High blood sugar is not a disease but the body's protective response that 'rescues' you; there is no such thing as diabetes ('drink sugar'); sugar intake has no upper limit; HbA1c is a lie.

Original statement

ان السكر عالي فسبب مشاكلك ده هو عالي عشان يلحقك اصلا

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

High blood sugar is not a disease but the body's protective response that 'rescues' you; there is no such thing as diabetes ('drink sugar'); sugar intake has no upper limit; HbA1c is a lie.

Origin

Source status

Video transcript (own words)

Attribution

Elawady (machine transcript)

Video

Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الكورتيزون حياتك (Open source)

Published

17 October 2025

Timestamp

1:57:07 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)

Attribution uncertainty

Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; 'published' is the date listed by the archive and may be the upload date. Live-stream transcripts can contain viewer comments read aloud; the quoted passage was checked in context to be spoken by Elawady.

Claimed mechanism

Stress hormones raise glucose to supply the brain; complications come from gut problems, not glucose.

Claimed health effect

Denial of hyperglycaemia as harmful

Population concerned

People with diabetes

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

Scientific assessment

False – The statement contradicts the robust evidence.

Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

High sugar is protective; diabetes does not exist; HbA1c is a lie; unlimited sugar is fine.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Acute stress (illness, surgery, exercise) raises glucose through cortisol, adrenaline and glucagon; transient stress hyperglycaemia is a real phenomenon. Overly aggressive glucose lowering can harm (C-INS-04).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Each 1% reduction in HbA1c was associated with 21% fewer diabetes-related deaths, 14% fewer myocardial infarctions and 37% fewer microvascular complications, with no threshold (I-INS-04). Intensive therapy reduced retinopathy by 76% in type 1 diabetes (I-INS-03) and microvascular endpoints by 25% in type 2 (A-INS-16). HbA1c is a validated measure of average glucose. 'Drink sugar' and 'no upper limit' contradict evidence on sugar-sweetened beverages and diabetes risk (topic of another rule).

4. What remains unclear?

It is unclear how literally followers understand slogans such as 'there is no such thing as diabetes'; no outcome data among followers were found. The adaptive role of short-term stress hyperglycaemia in acute illness is still studied, but this does not apply to chronic hyperglycaemia.

5. Which studies support it?

None for the general claim.

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-INS-03, I-INS-04, A-INS-16, I-INS-02.

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

European (EASD) and German (DDG) guidance follow the same evidence base as the ADA/EASD consensus: individualised HbA1c targets, insulin as mandatory therapy in type 1 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP-1 receptor agonists for people with cardiovascular or kidney disease. No country-specific difference changes the assessment.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Egypt has one of the highest diabetes prevalences in the region; the same drug classes and insulins are used. Access barriers and cost may make advice to stop medication attractive, which increases the practical risk of this claim. No Egypt-specific evidence changes the assessment.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Chronically high blood glucose damages eyes, kidneys, nerves and vessels. Avoiding very low targets is reasonable; ignoring high glucose is not.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Prospective data (UKPDS 35) show a continuous relationship between HbA1c and complications without threshold; RCTs (DCCT, UKPDS) show that lowering glucose reduces retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy. Stress hyperglycaemia exists (kernel), but chronic hyperglycaemia causes organ damage.

Source quality

Own words, several machine transcripts.

Regional transferability

Universal.

Regional scope of the claim

general (biological/medical)

Last reviewed

25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

Blood sugar can rise briefly during stress, and that is normal. But sugar that stays high for months and years damages the eyes, kidneys, nerves and blood vessels. Large studies show that the higher the long-term sugar (HbA1c), the more complications occur, and that lowering it prevents blindness and kidney failure.

Studies on this claim

Regional context

Germany / EU

European (EASD) and German (DDG) guidance follow the same evidence base as the ADA/EASD consensus: individualised HbA1c targets, insulin as mandatory therapy in type 1 diabetes, and SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP-1 receptor agonists for people with cardiovascular or kidney disease. No country-specific difference changes the assessment.

Egypt

Egypt has one of the highest diabetes prevalences in the region; the same drug classes and insulins are used. Access barriers and cost may make advice to stop medication attractive, which increases the practical risk of this claim. No Egypt-specific evidence changes the assessment.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

False Chronic high blood sugar is harmful; denying diabetes is false and dangerous.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

1. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group; Nathan DM et al.. N Engl J Med 1993 · PMID 8366922 · DOI 10.1056/NEJM199309303291401
2. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study.. Stratton IM et al.. BMJ 2000 · PMID 10938048 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.321.7258.405
3. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.. UKPDS Group. Lancet 1998 · PMID 9742976
4. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes.. Holman RR et al.. N Engl J Med 2008 · PMID 18784090 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa0806470