Pressure, the untold story of D-day.
No.
Stag literally appears in the definitive 2WW documentary the World at War
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Fun fact for the political classes.
We don’t want
Immigrants
We also don’t want to give our bloody money abroad
So shut the bloody borders and keep our money.
We’ve been spaffing money since the 1980s on these economies.
STOP IT.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
I wasn’t there, however this guy was:
"I’d like to put the record straight, because I was there.
People often forget how the Argentine troops were treated after the Falklands War. We treated their wounded, and many would not have survived without the medical care they received. They were fed, and their officers were even allowed to keep their sidearms for their own safety.
After facing each other in battle, that wasn’t easy, but it was the right thing to do.
They were fed, cared for, and many were transported home on Canberra. We also cleaned up the mess that had been left behind. There was no complaining—we just got on with the job.
Many of the Argentine troops were exhausted and relieved to be going home after experiencing the reality of war. They were defeated and demoralised, and many couldn’t even look you in the eye.
Many of those young soldiers were more afraid of their own officers and the military junta than they were of us. They had been sent into an impossible situation by leaders who would never share their hardships.
The Falklands’ climate and terrain are brutal, and the weather is unforgiving. I saw young men who were hungry, frightened, dirty, wet and cold, longing to be back with their families in Argentina. Many I spoke to, while sharing hot drinks and sweets, told me they never wanted to be there in the first place.
So before anyone starts abusing me, my family or my brothers-in-arms, remember this: we were there. We experienced the full cycle of war, and we also witnessed the immense relief of the Falkland Islanders when the invaders finally left.
To those in Argentina who still believe the stories told by defeated generals, I’d simply say this: many of us were there, and we know what happened. Don’t confuse propaganda with the reality witnessed by those who fought and those who surrendered.
The war is over. Britain won. History cannot be changed. It’s time to stop reliving old arguments and instead focus on building a better future for the people of Argentina rather than making repeated claims over the Falkland Islands.
As my grandmother used to say, “Children should be seen and not heard.” Sometimes it’s wiser to listen to those who were actually there.
War tests not only courage in battle, but also humanity in victory. I am proud that we showed both.
Feel free to share and comment “war is not a political football “ maybe you should try it sometime it’s not advisable
Lives broken families destroyed
Respect to those lost to war and those who are still fighting a war long ago."
Shared as requested.
Falklands
#FalklandsWar
#veterans
Edward Bothamley retweeted
365 years of temperature data from central England, the world's longest running climate record, show no trend.
Despite a six-fold rise in population and a surge in CO2, January temperatures have barely shifted since 1600. Likewise for July, the hottest month of the year, temperatures are virtually unchanged.
The warmest winters on record happened in the 1700s, the 1800s, and the early 1900s, long before modern emissions.
Any warming is slow, natural, with the slight modern uptick likely linked to 1) the urban heat island effect, and 2) earth's gradual recovery from the little ice age.
If CO2 really controlled the climate, this chart (see video) would shoot up on the right, but it doesn't...
Edward Bothamley retweeted
It is genuinely psychotic that nature spent forty million years engineering the rumen, a vast warm cathedral of churning microbial life, a four-chambered fermentation reactor humming with trillions of bacteria, fungi and protozoa working in perfect concert, capable of taking dead grass, the toughest, most useless, indigestible cellulose on the planet, the stuff that would kill you and me stone dead, and transmuting it, alchemically, into dense ruby-red flesh, golden marrow, and rich yellow fat, a complete and perfect food carrying every amino acid, every vitamin, every mineral a human body could ever ask for, a self-replicating solar-powered protein factory that walks itself to harvest, fertilises the soil it grazes, and asks for nothing but a field and the rain.
forty million years of evolution. the most sophisticated nutritional technology in the known universe, perfected and handed to us for free.
and our grand, supreme improvement on this miracle?
we told everyone to stop eating it, ploughed up the field, planted soya, and squeezed it into a grey paste we extrude into the shape of the very animal we just refused to eat.
X is full of snowflakes who block you because you disagree with them. No matter how polite or reasonable your counter argument.
