Veganism

by

Vegetarians are people who do not eat meat. Their diet consists mainly of plant foods but they will often consume animal products like milk, cheese, yoghurt and eggs. Some of them are pescatarians and they will include fish in their diet. Vegans take things a step further and exclude all animal foods. They only consume plant foods and some will also refuse to use any animal products like wearing leather shoes or belts. There has been a surge of interest in veganism in recent times. Reports in the media suggest that a vegan, or plant-based, diet is more healthy than an omnivore diet; it is kinder to animals and it is better for the environment. Are these claims true?

No, they are not true. An important aspect of this site is to demonstrate the benefits of animal-sourced foods for our physical and mental health and the necessity of correctly managed livestock for environmental health. An entirely plant-based diet leads to nutrient deficiencies, especially in children. The intensive farming of single plant crops involves herbicides and pesticides with devastating effects on biodiversity. Vastly more creatures die in the production of grains and vegetables than die for the meat on your plate. This section of the website concentrates on why the pro-vegan story is a fallacy.

How did veganism begin?

We evolved into the people we are because, for millions of years, our ancestors ate the meat and fat of large animals. Our species is the most dominant species on the planet and we have adapted to life in all the extreme climates that exist on Earth. Indigenous tribes, unaffected by modern life, still exist around the world from rainforests and deserts to the Arctic Circle. Their diets vary but none of them have adopted a meat-free, vegan diet.

The avoidance of animal-based foods began in America in the 1850s within an illogical, religious sect called the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I call them illogical because, although they believe that God created them, they believe that sexual arousal is a sin. (Surely, if God created us, God created arousal so we ‘would go forth and multiply’.) Their leader, Ellen White, also believed that eating rich foods, like meat, stimulated sinful passion and bland foods diminished it. She preached this doctrine with great determination and convinced everyone in the Seventh Day Adventist Church to accept this idea as part of their belief. (John Harvey Kellogg was a member of this church and you can read about him here.)

In Britain, veganism began with a man called Donald Watson who founded the Vegan Society in 1944. He is credited with coining the word ‘vegan’ which he created by joining the beginning and end of the word vegetarian. He was an animal rights campaigner whose interest in veganism began when he witnessed the slaughter of a pig on a farm. He campaigned for a meat free diet because he thought farming was cruel to animals.

A plant-based diet, without the animal foods that our ancestors ate for a million years, was invented in America to reduce sexual arousal and was copied in Britain because one man thought it was cruel to animals. In neither case did it have anything to do with improvements to human health or the environment. Both of those false ideas have been added later in a cynical attempt to persuade unsuspecting people to avoid the most nutritious foods available to us, namely meat, fish, eggs and dairy.

Could statins be life-saving?

by

“New research shows that over-75s on statin drugs are less likely to die within a decade.” This story was covered by all the national newspapers in July 2020. The research in question was conducted by geriatricians at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. After looking at data from 300,000 Americans aged 75 or older, they concluded that “those taking statins were 25% less likely to die from any cause and the drugs lowered the risk of having a stroke or heart attack by a fifth.”

A full-page spread in the T2 section of The Times newspaper on July 14th 2020 praised the benefit of statins to the hilt. However, it did mention that statins have been given some bad publicity because of their side-effects but to discover the truth, “We asked leading experts for the latest insight.” The most frequently quoted ‘expert’ in the article is Dr Dermot Neely. He is a spokesman for a charity called Heart UK. It seems unlikely that Dr Neely is an independent voice on this subject because the purpose of Heart UK, according to their website, is to “prevent early disease and deaths from cholesterol and other blood fat (lipid) conditions in the UK.”

The home page of the website states that “Over half of UK adults have raised cholesterol which can lead to heart disease. Together we can make things better.” The website goes on to lay the blame firmly at the door of saturated fat in the diet and recommends the use of statin drugs for the avoidance of ‘death from cholesterol’.

There are several problems with all of this:

  • there is a dearth of investigative journalism throughout the media, which leads to the use of confirmation bias in the selection of ‘expert’ opinion. Reporters look for people who will support the story they want to write instead of seeking different opinions to strike a balance.
  • reliable evidence that cholesterol and/or saturated fat causes heart disease is not available.
  • a large number of other studies have shown that older people with high levels of cholesterol live longer and healthier lives than those with low levels.

