They have very good instincts in going after the scientific “easy” target: all the alt-med, “integrative” and CAM quacks peddling their unscientific woo (though what the skeptics do is IMHO not very effective in combatting the obvious quack medicine).

But when it comes to the scientific mainstream producing bad (or costly and useless) science (or rather non-science), they are completely lost. They decry the the profits that the alt-med cancer quacks pocket with their useless, dangerous and costly treatments (and the skeptics are right to decry this fraud by the alt-med quacks), but how many billions have been spend on the war on cancer in the last decades, and with what results?

The hole state of affairs of the medical science is depressing, especially considering the gap between potential for research and progress we have in our modern societies, and the results the medical science has produced in the last decades.

Jimmy Moore videoed Bernstein speaking a few years ago, where he discusses his symptoms and life:

“Dr. Richard Bernstein (Part 1)–Nutrition & Metabolism Society Meeting–May 8, 2010″
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VaNJO7KMgg&feature=relmfu

Timely:

“Type 1 Diabetes No Match for Primal Lifestyle!”
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/type-1-diabetes-no-match-for-primal-lifestyle/

This fellow is effectively following Bernstein’s protocol, including the basal/bolus insulin scheme.

Agreed about the Nobel. Unfortunately, until the medical profession can admit that there approach for treating diabetes is an utter failure, he’ll never get it.

Bernstein’s a 70-something year-old Type 1 diabetic, who has no diabetic side effects (they all went away) and is in apparently perfect health. That’s not too bad for “wrong”.

I work with a fellow who’s teenage son is also a type 1 diabetic. After going through the usual BS, they went to see Bernstein. Now, when they go see their local doctor, the nurses call everyone over because “You never see a Type 1 diabetic with perfect blood sugar control!”

No, you don’t, unless you follow a VLC diet.

My wife and I also reversed our pre-diabetes by going VLC: in my case, after failing with walking, running, mountain biking, going to the gym. At one point I was working out 12-16 hours a week. Never lost a pound, stayed prediabetic.

I think Bernstein got the solution perfectly right.

And you’re right that they listened to him about measuring glucose, but they missed the point of the measurement.

Seth: Bernstein’s work was a huge advance, for which he deserves a Nobel Prize. Has Bernstein suffered any bad effects from extreme carb restriction? I am less sure than you that he is in perfect health. In your case, you tried walking one hour per day, and that failed?

In the technology space, this is akin to building what we call a Minimum Viable Product.

“It’s time to admit that data has joined agenda, erotica, insignia, opera, and other technically plural Latin and Greek words that have become thoroughly Anglicized as singular nouns, taking singular verbs. No plural form is necessary, and the old singular form, datum, can be left to the Romans.”

From, Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe’s Guide to Better English in Plain English by Patricia T. O’Conner.

Seth: I found 4 times as many Google results for “data is” than “data are”, supporting what you say. Here is a discussion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/10/that-diabetes-study-that-ended-early.html

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2012/10/more-on-look-ahead.html

In the first link she discusses the possibility that poor compliance to the diet probably had a significant impact on the results:

“Does anyone out there truly believe that if your average 250 lb person complied with a diet of 1500 cal/day for a decade would still weigh nearly as much? It sounds like this study included a diet phase early on (6 months perhaps?) during which the participants lost weight, and then maintained the losses. Did they continue the exercise? These are details I’d like to see when this study is eventually published up. How many are even following the “rigorous program” to any degree?”

Here are two things that you might want to keep in mind when covering future studies:
1) the word “data” is plural (e.g., “the data [are] valid and publishable”);
2) The sentence “The two groups were the same with no statistical difference” is utterly wrong. It is statistically impossible to show that two groups are the same… “no statistical difference” really only means insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, it provides absolutely NO support for the null hypothesis of no difference.

The press releases said there was no difference in cardiovascular events, they did not, specifically, say “all cause mortality”.

We’ll have to wait for the final report, and hopefully the raw data set, to see what really happened.

BUT, the central hypothesis of the trial was that the diet and fitness intervention, in obese diabetics, would reduce CV events – but, after 11 years, it didn’t.

Even “improvement” in other health markers – weight, treadmill fitness, blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, made absolutely no difference to CV events.
so will they conclude that the diet does not work, and that many of the markers are not good indicators for CV health?

If it means this paradigm is finally discarded, then the $20m was well spent, it the results are buried, and the ADA diet remains unchanged, then we have a real problem.

https://www.lookaheadtrial.org/public/LookAHEADProtocol.pdf