If your idea doesn’t stand the test of a counter argument it’s probably not a good idea
Edward Bothamley retweeted
The Somerset Farmhouse of 1 North Street, Williton were approached by a "food influencer" that wanted to charge them £2,000 for a review.
They put out a video of Sally eating a sausage roll instead 😆.
Lets make Sally and the Somerset Farmhouse famous for free.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
BREAKING: Scientists have discovered a food that meets every essential human nutrient requirement.
Complete protein with all nine essential amino acids in optimal ratios. Active vitamins A, D, E, and K2. Haem iron at 25% absorption. Zinc, B12, creatine, carnitine, CoQ10, choline, selenium, taurine.
No antinutrients. No lectins, oxalates, phytates, or saponins. No defensive plant chemistry to soak out, sprout, ferment, or boil into submission.
Requires no processing, no fortification, no chemical treatment, no marketing department. Apply heat. Eat.
No postprandial inflammation. No blood sugar spike. Exceptional satiety. The kind that means you skip lunch without noticing.
Available for 2.5 million years. Eaten by every traditional culture from the Inuit to the Maasai to the Welsh hill farmer.
It is red meat.
The scientists did not actually discover this. It was just there the entire time. On the hill. In every kitchen that ever fed a working population through a winter.
We were told to limit it. We did. The population got sicker. The guidelines stayed.
The cow has been waiting. The cow is still waiting.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
This tweet by @esskayultra, which I have retweeted before, deserves the widest circulation.
Only rational response to it is "good point".
Alternative is to make oneself look stupid by trotting out shopworn mantras, bare assertions and rambling and ranting unintelligibly.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Twenty years before Atkins, fifteen years before the Mediterranean diet, and forty years before anyone in the NHS would utter the phrase "low-carb without flinching", a Hampshire physician was treating obesity, asthma, migraine and gout with butter, bacon and steak. He sold two million books and was politely forgotten.
Richard Mackarness ran Britain's first clinical obesity and food allergy clinic at Basingstoke District Hospital from 1958 to 1983. He had read Banting. He had read Stefansson. He tried the low-carbohydrate approach on himself, lost weight without hunger, and decided it was time a British doctor put it into a book.
He called it Eat Fat and Grow Slim. The title was a deliberate provocation, in a country where rising American influence insisted that fat would kill you.
The protocol: meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter and green vegetables freely. Carbohydrates under 60 grams a day. Eat fat to satiety. Do not restrict calories.
Across 25 years he kept meticulous records. Average weight loss 14-20 pounds in the first three months. Sustained weight loss at 12 months in approximately 60% of patients. At five years, approximately 40%, which is remarkably high for any dietary intervention.
Other outcomes: resolution of asthma in roughly one-third of affected patients, reduction in migraine in roughly half, and complete resolution of gout in nearly all who adhered to the protocol.
His 1976 second book, Not All in the Mind, documented hundreds of cases in which chronic symptoms resolved completely when specific food triggers were removed. The most common triggers: wheat, refined sugar, pasteurised dairy, industrial seed oils, caffeine.
His clinic was closed in 1983 when Basingstoke District Hospital was reorganised. His approach, which had treated thousands of patients successfully, was not institutionalised anywhere in the NHS.
He retired and emigrated to Australia. He died in 1996, aged 80. His books are out of print in Britain.
Current NHS obesity treatment costs: £6.5 billion a year.
Mackarness's clinic treated 3,500 patients for under £50,000 a year in 1960s pounds.
The cost-benefit analysis has not been run. The result would be too uncomfortable to publish.
He was right. He was British. He was ignored in Britain. Then exported to Australia, where he died in quiet retirement.
This is how Britain handles its medical heretics.
It has not improved.
🤖 Made with AI
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Milk, in Britain, used to separate in the bottle.
The milk was left on the doorstep by the milkman at five in the morning. It sat in a glass bottle with a foil cap. By breakfast, the cream had risen to the top third of the bottle. A thick yellow layer, sometimes two inches deep. Children fought over the top of the milk. The top of the milk went on the porridge. Whatever was left below was drunk by the rest of the family.
This was not a special product. This was every bottle of milk in the country.