Read moreCould statins be life-saving?

Cholesterol

by

Cholesterol does not cause heart disease.

There is more myth and misinformation about cholesterol than almost any other health topic. We are frequently told that:

  • cholesterol causes heart disease
  • cholesterol sticks to the inside of our arteries causing blockages
  • LDL is ‘bad’ cholesterol, while HDL is ‘good’ cholesterol
  • we should eat a low fat diet to reduce cholesterol
  • we should eat cholesterol-lowering foods
  • if our cholesterol is high we need to take drugs to lower it

These statements are believed by the majority of people but all of these statements are wrong. They become completely illogical when you realise what cholesterol does in our bodies.

Cholesterol is vital for human health and we would all die without it. It is an essential component of every cell membrane in the body. The membrane is like the outer wall of a cell and 30% of the membrane is cholesterol. Cholesterol keeps the membrane stable and durable, without being rigid, enabling our cells to change shape and allowing us to move. (Plants don’t have cholesterol and their cells are rigid.) It also allows essential nutrients to travel through the membrane and into the cell from the blood stream.

Almost every cell in the body manufactures its own cholesterol, as does the liver. Eating foods high in cholesterol makes no real difference to blood cholesterol because the liver produces less if we eat more and it produces more if we eat less. Consuming foods that are ‘low in cholesterol’ is a waste of time: you are just giving your liver more work to do.

Cholesterol is necessary to produce our steroid hormones. Steroid hormones help control metabolism, inflammation, immune functions, salt and water balance and all our sexual characteristics and functions. Without cholesterol, there would be no reproduction. When we produce vitamin D in our skin it is made from a cholesterol molecule.

There are thousands of miles of nerve fibres in our body which are covered by a myelin sheath. Cholesterol is an essential component of this protective layer. It is so important to the nervous system that 25% of all the cholesterol in our body is found in the brain. Studies in the elderly show that people with higher cholesterol levels live longer than people with low cholesterol and they have far less mental decline and very little memory loss.

Hundreds of millions of years ago evolution developed the cholesterol molecule, which is vital to so many functions in our body. Why would evolution allow such an important molecule to cause heart disease and kill us? No matter what the ‘experts’ say, I find it impossible to believe that cholesterol causes heart disease. Cholesterol is not the Grim Reaper’s best friend: it is more like our best friend.

The ‘Pure’ Study

by

The Pure Study followed over 135,000 adults from 18 countries for 7.4 years. The diet of all these people was recorded and compared with the frequency of total mortality, heart attacks, strokes and heart failure. The findings confirmed that the widely accepted National Dietary Guidelines are more likely to endanger life than to improve or prolong it.

THE LANCET – August 29th, 2017

Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study

Background

The relationship between macronutrients and cardiovascular disease and mortality is controversial. Most available data are from European and North American populations where nutrition excess is more likely, so their applicability to other populations is unclear.

Methods

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study is a large, epidemiological cohort study of individuals aged 35–70 years (enrolled between Jan 1, 2003, and March 31, 2013) in 18 countries with a median follow-up of 7·4 years (IQR 5·3–9·3). Dietary intake of 135 335 individuals was recorded using validated food frequency questionnaires. The primary outcomes were total mortality and major cardiovascular events (fatal cardiovascular disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure). Secondary outcomes were all myocardial infarctions, stroke, cardiovascular disease mortality, and non-cardiovascular disease mortality. Participants were categorised into quintiles of nutrient intake (carbohydrate, fats, and protein) based on percentage of energy provided by nutrients. We assessed the associations between consumption of carbohydrate, total fat, and each type of fat with cardiovascular disease and total mortality. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using a multivariable Cox frailty model with random intercepts to account for centre clustering.

Findings

During follow-up, we documented 5796 deaths and 4784 major cardiovascular disease events. Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, HR 1·28 [95% CI 1·12–1·46], p trend=0·0001) but not with the risk of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular disease mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], p trend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], p trend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], p trend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], p trend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs quintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98], p trend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

Interpretation

High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.

