Courage – #ISupportGary

“Courage as resistance to fear, mastery of fear, but not absence of fear.” Craig Silvey

Editor’s note: This post is pinned as an introduction to my work — explaining who I am, why I write, and the story that led me to question how dietary guidelines, public health messaging, and vested interests intersect. In particular, “Who decides what we eat, when we eat, and why?”

While a brave man may stand up for what he believes in, it takes courage to speak out when doing so invites ridicule, harassment, and even punishment — especially when those truths unsettle deeply held beliefs.

My husband, Dr Gary Fettke, is the most courageous man I know.

He prioritised patient safety — and his own integrity — over compliance with dietary and health guidelines that revealed themselves, when challenged, to be ‘plant-biased’ Rule-Books shaped by vested interests and religious ideology.
And he paid the price.

Gary’s Story

Gary spent nearly three decades as an Orthopaedic Surgeon in Launceston, Tasmania. He went to work every day with “the Perspective of a Patient; the Spirit of an Activist; and the Heart of a Healer,” a quote I heard Rich Joseph use to describe Dr Bernard Lowns years ago, and it resonated deeply.

Gary became frustrated by what he called band-aiding sick care. His working life was increasingly spent treating the downstream consequences of chronic metabolic disease: inflammation, weight-related joint issues, and non-healing diabetic ulcers.

In 2012, after improving his own health simply reducing sugar and processed carbohydrates in his diet, Gary began to question ‘hospital food.’ To him, it made no sense that a public hospital — a place where patients are meant to heal and recover — is the very place that is feeding them unlimited sugar and highly processed food, and not enough protein to heal, and then ‘dousing the fire’ with medication.

Hippocrates - “First do no harm.”

He encouraged interested patients to reduce sugar and processed carbohydrates to improve their health outcomes. He introduced his hypothetical Nutritional Model of Modern Disease to medical students as a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania and to his peers, both within the hospital and as a regular speaker with Low Carb Down Under.

Naively, he believed the system would be interested.

He had no idea the system did not want to be fixed.

‘Silenced’

In 2014, Gary was vexatiously reported to the Tasmanian Medical Board by a dietitian at his hospital — not for patient harm, but for discussing sugar!

What followed was a two-and-a-half-year star-chamber investigation for suggesting there was a role for low carbohydrate, healthy fat principles in the prevention and treatment of metabolic disease, in particular Type 2 diabetes. There was no patient complaint, no evidence of harm, and no transparent process.

In 2016, Gary became, to our knowledge, the only medical doctor in the world formally ‘silenced’ from discussing nutrition with his patients. He was told “a medical degree does not qualify doctors to advise their patients to avoid sugar.” The ruling was life-long and non-appealable in a court of law.

He was allowed to operate.
He just couldn’t open his mouth.

Gary’s response was simple:

“I would rather be de-registered for improving health outcomes than stay silent and cause harm.”

Not an Anomaly

At first, we assumed this was professional overreach.

We were wrong.

As I investigated the expert witness assigned to the Medical Board in Gary’s case and began to look deeper, it became clear this was not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern where dietary guidelines and corporate vested interests intersected to shape public health policy. What appeared to be an individual disciplinary action was, in reality, the enforcement of protected nutritional doctrine.¹

Gary wasn’t silenced for harming patients.
He was silenced for challenging beliefs that were institutionally, religiously, and commercially defended.

When I discovered #Cereal4Brekkie came after my husband… the mumma bear came out! For years I looked into “Who decides; What we eat, When we eat, and Why?” My research helped clear Gary’s name.

Cleared — But Changed

In 2018, all allegations against Gary were formally withdrawn. The National Medical Board issued a written apology, acknowledging errors and confirming no risk to public safety.

But the cost had already been paid.

Gary lost teaching roles, research opportunities, and institutional support. Our family endured years of stress and uncertainty. And yet, we received thousands of messages from people whose lives had improved after changing what they ate.

Those stories revealed the real danger of rigid guidelines enforced without clinical nuance: patient harm created by ideological certainty.

Gary’s lectures and podcasts on the role of nutrition in metabolic health have been viewed millions of times on YouTube. His message endures because it is grounded in biochemistry, clinical reality, and compassion.

He is an advisory board member for the Society of Metabolic Health Practitioners (SMHP) in the US, and a founding Advisor & Ambassador for the Australasian Metabolic Health Society (AMHS).

“Science evolves by being challenged, not by being followed.” Dr. Gary Fettke

He continues to mentor health professionals navigating the same regulatory pressures he faced.

Why I Write

Gary’s story is a case study in how dissent is managed when it threatens entrenched interests — commercial, institutional, and ideological.

This Substack exists because of that realisation.

Here, I write about:

• how dietary and health guidelines became strict rule-books

• how ideology and industry shape public health messaging

• why ancestral food systems matter

• the evolution of ‘plant-based’ messaging

• the demonisation of animal protein and fats

• and how courage shows up in unexpected places

The system tried to make an example of Gary.
Instead, he became a moral compass.

Belinda Fettke

Last updated: December 2025

1. Gary Fettke’s experience closely mirrors what Australian public health researchers describe as corporate political strategies — the use of professional bodies, guidelines, and regulatory processes to marginalise dissent and protect dominant policy narratives (Mialon et al., Public Health Research & Practice, 2023).