The cream contained the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K2. The cream contained the butyrate-producing strains that feed the colonic microbiome. The cream was the point. The skim underneath was the byproduct.
Homogenisation was introduced commercially in Britain in the 1950s. By the 1980s it was standard. Homogenisation forces the milk through a valve at extreme pressure, breaking the fat globules so small that they no longer coalesce. The cream never rises again. The bottle appears uniform.
This was sold as an improvement. A consistency benefit. A shelf-life benefit.
The children of the 1990s grew up on homogenised skimmed milk, the cream of which had been extracted at the dairy and sold separately to the food industry as an ingredient in biscuits, ice cream, and ready meals. The skim was sold back to them, at the same price as whole milk, with a label reading "healthy."
The fat-soluble vitamins had been extracted along with the cream.
The children were vitamin D deficient. The children needed fortified breakfast cereal. The children needed a supplement.
The cream was still being consumed. Just by someone else, in a product labelled differently, at a considerable markup.
The top of the milk is gone.
It was taken.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Somewhere in the twentieth century, we took the foods that had built every healthy human population on earth and quietly replaced them with their industrial caricatures.
Butter swapped for margarine.
Lard swapped for seed oil.
Full cream milk swapped for skimmed.
Liver swapped for a multivitamin.
Eggs swapped for egg-white omelettes.
Bone broth swapped for stock cubes.
Raw milk cheese swapped for processed slices.
Home-rendered tallow swapped for canola spray.
Red meat swapped for chicken breast.
Every substitution was sold as progress.
Every substitution made the population sicker.
Every substitution made someone rich.
Pick the pattern.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Excellent thread, this. Something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about…
The British state is run by people who have never been fired, never missed a number, never had a client scream at them, never stayed up until 3am working on a deal, or repricing a book because Tokyo opened badly.
They have never experienced CONSEQUENCE. Ever.
THAT is the single most important fact in British public life.
The pipeline is so uniform and mediocre it scarcely needs describing:
- School
- PPE or adjacent
- Civil Service fast stream or a Think Tank research role
- Spell as local councillor to appear “grounded,”
- Then a safe seat and a red box before 40
At no point has the market ever called them a moron.
At no point has a P&L told them their idea was shit.
The feedback loop that every private sector professional takes for granted simply does not exist in their world.
This matters because policy is NOT an essay. It IS a trade. Every regulation has a cost, every tax has a behavioural response, every intervention has second and third order consequences.
In markets, if you misread convexity you get carried out. In government, you get reshuffled to a different department.
The incentive structure could not be more perfectly designed to retain the incompetent and repel the capable.
Anyone with genuine commercial talent is earning multiples of a ministerial salary by their early thirties. So the applicant pool self selects for people for whom the title is the reward because they could never command that status where performance is measured.
The think tank ecosystem makes it worse.
IPPR, the Resolution Foundation, JRF and the rest function as ideological finishing schools and revolving doors. They produce people fluent in the language of policy who have never implemented anything. They can model a distributional impact assessment in their sleep but could not run a corner shop at profit.
This is NOT intelligence. It is pattern matching within a closed system that never tests its own assumptions because everyone in it shares the same priors.
The civil service compounds it further. The fast stream rewards generalism, rotating you through departments every 18 to 24 months to develop “breadth,” which in practice means you never develop depth.
A Treasury official who helped design a tax policy in 2019 is working on transport by the time it starts distorting behaviour in 2022. Nobody owns the outcome.
The private sector has one thing the state fundamentally lacks: a kill switch.
Bad companies go bust.
Bad traders get sacked.
The state just absorbs failure, reclassifies it as “lessons learned,” and promotes the people responsible.
The compound effect of thirty years of this is a permanent class institutionally incapable of delivering growth or even understanding why the private sector they depend on for revenue keeps shrinking under their stewardship. This is what we have, right now.
You cannot fix this with better people inside the same system. The system selects against competence, insulates against feedback, and rewards survival over performance.
Every parliament is just a fresh rotation of the same profile through the same machine expressing the same surprise when nothing improves.
We need parallel institutions to be built by the guy or gal staying up til 3am repricing the book. The risk taker. The entrepreneur.
Then we gradually phase the existing sclerotic failed structures out.
