of the present or, better, made looking forward.

There would thus be a systems based, holistic examination as to the operational application by one’s physiology of the processes illustrated and described in such painstaking detail by the technocratista in their gleamingly well equipped laboratories.

At present, all of their work, published with oh so impressive and remarkably detailed three dimensional drawings of physical structure and operational functionality, are mere speculation, based on in vitro experimentation, and all predicated upon the assumptions of Jenner.

There is an oft used phrase in modern medical dialogue – they say that “The Science is all in and the case is proven”, or words to that effect. I cringe at such comments and not only because of the appalling use of English. There are objectively observed data which we have to interpret. We have a pretty constant updating of those facts and the data pile is always increasing, but the science is never finished – we will always extend our understandings and see new connections.

Recently, for example, a new element was described in the alimentary canal – the mesentery, a “double fold in the peritoneum”. Now they must clarify its impacts, which seem quite wide ranging, including supposed immune functionality. Clearly this science is very ongoing.  [http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/langas/PIIS2468-1253(16)30026-7.pdf]

There are many other such frontiers such as the new connecting fibres “between cerebral tissue and the immune system”


Much very elaborate description of the host of physiological responses to antigenic challenge, chiefly in vitro, have been made. Elegant textbooks, such as Janesway et al’s “Vaccinology”, are full of multivarious pages of, dare I say, deterministic descriptors, accompanied with multicoloured and three dimentional diagrams. They read like, they look like, an automobile “Hayne’s Manual” I sometimes joke – the pictures are so good and the descriptions of function so clear and without doubt.

Each part certified by the manufacturer – “we will replace if not fully satisfied with performance”. We now have twenty first century immunological accuracy with no room for any hint of a mistake.

Or so you would think reading Janesway……..

Life, as we all should know, and as I described earlier, is not like that. There is no manual, there was no design team, this system has been devised by the accumulation of countless minor changes over well nigh four billion years, accelerating in the last few hundred million. Systems work and are so well integrated with others, within and outside each and every organism. There is call and response, there are echoes of impacts and shimmering messages are transmitted always, in all directions, in all perpetuity.

We label some as “immune physiology”. That’s what we, in the last one hundred years, have termed them. It is a useful terminology and has some reasonable application. But our labels, our observations do not have the subtleties of so many million years. We should stand back a bit and just watch in awe.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dancing Cats, Silent Canaries

True confessions from conventional doctors are always good to see. Suzanne Humphreys, bless her, is the original and best of this rare group, but here is another who has written a book to tell all of the fatal fallacies of following the Voodoo of Vaccination:

Here’s a review, followed by the Amazon reference….


“The author, David Denton Davis MD, has been forced to also conclude some disease preventing immunizations are actually far more dangerous than anyone may have previously imagined due to adverse event under reporting.

His painful admission that he failed to comply with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) by not reporting illnesses occurring within 28 days of an immunization was followed by a query of his emergency colleagues. He was not surprised to find not a single physician had ever submitted a form to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

It became apparent these reports are systemically being ignored in urgent care centers and emergency departments throughout the United States.

Similar responses from Pediatricians led him to the conclusion only 1% of adverse vaccine events are likely being reported each year, clearly indicating the passive safety net offered by VAERS has been a dismal failure.

The evidence against PVC and the likely magnitude of unreported adverse vaccine events indicate these products can no longer be trusted. Therefore “Dancing Cats, Silent Canaries” asks for the invocation of the Precautionary Principle: a moral and ethical policy that offers a protective warning and requests a temporary ban.

Without cause and effect evidence of a product’s harm this new belief shifts the burden of proof for the safety of PVC and each vaccine to the manufacturers. While parents await the outcome they will be advised to eliminate exposures. Dr Davis has introduced a resolution to the American College of Emergency Physicians asking for reporting help from an estimated 25,000 member physicians staffing more than 6000 hospitals.

Parents of children, who have received a vaccine within 30 days of an illness, must remind nurses and doctors of their legal responsibility to report.”




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A modern voodoo?

Illness is scary. When she was less than eight months old our first child developed a life threatening bacterial infection. No, not one of the well known “childhood illnesses” this was a urinary tract infection, UTI, and even that took some time to establish. (Pneumonia was diagnosed by a medical team until their consultant pointed out that the “shading on her lungs” was her thymus!)


UTI we could understand and similarly we accepted the urgent need to give her antibiotics to clear out the infecting organisms. She was still wholly breast fed and had shown no sign of unwellness leading up to this sudden infliction. A few days later she was home again, and life went back to our new normal.