Diabetes

by

There are about 4 million people in the UK who have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and there are probably millions more who are not yet diagnosed, or who have pre-diabetes and will soon have the full disease. It has become so common, I worry that some people may be slightly too relaxed about it but it is an awful disease and nobody should be blasé. Most people would say that diabetes is too much glucose in the bloodstream. It is true that diabetics have too much sugar in their blood but that is not really the disease: it is a symptom of the disease. The real disease is Insulin Resistance, which can also be referred to as Carbohydrate Intolerance.

If you have diabetes, it will degrade your blood vessels. The tiny capillaries in your kidneys and the retina of your eyes can become so damaged that you need kidney dialysis and may go blind. Diabetes also greatly increases the risk of heart disease and stroke and this is the major cause of death in diabetic people. Some of your nerve fibres can be damaged causing neuropathic pain, which is a nagging pain that normal pain killers do not control. The damaged blood vessels in your legs reduce the blood flow to your feet and this leads to ulcers that will not heal. These ulcers can develop gangrene and then you will have to have your toes, feet or legs amputated. In England alone, 120 diabetics have part of a limb amputated every single week

A healthy adult circulation contains about 10 pints of blood with one teaspoon (or 5 grams) of glucose dissolved in it. The level of glucose is very strictly controlled. When it falls too low, the hormone glucagon is released and glucagon brings glucose out of storage and into the blood. If the level rises too high, the hormone insulin is released and insulin transports glucose out of the blood and into the cells. If the cells don’t need any more glucose and the storage area is full, insulin gets the liver to convert the extra glucose into fat and stores it in the fat cells.

The reason obesity is so closely linked to diabetes is because, if insulin didn’t convert excess glucose to fat and store it away, you would become diabetic whenever you ate too much starchy food. (Starch is just a lot of glucose molecules joined together.) Putting on weight is the body’s way of avoiding diabetes. Eventually though, the body cannot cope anymore and the system breaks down and blood sugar goes up. Obesity and diabetes are linked because they are both symptoms of insulin resistance. Obesity doesn’t cause diabetes: they are both caused by too much sugar.

What causes insulin resistance? Insulin does. The carbohydrates you eat are converted to glucose which raises your blood sugar and increases insulin production. Over the years, an excess of insulin in the blood makes your cells resistant to it and then it cannot do its job. Blood sugar goes up, which stimulates more insulin production, leading to more resistance and, suddenly, you have type 2 diabetes.

These are some of the common symptoms of diabetes: increased thirst; frequent urination; dry mouth; unexplained weight loss; feeling tired and weak; blurred vision with headaches; and recurrent infections, especially thrush. If you go to your doctor with any of these symptoms, you will be given some tests and if you have high levels of blood glucose, you will be told that you have type 2 diabetes. It is very likely that you will also be told that diabetes is a progressive, incurable disease. You will be given medication which either increases sensitivity to insulin or increases insulin production. You will also be told to control your diet. Unfortunately, the dietary advice you are likely to get will make your diabetes worse. The standard advice is to eat plenty of fruit, vegetables and whole grains and to reduce the amount of fat you eat, in a mistaken attempt to lose weight. If you want to avoid diabetes, or make it go away if you already have it, you should completely ignore the official dietary advice.

Diabetes is a disease of too much insulin but when the tablets no longer work, they will inject you with insulin. The only food group that does not stimulate insulin is fat and they want you to avoid it. Fruit and whole grains have high levels of carbohydrate which raise your blood sugar and insulin. If you follow the official advice, you will discover that what they told you told is true; diabetes is progressive and incurable. If you ignore the official advice and eat a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, you will avoid diabetes and quite probably reverse it if you already have it. Please note, if you are taking medication for diabetes and you change to a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet you must tell your doctor and monitor your blood very closely because your sugar levels will fall and the medication may precipitate a hypo.

Cancer

by

There are dozens of different cancers: some are more serious than others but all of them are to be avoided if we can. There are also many possible causes including smoking, air pollution, and a wide variety of toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of everyday items. For many years, people have thought cancers were driven by genetic mutations but evidence is growing that cancer is a metabolic disease. The toxic substance that disrupts our metabolism the most is sugar.

A German doctor, Otto Warburg, discovered that cancer cells use a different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. He won a Nobel prize for his work in 1931. He found that malignant tumors rely entirely on glucose as a source of energy, while healthy cells can use fat molecules instead. Cancer cells use glucose at 10 to 12 times the rate of normal cells and Warburg suggested that cancer might be starved of energy by reducing sugar intake. It is important to remember that all carbohydrates, when digested, become sugar molecules.