That’s how we win.
Make Britain Great Again 🇬🇧 💪
There’s been a lot of talk about how Labour ministers aren’t qualified and have little experience relevant to the position in cabinet they hold
So let’s look at one such example
Bridget Phillipson
She was born on 19 December 1983 in Gateshead
1/5 dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic…
Edward Bothamley retweeted
In 1797, John Rollo, a British Army surgeon, had a diabetic patient passing sugar in his urine.
He put him on meat and fat. The sugar disappeared. The patient recovered. Rollo published it.
For the next hundred years, low-carbohydrate diets were the standard clinical treatment for diabetes. In the textbooks. In the hospitals. What doctors actually did.
In 1916, Frederick Allen opened a clinic at the Rockefeller Institute. No insulin existed yet. He kept diabetic patients alive on near-zero carbohydrate. Some survived long enough to receive insulin when it arrived in 1921.
The diet bought them years they otherwise wouldn't have had.
Then insulin arrived. And the diet became inconvenient.
If you could inject insulin to handle blood sugar, you didn't need to restrict carbohydrates. The drug had a manufacturer. The diet had neither.
In the 1950s, Elliott Joslin, the most influential diabetologist in America, began quietly softening the carbohydrate restriction that had defined diabetic care for 150 years.
In 1977, the McGovern guidelines told the entire American public to reduce fat and eat more carbohydrate. Diabetics were not exempted.
By the 1980s, the American Diabetes Association was recommending fifty to sixty percent of calories from carbohydrate for diabetic patients.
Fifty to sixty percent. For a condition defined by the inability to regulate blood sugar.
The prescriptions went up. The insulin doses went up. The complications went up. The pharmaceutical companies filed quarterly earnings that would make a small country uncomfortable.
In 2008, the ADA acknowledged that low-carbohydrate diets could be appropriate. As an option. In a footnote. After thirty years of recommending the opposite.
In 2019, Virta Health published a two-year trial. Low-carbohydrate diet. Type 2 diabetes reversed. Not managed. Reversed.
The same outcome Rollo documented in 1797.
In 2023, Diabetes UK quietly updated its guidance to acknowledge low-carbohydrate eating as valid.
Two hundred and twenty-six years after Rollo published the case report.
Extraordinary pace of progress.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Vitamin D is not a vitamin.
It's a steroid hormone synthesised in the skin from cholesterol via ultraviolet light, then converted in the liver and kidneys into its active form, where it regulates gene expression in virtually every tissue in the body.
We called it a vitamin because we discovered it while studying deficiency diseases in people who didn't go outside.
The name stuck.
The modern guidelines, designed for people who eat seed oils, avoid animal fat, apply SPF 30 before going to the letterbox, and work in offices under fluorescent lighting, are very effective at suppressing it.
You need cholesterol (eat fat) and sunlight (go outside) to make it.
We've managed to pathologise both.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
You might have missed the fact that I was talking about growing crops on a 35 degree slope in Wales.
So let's include Welsh hills in our terrace farming thought experiment.
Terracing requires: consistent labour over generations to build and maintain the walls; climates warm enough to produce viable food crops on the resulting flat surfaces; soils with sufficient depth and fertility to support crop production once the slope is managed; and sufficient growing season to bring crops to harvest before the conditions deteriorate.
The Andes terrace system, Incan, largely, was built over centuries by a state that could organise large-scale labour, in a climate that, despite the altitude, provides reliable solar radiation and a genuine growing season for potato, quinoa, and maize.
Bali's rice terraces function in a tropical climate with consistent rainfall, warm temperatures year-round, and crops specifically adapted to the conditions.
Wales has: horizontal rain, acidic peat soils, four months of viable growing season in the uplands, temperatures that would stop most crops before maturity, and a surface geology of Ordovician shale and volcanic rock that makes terracing an engineering challenge rather than a realistic agricultural proposition.
You would spend three generations building the terraces.
You would grow several hundred kilograms of quinoa, which would stand in the wind, look confused, and die.
Luckily, Wales has something better than terraces.