Very soon after she had a relapse – post antibiotic, recolonising bacteria. This time the bacteriology lab told us the infection was due to a soil bacterium. We were told she’d have to be on antibiotics for five years – “until she was old enough to resist” which we baulked at. Another consultant told us “They never get UTIs in Tanzania, where I used to work. D’you know why? They don’t wear nappies!”


After that, neither did our daughter. Nor did she relapse again. Nor did she have any antibiotics after the week was up. But it was very scary. She quite soon after had a brother and a sister and we all lived semi feral, rural lives on a smallholding, with chickens, goats, mud and trees. When the eldest was eight she and her sibs caught chicken pox, over four very stressful weeks, with the youngest being worst impacted, even having spots in her mouth. All recovered and were soon laughing about the event.


Two years later, eldest and her brother developed mumps, but the youngest showed no symptoms whatsoever, despite living cheek by jowl, as t’were. At school, most of the other kids also had mumps and the GP practice nurse, taking confirmatory mouth swabs from my two after they’d fully recovered, said the whole of North West Wales had been rife with mumps. Virtually all despite being “fully vaccinated against the illness”.


Ours had not had any jabs whatsoever. We made the policy decision based on my university laboratory immunology research experience, on a general mistrust of “top-down recommendation” systems and a very severe auto-immune reaction, luckily cured by an “Epipen”, in one of their Grannies. The latter, the next day in hospital, said “I feel absolutely fine now but, twenty four hours ago, I could have died”. We read a lot, I went to a London conference of “The Informed Parent” and we continued very happy with our decision, resolving to be ultra aware of all signs of malaise in the kids and deal with anysuch very quickly. To be “good parents”, essentially.


However, just after our third was born, the Wakefield MMR saga broke out. Only then did we start to see the size and force of the industry. It wasn’t just the GP and school nurse involved. It sank in that in due course our kids would have the same pressures placed upon them to have their own kids vaccinated. We could see no benefits and many negative outcomes from the process.


You see, we are in constant contact with bacteria and viral particles, as well as a range of fungal spores and other micro-organisms. Our skin, our breathing and digestive tracts are constantly reacting to all this biology. We “know” countless different examples – intimately. And keep them all in their places – outside our body tissues.


Over the years subsequently, I have studied the topic in as many of its manifestations and impacts as I can find. From the opportunistic dabblings of an eighteenth century rural doctor, Edward Jenner, who introduced the pus derived from “cowpox” scar tissue into gashes he cut into the arms of his clients and said this enabled them to be “immune to smallpox”, through the confusions between DDT poisoning and “polio”, in the US in the early 1950s, up to today’s MMR scandals or the ludicrous outcomes of “2% benefits to the population” from flu jabs, there are countless exemplars of its folly.


It is the developed World’s voodoo, in fact. The needles so often have the same impact, although medicine promises them to be beneficial! And Haitian Voodoo is, amusingly, homeopathic in comparison as the vodouisants (priests) work indirectly on tiny dolls!


Pressure to conform has been tightened as the industry has greatly expanded over the last twenty years. Andy Wakefield published in the Lancet, the prime medical reporting professional periodical, studies linking the MMR jab to both gastro-intestinal problems and also autism in the patients. He was then made a ritual sacrifice to the Church of Vaccinology, his career ruined by the Star Chamber of the General Medical Council only for daring to urge caution in the vaccination process. He never has been “anti-vaccine” yet is still regarded by the Industry – GPs, pharmaceutical companies, the media, and all the support systems – as a leper.


There is no dissent allowed. “The science is in”, they say. “If opposition is entertained, then vaccination rates fall and ‘herd immunity’ is lost”.


We are not a herd and any such subtle passage of bacteriotypes between animals close to each other happens naturally – without needles – and most importantly between mother and new-borns. The process of vaccination seems, as one of the many examples of its collateral damage, to impact very negatively on the materno-foetal and materno-neo-nate transfer of “immune function” – the ability to defend oneself against infection.


You see, my young daughter was four times ill from infection as infant and child. Twice to bacteria that are not on the vaccinologist’s list, one that is not on the UK list and the fourth, of course, to a virus which the given jab, the MMR, gave all her co-students utterly no “protection” at all. Good health is kept naturally with good nutrition, good housing and good lifestyle.



Chris Hemmings

24 11 16









Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


From Richard Horton – despite the serious constraints put upon him as delegate at The welcome meeting and as Editor of the Lancet, house journal of the GMC and The Staus Quo in Medical Matters. This is a confession of the ongoing fraud that is the bio-medical science industry we now run in UK, US and a large part of the developed world. Where personal and corporate financial gain overrides any morality.