Whenever blood sugar levels rise, the pancreas produces insulin to lower them. Insulin, however, does a lot more than this. It is a master hormone with many effects in the body, including the stimulation of cell growth. A tumour is a mass of rapidly dividing, and growing, cells: an excess of sugar will feed those cells and the inevitable increase in insulin will stimulate their growth.  Breast cancer, which is one of the most common types, has been linked to sugar intake. Breast tissue contains a lot of insulin receptors.

Obesity is known to be associated with a large increase in the risk of cancer. People become obese because they eat too much carbohydrate, and sugar, which is stored as fat by the hormone insulin. Their risk for cancer increases because they spend years with elevated blood levels of both sugar and insulin. While it is impossible to be so precise as to say, ‘sugar causes cancer’, we can be confident that eating a low-carbohydrate diet reduces the chances of getting cancer and improves the odds of recovery should we develop it.

Brain Food

by

The Brain needs Animal Fat

“Our brains are extremely rich in fat. About two-thirds of the human brain is fat, and a full 20 percent of that fat is a very special omega-3 fatty acid called docosahexanoic acid, or DHA. DHA is an ancient molecule so useful to us and our fellow vertebrates (creatures with backbones) that it has remained unchanged for more than 500 million years of evolution. What makes this particular PUFA so irreplaceable?  

DHA’s job description is a lengthy one. Among many other functions, DHA participates in the formation of myelin, the white matter that insulates our brain circuits. It also helps maintain the integrity of the blood-brain barrier, which keeps the brain safe from unwanted outside influences. Perhaps most importantly, DHA is critical to the development of the human cortex—the part of the brain responsible for higher-order thinking. Without DHA, the highly sophisticated connections necessary for sustained attention, decision-making, and complex problem-solving do not form properly. It has been hypothesized that without DHA, consciousness and symbolic thinking—hallmarks of the human race—would be impossible.

DHA plays a “unique and indispensable role” in the “neural signaling essential for higher intelligence.” —Simon Dyall PhD, Lipid Research Scientist, Bournemouth University, UK

Professor Michael Crawford, a pioneering British scientist who has been studying essential fatty acids for 50 years, theorizes that DHA’s special configuration lends it unique quantum mechanical properties that allow it to buffer electron flow. This may explain why we find it in places throughout the brain and body where electricity is important: synapses where brain cell signaling takes place; mitochondria, where the electron transport chain is busy turning food into stored energy; and the retina of the eye, where photons of sunlight are transformed into electrical information. This is a truly miraculous molecule. Plants don’t have it, because plants don’t need it.”

This is taken from an article by Dr Georgia Ede who is a psychiatrist specialising in the connection between mental health and diet. She explains why a lack of animal sourced foods can lead to a decline in higher brain functions.

Calorie Counting

by


The following is a small excerpt from Stop Feeding Us Lies

The calorie counting myth

Is it possible to lose weight and keep it off without willpower, hunger and lethargy? Yes it is, but before we get to that we need some basic information. We are always told to count the calories in our food and that weight loss comes from consuming fewer calories than we use. This is referred to as the ‘Calories in – Calories out’ method of weight loss, or the CICO diet. In early 2018 the Government-backed organisation, Public Health England (PHE), issued guidance on what we should eat, in its attempts to reverse the obesity epidemic. They proclaimed that all adults should eat 400 calories for breakfast, 600 calories for lunch and 600 calories for dinner, with 100 to 200 calories in snacks twice a day.

            In my opinion, the nutrition department of Public Health England is one of the most misguided organisations that ever wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers money. I have an image in my mind of couples up and down the country, where one asks the other, “What should we have for dinner tonight?” and the partner replies, “I think I fancy 600 calories”. Public Health England did not specify any particular types of food in their advice; they just want us to consume 600 calories. Eating a delicious meal, with our loved ones, is one of life’s greatest pleasures. Public Health England wants to suck all the joy out of it and reduce it to a type of energy accountancy, tinged with guilt.  How on earth is anyone supposed to cook and serve a meal of precisely 600 calories per person? Will 600 calories of salmon and broccoli have the same effect on your weight and health as 600 calories of sugar-coated doughnuts? The answer is no and I will soon explain why, but first we need to know what a calorie is. We can’t keep talking about calories without knowing what they are.