Wales has Herdwicks.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
As a Bishop, I cannot stay silent. I have today drafted and sent an open letter to His Majesty King Charles III, the text of which reads as follows:
To:
His Majesty, Charles III,
King of the United Kingdom and the Realms,
Supreme Governor of the Church of England,
Bearer of the ancient title Defender of the Faith.
Your Majesty,
I write to you neither as a politician nor as a commentator, but as one of your loyal subjects who, as a bishop of Christ’s Church, cannot remain silent while the Christian foundations of this kingdom are steadily dismantled.
Sir, there are moments in the life of a nation when silence becomes a form of betrayal. If I refused to speak to Your Majesty now, this would be such a moment.
For more than a thousand years the Crown of this realm has stood in solemn covenant with the Christian faith.
The laws of this land were shaped by it.
The liberties of our people were nurtured by it.
The conscience of our civilisation was formed by it.
From the abbeys of medieval England to the parish churches of our villages, from the preaching of the Reformers to the missionary zeal that carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth, the Christian faith has not merely influenced Britain — it has defined her.
Yet today that inheritance is being quietly but deliberately eroded. Across the institutions of this nation there is a growing hostility toward the faith that built them.
Christian belief is mocked in the public square. Christian morality is dismissed as intolerance. Christian institutions are pressured to surrender doctrine in order to conform to the ideology of the age.
Within the very Church that bears the name of England, voices have arisen that appear more eager to mirror the spirit of the age than to proclaim the eternal truth of the Gospel.
Meanwhile, beyond the walls of our churches, powerful political movements openly speak of removing Christianity from its historic place within the life of this nation.
What would once have been whispered is now proclaimed openly: that Britain must become a post-Christian state.
It is in this context that I write to you, Your Majesty. For the British Crown does not stand apart from this crisis.
The Sovereign of this realm bears a title that is not merely historic but sacred in its origin and meaning: Defender of the Faith. Those words are not decorative. They are a charge.
They speak of a monarch whose duty is not merely to preside over the ceremonies of the Church, but to stand as a guardian of the Christian inheritance of the nation.
Yet many among your subjects now ask, with increasing anxiety: “Who will defend that inheritance today?”
They see a nation drifting from its foundations. And they ask whether the Crown will remain silent while that inheritance is dismantled.
Your Majesty, may I be so bold as to observe that your coronation oath was not a poetic formality. It was a solemn vow made before Almighty God to maintain and preserve the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.
Those words bind the conscience of the sovereign. They remind the Crown that its authority is not merely constitutional but moral. The monarch is not merely a symbol of national continuity, but a custodian of the spiritual inheritance that shaped this realm.
History records moments when kings and emperors were confronted by the Church and reminded that their authority was accountable before God. In the fourth century Ambrose of Milan stood before the Emperor Theodosius I and reminded him that even the ruler of an empire must bow before the moral law of Christ.
That tradition of prophetic witness has never disappeared. Nor should it. For when rulers forget the foundations upon which their authority rests, the Church must speak — not with hostility, but with holy clarity.
And so, I write to say this, Your Majesty: The Christian character of this nation is under profound and accelerating assault.
If the Crown does not stand visibly and courageously in defence of that inheritance, history will record that the guardians of Britain’s institutions watched in silence as the foundations were removed.
The issue before us is not nostalgia. It is civilisation. Remove Christianity from the story of Britain and you do not create a neutral society — you create a moral vacuum. And history teaches us that moral vacuums are never left empty for long.
Your Majesty now stands at a crossroads that few monarchs in modern history have faced.
For the erosion of Britain’s Christian inheritance will not ultimately be judged by speeches made in Parliament or debates in the press. It will be judged by whether those entrusted with the guardianship of our ancient institutions chose to defend them — or merely preside over their quiet surrender.
You may preside over the quiet dissolution of Britain’s Christian identity. Or you may rise to the ancient responsibility entrusted to the Crown and speak with clarity about the faith that built this kingdom. The first path requires little courage. The second will require a great deal. But it is the path that history honours.
Your Majesty’s subjects are not asking for religious coercion. They are asking for leadership. They are asking that the sovereign who bears the title Defender of the Faith remember what that title means.
