I started doing research on diabetes when I learned of the astounding increase in the number of Americans who are afflicted with this health problem.  Here is how it was announced:

Aug. 24, 2000
By Anita Manning, USA TODAY

The prevalence of diabetes in adults once thought to be primarily a disease of middle age or older, jumped nearly 70% among people in their 30s in the last decade, a report says. Overall, diabetes increased 33% from 1990 to 1998, U.S. health officials say.

In the study published today in the September issue of Diabetes Care, researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found diabetes more common across all ages, races and educational levels. The increase was greatest among Hispanics, for whom the rate shot up 38%, compared with 29% for whites and 26% for blacks.

I felt, as a health researcher, that any disease as widespread as this one, and now found to be increasing as rapidly as was diabetes, certainly need some attention from me.

I have a by now settled in on a fairly standard way of doing research.  I just travel all over the web, looking at all sorts of pages.  I particularly concentrate on web sites, which might represent some "official" group concerned with a disease, or a treatment. 

I didn't know the name of the "diabetes group," but I knew there would be one.  Certainly it was easy to find.  I found it as, The American DiabeticAssociation. 

(http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p21.htm)  

Almost always these "official" groups are government sponsored, or perhaps not official government agencies, but non-profit, charitable groups that often get millions of dollars of government money for research.

Sure enough! That was the ADA -- the American Diabetic Association.  On every page of this web section you'll find the ADA logo, top right corner, top of every page.  You can click there any time to view the dozens of pages from their official web site.

I have found, researching many different subjects that these "official" groups almost always have recommendations concerning their area of expertise -- I find these recommendations and read them carefully.

It is amazing to me that this is now so generally true. Invariably I find that there "official" groups typically recommend treatments that are exactly the opposite of what should be presented.  This is certainly true about the diet recommended for heart disease (http://www.oralchelation.net/heartdisease/ChapterFive/page5.htm) by the American Heart Association.

I already had read quite a bit about diabetes, and knew, generally, that a diabetic just couldn't afford to eat much sugar -- that sugar was exactly the wrong thing for his diet.

So, immediately as I started reading on the ADA web site, what did I find?  Recommendations that sugar was OK!  Here is the official statement:

CARBOHYDRATE AND SWEETENERS -- The percentage of calories from carbohydrate will also vary [in a proper diet for a diabetic], and is individualized based on the patient's eating habits and glucose and lipid goals. For most of this century, the most widely held belief about the dietary treatment of diabetes has been that "simple" sugars should be avoided and replaced with complex carbohydrates. This belief appears to be based on the assumption that sugars are more rapidly digested and absorbed than are starches and thereby aggravate hyperglycemia to a greater degree.

There is, however, very little scientific evidence that supports this assumption. Fruits and milk have been shown to have a lower glycemic response than most starches, and sucrose produces a glycemic response similar to that of bread, rice, and potatoes. Although various starches do have different glycemic responses, from a clinical perspective first priority should be given to the total amount of carbohydrate consumed rather than the source of the carbohydrate. [Source] (http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p44.htm)

It blows you away to find these recommendations. Oh! The recommendations are couched in language that gives some need for moderation, but there is NO stress on the absolute danger of including sugar in the diet of a diabetic.  I tell you here and now that the ADA recommended diet is EXACTLY the diet that will cause a person to become a diabetic.  The ADA is like the ostrich with its head in the sand -- it certainly won't see any truth anywhere!

I had also read many other web sites about what treatments were found to be effective -- besides a very strict low-carbohydrate diet.  These "other" web sites, you understand, never represent the large, well-funded agencies that are at the top of the list for each disease.  I found many references to the value of a diabetic including chromium in his diet.

So, I looked on the ADA web site.  I found exactly what I would expect.

Here is the OFFICIAL position of the ADA: "Due to the technical limitations in measuring chromium status, it is difficult to quantify a chromium requirement.  Therefore, there is no current Recommended Dietary Allowance for chromium."

You see how cleverly they have covered their rear ends! They acknowledge that there is some "data" out in the world about chromium for diabetics, but they don't recommend it (because there are "technical limitations in measuring chromium status!"

What a terrible thing to write.

What I found, looking at scientific studies, included:

Chromium functions in maintaining normal glucose tolerance primarily by regulating insulin action. In the presence of optimal amounts of biologically active chromium, much lower amounts of insulin are required. Glucose intolerance, related to insufficient dietary chromium, appears to be widespread. Improved chromium nutrition leads to improved sugar metabolism in hypoglycemias, hyperglycemias, and diabetics. 

Someone who has read of the great value to a diabetic of having enough chromium in his diet comes to his diabetic friend with this urgent news. The friend, dutifully, goes to the "official" ADA web site, searches for "chromium" and tells his friend, "Oh, yes! The American Diabetic Association is fully informed on this chromium stuff, and is keeping up to date on it. They are watching.  They have decided that, FOR NOW, chromium is not recommended!"

The friend walks away, wondering if all this good news he found out about chromium and diabetes was just junk.

If the ADA had NOTHING on their web about chromium, it would be much more suspicious. But, what they do have is just enough to let you know that they are "watching," and "not to worry because we are looking out for your best interests!"

As my research on diabetes continued I realized that there was a much more fundamental need here -- a need to research "diet" itself.  I gathered quite a bit of information about diabetes, and you will find it here.

But, mostly I started researching how diet could improve health; generally, and how the proper diet would absolutely reverse almost all cases of diabetes.   ALL!

I even realized that many diabetics would possibly read this material and never follow, or even try, the diet I recommend.  I had to address that issue too.  It is all here!

In particular the link to the diet section (http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/raw-food-diet.htm) is quite the complete answer to diabetes just now.  Take a look!

Karl Loren is a researcher, writer and developer of unique vitamin formulations that remove heavy metals from the body. His products can be found at: http://www.oralchelation.com/store . You can write to Karl at: http://www.oralchelation.com/writetokarl.htm . Other articles and e-books by Karl can be found in his library: www.karllorenlibrary.com