Tim Noakes in his own words: why I choose to go on ‘trial’

University of Cape Town emeritus professor Tim Noakes could easily have made the hearing before the Health Professions Council of SA in November go away. All he had to do was deregister as a medical doctor, and the Council would no longer have had jurisdiction over him. Noakes, a medical doctor, and scientist rated A-1 by the National Research Foundation, is no longer involved in the practice of medicine. By deregistering, he would also have made things easy for the Association of Dietetics for SA (ADSA), and its president, Johannesburg dietitian Claire Strydom, who reported him for a single tweet saying low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) foods (meat and veg) are good first weaning foods for babies. ADSA and Strydom have come under a barrage of criticism and ridicule globally for the action against Noakes. They stand accused of being proxies for Big Food companies that make fortunes out of high-carb, low-fat foods, and the medical establishment that considers Noakes a danger to the public for his ‘unconventional views’ .

In his distinguished scientific career spanning four decades, Noakes has put forward ‘unconventional views’ seven times, and been proved right six times. The seventh will be tested at the HPCSA hearing on a charge of ‘breaching ethical rules’. Here, in his own words, Noakes explains why he chooses to go through what has become known as the ‘Banting for babies trial’. He intends to expose a  ‘monumental error’, possibly the ‘greatest error in the history of medicine’ committed by the medical and dietetic professions, one that has already had demonstrably serious consequences for national and global health: the promotion and imposition on the public of flawed, unscientific, and ultimately deadly, dietary advice. It’s a long read, but an important one for all those interested in their own, and anyone else’s, health. – Marika Sboros

Read Tims story here  http://www.biznews.com/health/2015/06/18/tim-noakes-in-his-own-words-why-i-choose-to-go-on-trial/    and why he feels this "trial" is of monumental importance to people all over the world.

Way back when I was weaning my babies (25+ years ago) the advice was that full fat was necessary for the under fives and that low fat products shouldn't be used. There were also warnings about too many sugars and carbs. I remember my health visitor advising me to give my son a natural fennel drink when he was a baby. I remember her telling me that meat and veg were good as long as the veg didn't contain salt as babies' kidneys don't process salt well.

So I really don't understand why this case was brought in the first place. Tim Noakes didn't say anything at all controversial or wrong, it's common sense.

Looking back when the children were weaned, I cooked / prepared most of their 'meals' our daughter in law has done the same thing for the grandchildren. From about six months old I also always used full fat milk, although diluted up to when they were 12 months ... babies should only have full fat milk from 12 months, have a look at various inter-net sites regarding this.

Can you remember the problems there was a few years back, when mothers were being advised to use lower fat milk there is not enough calories in it for the growing child, and it was causing problems.  

Yes, care should always be taken with babies / children and also if they (or anyone) have any food allergies.

.....

I was pleased to read that Prof Tim Noakes hearing has been allocated seven days, I'm sure most, if not all, who read this Forum will be following it.

All the best Jan

Yes, sorry Jan I wasn't saying cow's milk should be given to babies. Thanks for clarifying that for others who may be reading this. My first born unfortunately had formula milk for the first year (he was born prematurely) and I fed my second born myself for more than a year, so the issue of full fat milk didn't arise until they were a year old.