They are asking that the Crown hear the growing cry of anguish from Christians across this land who feel that the spiritual inheritance of their nation is being surrendered without resistance. And they are asking whether the Crown will stand with them.
For the faith that shaped Britain is not merely a cultural ornament. It is the wellspring from which our laws, our liberties, and our moral imagination have flowed. If it is cast aside, the nation will discover — too late — that it has severed itself from the very roots that sustained it.
Your Majesty, to many the Crown is a symbol of authority. But before God it is also a symbol of stewardship. And stewardship carries with it the duty to defend what has been entrusted.
May Almighty God grant Your Majesty the wisdom to discern this hour, and the courage to fulfil the sacred duty entrusted to the Crown.
Yours faithfully,
Bishop Ceirion H. Dewar FSHC
Missionary Bishop
Diocese of Providence
Confessing Anglican Church
@PhilHs10 @RevBrettMurphy @revwickland @BishopRobert1 @GBNews @TalkTV @danwootton @Jacob_Rees_Mogg @LozzaFox @BackBrexitBen @RupertLowe10 @KemiBadenoch @JohnCleese
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Let's talk about the fat.
Not the lean bit. The fat. The white seam running through a rib-eye that you've been told to cut off, trim away, render out, discard. The fat that gets removed before the nutrition label is calculated so the numbers look better. The fat that every chef from Escoffier to your nan's Sunday roast knew was the point.
That fat is oleic acid: the same fat in olive oil, which has a Mediterranean diet named after it and a documentary about it and a very successful PR campaign that has been running since approximately 1990.
That fat is stearic acid: which is neutral on LDL cholesterol, raises HDL, and is so non-threatening that even the most nervous cardiologist struggles to find fault with it.
That fat is the carrier for vitamins A, D, E, and K: the fat-soluble vitamins, which are called fat-soluble because they require fat to be absorbed, which means eating the lean version of the meat and wondering why you feel nothing is a metabolic irony of the highest order.
The fat is not the problem.
The fat was never the problem.
The fat is, in fact, quite significantly the point.
Stop cutting it off.
Edward Bothamley retweeted
Otto Warburg published his Nobel lecture in 1931 and said, with the directness that won him the prize:
"Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause.
Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar."
For forty years, his work was the leading framework for understanding cancer.
Then the genetic mutation theory emerged. Oncogenes. Tumour suppressor genes. DNA damage. The molecular biology of cancer became the dominant research paradigm from the 1970s onward.
Warburg's metabolic theory was not disproven. It was superseded by a framework that had more funding and more pharmaceutical applications.
The problem: the genetic mutation theory has driven cancer research and treatment for fifty years. The outcomes have been mixed. For some cancers: certain leukaemias, some lymphomas, targeted therapies have been transformative. For solid tumours, the majority of cancer burden, five-year survival rates have improved modestly in many cases, barely at all in others.
Meanwhile, Thomas Seyfried at Boston College has published extensively arguing that cancer's genetic mutations are downstream of metabolic dysfunction: that the mitochondrial impairment Warburg identified is the primary event, and that the mutations are a consequence, not the cause.
His book "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease" (2012) is one of the most important unread books in oncology.
The practical implications if Seyfried and the neo-Warburgian school are right:
Starving tumours of glucose, through therapeutic ketosis, directly targets their primary metabolic vulnerability.
Providing ketones as an alternative fuel gives normal cells a metabolic advantage over cancer cells, which largely cannot use them.
The combination of caloric restriction and ketogenic diet has shown striking results in animal models.
Human case reports of tumour regression on ketogenic protocols as adjuncts to standard treatment are documented.
The therapy requires no patent.
It requires food choices.
It may be most effective in combination with standard treatment.
The research funding to test it properly has not materialised.
Nobody is getting rich from telling cancer patients to stop eating sugar and start eating beef.
The people getting rich are selling the glucose-based IV nutrition that goes into cancer patients in hospitals, the corticosteroids that raise blood glucose, and the drugs that manage the disease rather than the environment in which it thrives.
Warburg was right in 1924.
The evidence that he was right has been accumulating for a century.
The clinical application has not followed the evidence.
The clinical application follows the money.
Every time.