            A calorie is a unit of heat energy. It is defined as ‘the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of a gram of water by one degree centigrade at normal atmospheric pressure’. Carbohydrates and proteins contain 4 calories per gram and fats contain 9 calories per gram. How do we know this? The experiments to determine these values involved placing a gram of each macronutrient into a special container surrounded by water. A stream of oxygen was directed over each sample so it would burn when it was set on fire. When the food samples had burnt out, the heat created had caused a rise in water temperature, which was used to calculate the calorie content of each food type. The calories we see listed on packets of food, and referred to by Public Health England, are kilocalories (Kcal) and one of those is the energy required to raise the temperature of a litre of water by one degree. So, if we manage to calculate and serve 600 calories of food on to our plate, as Public Health England want us to do, will we know how much weight we are going to lose? No, we will not. However, what we will know about our meal is how much it could raise the temperature of a litre of water if we set fire to it.           

Public Health England’s preoccupation with counting calories is misguided. It implies that the most important thing about our food is how much energy it contains. Instead, we should be thinking about how much nutrition it contains.

The New Normal?

by

The Covid-19 epidemic has run the typical course of viral infections with a rapid rise in cases to a peak, which lasts a few weeks, and is followed by a steady, but slower, decline back to normal. It is, however, a nasty virus for those who succumb to it. There are two important questions: who succumbs to Covid-19 and why do they succumb while others do not? It is clear from all the data that this coronavirus is a far bigger threat to elderly people. Children and young adults are hardly affected.

Why does the virus affect some people so badly? We all have two levels of immunity: acquired and innate. We acquire specific immunity when we create antibodies in response to a viral, or bacterial, infection. Innate immunity is our natural ability to fend off a pathogen without ill effects. 70 to 80% of people in the UK, who have tested positive for Covid-19, have experienced either very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, thanks to their innate immunity. As we get older, our immune system becomes less efficient and we are more likely to develop metabolic disorders. Sadly, the great majority of deaths have occurred in elderly people and those with diabetes, obesity and heart and lung disease.

We knew, from Italy, of the extreme danger to both the elderly and the unwell but did nothing about protecting those people specifically. Instead, the Government imposed a severe lockdown on everybody, which collapsed the economy, closed schools and made millions of people terrified of each other.

Certain businesses are being allowed to reopen but with strict rules attached. This process has been given the sinister, Orwellian title of ‘the new normal’. Apparently, we will be allowed to return to ‘normal’ if we stay 2 meters apart and wear face masks. There is nothing ‘normal’ about this. It will destroy the hospitality industry, theatres and sporting events. It will cause a huge spike in mental illness and stress. It will be of profound detriment to children’s education. The virus has run its course and is almost gone. If there are 65 million people in the UK, there will currently be 64.99 million people who do not have this virus and, therefore, cannot pass it on to anyone else.

However, having said that, I strongly believe we should have a ‘new normal’ once this is finally over. This new normal will have nothing to do with masks and distancing but will protects us all from this and any future epidemic. The new normal should be a concerted effort to improve everybody’s metabolic health. This would not only improve our immunity but would also vastly reduce all the problems we faced before Covid-19: obesity; cancer; type 2 diabetes; heart disease and dementia.

Sadly, I do not believe this initiative will ever come from the Government while it is guided in ‘science’ by Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance. As a former Community Pharmacist, with a far greater interest in health than medication, I am appalled by the contribution of the Government’s most senior scientific advisers. Evidence from around the world has shown that people with high levels of Vitamin D are protected from the worst effects of Covid-19. Why has this never been mentioned by them? If they do not know about it, they are incompetent. If they know about it, but have not mentioned it, they are negligent.

We desperately need a new normal in the UK. We have appalling rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and mental health issues, which put the NHS under great strain. None of these will be helped by social distancing and face masks. All of them will benefit enormously from a healthy diet of real, unprocessed food. There is compelling evidence that the high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet which has been recommended by the National Dietary Guidelines for 40 years has caused the constant rise in obesity and diabetes. Individual doctors, who have ignored official dietary dogma, have reversed type 2 diabetes in some of their patients with a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet.