It is short and sweet, but first I give you his conclusion. So,  Richard Horton:

“The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no fi rm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act fi rst. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.”

The full article is found here:
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdfRichard Horton richardhorton@lancet.com

and, cos its only short, Ill transpose it. So:

” What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.”

I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.

Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations.

Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research redtape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether.

Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers.

Or emphasise collaboration, not competition.

Or insist on preregistration of protocols.

Or reward better pre and post publication peer review.

Or improve research training and mentorship.

Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year.

One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal.

Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are).

The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers.

Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative).

The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously.

The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.


http://www.thelancet.com Vol 385 April 11, 2015

Background and discussion



Plenty more: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Lancet+editors+comments+on+unreliable+and+wrong+published+research&oq=Lancet+editors+comments+on+unreliable+and+wrong+published+research&aqs=chrome..69i57.32158j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The biomedical ecology of three sugars – sucrose, glucose and fructose.

May 2015

OK, I sort of suggested the discipline – though I notice others use the descriptor now – so here is a very good use of it. What are the physiological interactions in the gut and in the bloodstream of these three. Obviously this has to include other inputs which provide the components – so, for example, the rapid boost in glucose after eating wheat carbohydrate – and rates of use of and/or disposal of all three.

Start to examine published works, blog investigations and even text book references and it becomes an exemplar of, well, the Tale of Six Blind men and the Elephant once more. “I can clearly see” they all write and go on to describe another non-integrated impression of the mechanisms working and of the outcomes of such. There is certainly an outpouring of certainties in the face of the interactions of biological subtleties. There is, it seems, to find definite answers to complex interactions.

Fructose is a poison” is one such extreme. “No it’s not” might well be another! Better would be “What set of physiological circumstances can drive fructose consumption to yield toxic outcomes?”. It is a simple sugar, of the same formula but different structure to glucose and still occurs in two isomeric forms. Whereas glucose is used directly in the glycolysis and other energy generation processes, fructose has to be converted by enzymic action first. It does not trigger the all important insulin release into the blood stream and is also less readily absorbed from the intestine. Our most common dietary source of sugar, sucrose, is simply one glucose bonded to one fructose molecule. This bond is broken prior to intestinal absorption whereupon the glucose is very readily absorbed whilst the fructose is only slowly taken in, often in fact resulting in the excretion of a good percentage of this sugar.

The great rise in sucrose consumption in the post world war two, 1950s onwards era and the profound and hasty switch to “High fructose corn syrup” from the 1980s have raised obvious concerns about their driving obesity and diabetes, as well as a range of other associated conditions. As I have also chronicled, the much more recent contribution of Dr William Davis in bringing forward the role of the wheat grains in this pattern illustrates the source of rapid elevations in blood glucose levels. Palaeolithic diets, also widely promoted today, reach the same conclusions, albeit by a rather different route. Both describe the imbalances resultant in modern nutritional intake and both suggest that many, if not all, of us are consuming a constant essentially toxifying diet, whereby the sugars in our blood are constantly pushing against their homeostatic constraints and are chronically pushing emergency release metabolic pathways, such as glucose excretion in urine (diabetes) or fat deposition.

As William Davis points out, too great a concentration of glucose in the blood raises its osmotic pressure too high – water would be drained from cells in the tissues above such a level, causing drastic organ failures. Fructose obviously has the same impact. However, as fructose does not lead to insulin release, its blood level is far less well controlled, save by the speed of absorption from the gut, perhaps, or its utilisation in the liver, where it is metabolised. If modern far higher levels of dietary fructose, both in sucrose and in the corn syrup, lead to greater levels of fructose reaching the blood then the hepatic processing will be the limiting factor, fructose could “back up” and osmotic pressure increase independent of the glucose levels.

The ramifications are many and varied and the impacts often extreme. Nobody can argue that we eat a diet even close to that of our ancestors and so our evolutionarily established mechanisms cannot be being utilised optimally. Surely we can and do naturally digest fruits all of which have a high fructose content. Glucose, if anything, we would formerly have consumed far less of. Why there is no “fructose-insulin” is an interesting question which I do not hear asked elsewhere.

This topic seems to have overlaps, as I have previously described, into the central arena of these investigations. However I suppose I use it here as a reminder of the interconnectivity of physiological systems – as the global warmonger Donald Rumsfeldt noted in a probably unique moment of vision “There are things we know, there are things we know that we don’t know AND there are things we don’t know that we don’t know”. Such are these collateral damages, imbalances and knock-on effects.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment