The controversy surrounding the so-called “Tayyibat System” continues to fuel debate online. Presented as an alternative approach to nutrition, the diet relies on a strict division of foods into “permitted” and “forbidden” categories and has gained significant popularity on social media. Its rise has sparked widespread discussion among health professionals and the public alike, reflecting a broader trend in which health information is increasingly shared outside traditional medical and scientific channels.
Understanding the popularity of such narratives requires looking at the environment that allows them to spread. Growing distrust in the healthcare system, combined with the power of digital platforms and their algorithms, has created fertile ground for simplified, emotionally charged health advice. As a result, complex scientific information is often replaced by easy-to-share stories that can have a powerful impact despite lacking solid scientific backing.
Tayyibat: Real diet or misleading health advice?
Tayeb Hamdi, physician and researcher in health policy and systems, has raised concerns about the Tayyibat protocol, arguing that it is far more than a harmless dietary trend. According to him, it represents a system of profit-driven and ideological misinformation that uses medical language to promote dietary practices that go against what health experts broadly agree on, with documented consequences for vulnerable patients.
Hamdi told TelQuel Arabi that the protocol was developed by Egyptian physician and therapeutic nutrition consultant Diaa Al-Awadi. The system is based on what he describes as a “moral-physiological” approach that divides foods into two categories: foods labeled “evil” or “toxic,” which should be completely avoided, and foods presented as naturally healing or beneficial.
Among the foods the protocol discourages are chicken, most dairy products, vegetable oils, white sugar, legumes, raw vegetables, leafy greens, and citrus fruits. Foods promoted as beneficial include rice, potatoes, dates, honey, olive oil, ghee, red meat, and certain fruits.
Hamdi argues that the protocol’s popularity in Morocco reflects a double failure: the healthcare system’s inability to communicate effectively with the public and digital platforms’ failure to curb misleading content.
As interest in the protocol grows among people looking for answers to health and nutrition concerns, warnings about the risks of following its recommendations without solid scientific evidence have become increasingly urgent.
When diet claims clash with science
According to Hamdi, the Tayyibat protocol runs counter to modern nutrition science and directly contradicts the principles of the Mediterranean diet, whose benefits in preventing disease and improving overall health have been confirmed by hundreds of studies. It also fits poorly with Morocco’s own food culture and dietary traditions.
He specifically criticized the protocol’s exclusion of legumes, raw vegetables, and whole grains, stressing that such recommendations go against a large body of evidence in nutrition and digestive health. Research shows that these foods play an important role in maintaining healthy gut bacteria and supporting the immune system.
Al-Awadi has stated in widely circulated videos that tobacco is not harmful, that insulin is a “deception,” and that sugar is not dangerous
Removing them entirely from the diet, he warned, may lead to digestive problems, imbalances in gut bacteria, increased inflammation, and a higher risk of chronic digestive diseases, including colorectal cancer.
Hamdi also questioned the protocol’s recommendation that people eat until they feel completely full without paying attention to calorie intake. Such an approach, he said, conflicts with modern nutrition principles, which emphasize adapting food intake to a person’s age, level of physical activity, and health condition while maintaining a balanced and varied diet.
He also criticized the recommendation to drink water only when thirsty. Health guidelines, he noted, encourage people to stay hydrated throughout the day rather than waiting until they feel thirsty. Thirst is not always a reliable signal, particularly for infants and older adults, who may be at greater risk of dehydration.
Health claims lacking scientific evidence
Another major concern, Hamdi said, is the protocol’s promotion of saturated fats despite their well-known health risks.
The diet encourages high consumption of red meat, animal fats, certain cheeses, and starchy foods. Such eating habits, he warned, can raise levels of LDL, often referred to as “bad” cholesterol, one of the main risk factors for heart disease. Scientific research has long linked excessive consumption of saturated fats to a higher risk of cardiovascular problems.
Some of the protocol’s most controversial claims go beyond nutrition and touch on highly sensitive medical issues.
According to Hamdi, Al-Awadi has stated in widely circulated videos that tobacco is not harmful, that insulin is a “deception,” and that sugar is not dangerous. These claims, he said, are not only scientifically inaccurate but potentially dangerous.
He pointed to documented cases in which mothers of diabetic children reportedly stopped insulin treatment after becoming convinced that it was unnecessary and that the disease could be cured through the protocol. Such decisions, Hamdi argued, represent a dangerous departure from established medical treatment and pose a direct threat to patients’ health.
The protocol’s rejection of eggs, dairy products, and raw vegetables also clashes with mainstream nutrition science, he added. These foods are widely considered key components of a balanced diet. Eggs provide high-quality protein as well as important nutrients such as choline and vitamins B and D. Raw vegetables help preserve nutrients that can be lost through cooking, including vitamin C and folate. Dairy products remain an important source of calcium and vitamin D, especially for people at greater risk of bone disorders and osteoporosis.
When dietary advice becomes a documented health risk
Hamdi stressed that no major clinical studies or comprehensive scientific reviews have demonstrated the protocol’s effectiveness or long-term safety. For that reason, many nutrition experts have openly criticized it as a personal theory lacking a credible scientific foundation.
He also noted that responses to questions raised by the Egyptian Medical Syndicate about the protocol’s scientific basis have largely consisted of promises that its principles would be “proven later,” which he sees as further evidence of the lack of supporting evidence today.
The consequences, Hamdi said, have not remained theoretical. He claims that patient deaths have been linked to following this type of dietary advice.
Amid growing concern, Egyptian health authorities imposed a complete media blackout on all audiovisual and written content related to Al-Awadi on May 3, 2026. The move followed statements from Egypt’s Ministry of Health and Medical Syndicate, which said his content was harmful to public health and posed a direct threat to citizens’ lives.
For Hamdi, these recommendations cannot be separated from the pursuit of influence and visibility on social media. The advice, he argues, is not only unsupported by evidence but often directly contradicts established scientific knowledge.
He also believes the search for online virality and the financial rewards that come with it should not be overlooked, particularly since the protocol’s creator has built a parallel business around selling products presented as part of the “Tayyibat” system.
From a trust crisis to the platform economy
To understand why such claims resonate, Hamdi argues that two interconnected factors must be considered: the reasons people lose trust in the healthcare system and the mechanisms that allow misinformation to spread.
Many people, especially those from vulnerable and middle-income groups, as well as patients with chronic illnesses who feel they are not receiving adequate care; experience frustration and disappointment with the system.
While these frustrations may be understandable, they create fertile ground for alternative narratives. Unscientific advice often offers what conventional healthcare struggles to provide: time, attention, simple explanations, and a seemingly clear interpretation of illness. As a result, such messages can be more convincing to large segments of the public.
Economic pressures also play a role. Limited health insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket healthcare costs, particularly for lower-income groups, often push people toward inexpensive solutions presented as quick fixes or miracle cures.
Hamdi also highlighted the use of religious and cultural references in some of these narratives. By invoking religious language or Quranic references, promoters give their recommendations a moral and spiritual dimension. As a result, criticism based on medical evidence can sometimes be perceived as criticism of religion or culture, making these claims more difficult to challenge.
At the same time, such narratives often draw strength from anti-establishment and conspiracy-minded thinking. Pharmaceutical companies, the food industry, and conventional medicine are portrayed as corrupt or engaged in coordinated deception. This framing feeds what Hamdi calls the “click economy” while reinforcing narratives of persecution, heroism, and sacrifice that encourage emotional attachment rather than critical thinking.
“The influencer who says ‘chicken is killing you’ will attract far more attention than a nutritionist explaining the principles of a balanced diet,”
He added that certain educational and cultural environments can also contribute to the spread of such claims. In settings where memorization often takes precedence over analysis, information may be repeated without questioning sources or checking facts, weakening critical thinking and encouraging passive acceptance.
The anatomy of misinformation
According to Hamdi, protecting public health requires coordinated action by both the state and society to raise awareness and combat misinformation.
One of the main reasons false information spreads, he explained, is confirmation bias—the tendency to believe information that supports our existing views while dismissing information that challenges them.
Emotion also plays a central role. Misinformation often exploits fear, anger, surprise, and outrage. Because emotional content is more memorable and more likely to be shared, it spreads quickly and reaches wider audiences.
Another factor is repetition. The more often people encounter a claim, the more likely they are to believe it, even when it is false. False information also tends to benefit from being more dramatic, surprising, and easier to understand than balanced scientific explanations.
Science, Hamdi noted, often involves uncertainty, probabilities, and competing interpretations. Misinformation, by contrast, offers simple and definitive answers that are easy to understand and share.
Social media algorithms reinforce this dynamic by promoting content that generates strong reactions and engagement. As a result, sensational or polarizing messages often receive far more visibility than evidence-based information.
“The influencer who says ‘chicken is killing you’ will attract far more attention than a nutritionist explaining the principles of a balanced diet,” Hamdi observed.
Personal testimonials, whether genuine or fabricated, also spread rapidly, while serious complications and negative outcomes often remain out of sight.
The problem is made worse by weak public communication around science and health. According to Hamdi, doctors and health professionals are still not sufficiently present on social media, and when they are, their messages are not always adapted to the public through clear and accessible formats. This leaves a vacuum that is often filled by unqualified influencers.
He argues that there is a structural failure to explain medical information in simple, accessible language.
Hamdi concluded that information overload and the constant flow of content online encourage people to rely on quick mental shortcuts when evaluating information, making them more vulnerable to misinformation. Studies have shown that false news not only spreads faster than evidence-based information but also reaches larger audiences and is shared far more widely, increasing its impact across digital platforms.
Written in Arabic (TelQuel Arabi) by Khadija Kaddouri, translated and edited by Amina Kadiri