The Chief Scientific Adviser should be up to date with this. Instead, he remains silent, nothing changes, and 6,000 type 2 diabetics have a foot amputated every year when a change in diet could prevent it. The government has taken drastic measures to reduce the spread of a virus. When will it take simple measures to prevent the far greater burden of obesity, diabetes and cancer?

What about immunity?

by

There is something I never understood throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. Why have the Authorities and their advisers, Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, never even mentioned the importance of boosting our own innate immune system? Their announcements give the impression that this virus is equally dangerous to everybody, which it is not. With the ‘lockdown’ and the ‘stay at home to save lives’ message, they have implied there is nothing we can do to protect ourselves other than to avoid catching it. Every one of their initiatives is designed to reduce the transmission of the disease. None of their ideas promote our individual ability to cope with Covid-19 if we become infected. We have all been made to feel helpless but, I believe, all of us can and should be taking control of our own destiny. Whitty and Vallance missed a fantastic opportunity to use this crisis to improve the overall health of the entire nation.

We all have a natural immune system that deals constantly with bacteria and viruses. Some people have a much better immune system than others but we can all do things to make ours as robust as possible. I have previously written about how the vast majority of deaths and hospitalisations occur in people with pre-existing illness and, frequently, a Vitamin D deficiency. I think it makes sense to shield these vulnerable people, whose immunity is compromised. However, most of the people who have tested positive for the virus have had either mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. This coronavirus appears, therefore, to be really dangerous only to people who are not in good health and who lack a strong immune system. Why are the Government’s Health Advisers not making this clear? As far as I am aware, boosting our own immune system has never been recommended by any of them.

I believe they have made matters worse with their ‘lockdown’ strategy. Diet, sleep and vitamin D status all affect our immune system. Another significant factor is stress. Whenever we are in immediate danger, the hormone Cortisol is released to prime us for the ’flight or fight’ response. It adjusts our biochemistry to give us the best chance of surviving when we have to run for our lives. This is a natural and helpful response and the hormone is dissipated by the intense activity which ensues. However, stress hormones become a serious problem when they are released over a long period of time. The process is complex but the result is a diminished immune system. (People with latent viruses, like cold sores, will know they only flare up during times of physical or mental stress, At other times, the immune system keeps them suppressed.)

What causes stress?

1. Isolation. Humans are naturally gregarious people. We thrive on social interactions and find enforced isolation extremely stressful.

2. Work. Our employment often defines us and gives us a sense of purpose and self-worth. Losing a job can be a great source of stress.

3. Fear. Living with a constant worry that something very dangerous may be close by, coupled with the realisation that you do not know where it is, nor how to prevent it, is exceptionally stressful.

4. Money. A serious shortage of money, with mouths to feed and bills to pay, is one of life’s greatest stressors.

5. Denial of access to green spaces. Lots of research has shown that time spent in green spaces, on sunny days, is a potent way to reduce stress levels.

For many people, the ‘lockdown’ will have created chronic, increased levels of stress, which may well have lowered their natural immunity. It is important that we all take steps to improve by embracing the opportunity to exercise, or just spend time, in open, green spaces to boost our mood and allow sunshine onto our skin to increase vitamin D levels. (See the previous blog to understand the remarkable benefits of this.)

I appreciate that some people have endured a far worse ‘lockdown’ than others. To them, my comments may seem irrelevant compared to their plight but an improvement in health and immunity will always have benefits. Taking positive actions to enhance our well-being gives us a stress-reducing sense of control and self-worth.

Our diet is the number one determinant of our health. The majority of people dying of Covid-19 have Metabolic Syndrome which is a collection of health problems including obesity, high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high serum triglycerides. It often leads to heart disease and type 2 diabetes and is linked to insulin resistance. Contrary to a lot of medical consensus, these can all be reversed or reduced in a matter of weeks with the correct diet. Whitty and Vallance have never mentioned this at any time. I believe they are negligent for not doing so.

Some of the steps we can take to improve our health through diet include:

1. Eliminate sugar and ultra-processed and refined foods.

2. Reduce all types of carbohydrates to a low level.

3. Eliminate ‘vegetable oils’ because they increase inflammation. They are present in nearly all processed foods.

4. Eat real food from a farmer or fisherman not a factory.

5. Eat lots of meat, eggs, fish, butter and cheese along with fresh vegetables that grow above the ground.