Today’s Issue: The blasphemy of C-peptide Removal
Posted by Allie Beatty at 11/7/2007 2:21 PM and is filed under Halle Berry,Big Pharma,Research,c-peptide,news 
All insulins sold by Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) , Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) and Sanofi-Aventis (NYSE: SNY) are completely stripped of C-peptide. E.coli are injected with genetically modified insulin A and B peptide chains and not the C peptide chain. How did Big Pharma justify removing an important part of insulin that protects people from diabetes complications? In spite of better blood sugar control this missing piece of insulin may explain the rise in diabetes complications and rising number of people dependent on insulin.
- Please support Allies Voice and SUBSCRIBE - it's FREE!
- Insulin Antibodies related to duration of Insulin Therapy in Type 2 diabetes
- C-peptide in Type 1 diabetes prevents and improves diabetes complications
- Therapeutic benefits of C-peptide (Karolinska Institute)
- Marshall University Research on C-peptide
But, but, but, Allie--Big Pharma is giving (or rather selling) us PURE product . . . we no longer have to use those old dirty animal products. After all, who knows more about creating insulin--Mother Nature/God/natural creatures OR Big Pharma? (Pardon the sarcasm--I just couldn't help myself.)
Reply to this
Big pharma has a better idea: give us a product that virtually causes complications, then sell us other drugs to treat the complications. Its simple from a business perspective, only patients are calling their bluff and the FDA is giving them a hard time about approving their complications treatments. What do they do now?!
Reply to this
Keep up the great work, Allie.
Uncle David
Reply to this
.
Posted by Nicholas Dynes Gracey on 03 January 2008...
http://www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2008/01/03/5612.html#comments">http://www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2008/01/03/5612.html#comments
Hi Patrick Totty & AnyOne else.
5 star article on C-peptide ... most appreciated ... follow-up with B-peptide & A-peptide (?)...
http://www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2008/01/03/5612.html
WHY 35+ YEARS OUT OF DATE ?
Levels of insulin [made up from an A-peptide chain & a B-peptide chain] need to be very carefully regulated and Athletes commonly have relatively extraordinary low basal levels of pancreatic-insulin. The less pancreatic-insulin the better ... unless more insulin is accompanied by an appropriate level of C-peptide and/or REGULATORY glucose insulin resistance [GIR] ... then arguably the more brain-insulin the better ...
> 1007 tinyurl.com/3aypqg [mristow@mristow.org]
USUALLY the more GIR the better and FORTUNATELY the 5 major types of diabetes ... type 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 diabetes ... all involve various levels of glucose insulin resistance ... for example please comment on this reference...
> 1206 www.tinyurl.com/y7znor [hmdosch@sickkids.ca]
> 1206 www.tinyurl.com/2odurt [hmdosch@sickkids.ca]
With proper adoption of C-peptide ... most type 1 Diabetics would probably have been diagnosed as type 1b, type 1.5 or type 2 Diabetics [and therefore more attention could have been focussed upon retaining beta-cell activity & mass]...
Continued...
.
Reply to this
.
Continued...
PROVING 'TYPE 2' DISPROVES 'TYPE 1' ...
Paul Tubiana says: "...It is very difficult to cure diabetes when insulin dependent diabetic children wrongly believe that they have type 1 diabetes, when in reality they have type 2 diabetes (insulin resistance) because they were not told by healthcare professionals about the stimulated C-Peptide test ... diabetics are being wrongly misled and confused to believe they have type 1 diabetes, just because they use insulin ... Many basic questions about diabetes have remained unasked and unanswered over the past 30 years ... Why has the C-Peptide test which has existed since the early 1970's not been utilized?
When the question is asked: Have most juvenile, insulin dependent, and type 1 diabetics been individually C-Peptide tested? The answer will be: NO. It will be surprising to most non-diabetics and diabetics alike that Endocrinology (the study of glands) often does not check the pancreas (a gland.)
It is wrong to automatically assume that juvenile, insulin dependent, or "type 1" diabetes is caused by a problem with the pancreas. Type 2 diabetes means that the pancreas works and even produces insulin above normal levels (also known as insulin resistance). Type 2 diabetes is not caused by the pancreas. Proving type 2 diabetes disproves type 1 diabetes.
Juvenile diabetes is an outdated term that should no longer be valid with the C-Peptide test. The C-Peptide test is virtually unknown to most diabetics although it has existed since the early 1970's.
We feel that it is time that diabetic children and their families be freed from the evil lie of "type 1" diabetes and to give them new hope that their health condition is actually within reach of a cure because they actually still produce enough of their own insulin. It is time that all insulin dependent, juvenile, and so-called "type 1" diabetics be Stimulated C-Peptide Tested or at least be informed about the existence of this test. And that by exposing this it will result in more targeted research which will benefit all diabetics. ..."
> 0107 www.tinyurl.com/2arzxs [DiabetesCaseStudy.com]
SO...
So it appears that MORE than 90% of Diabetics have "type 2" diabetes.
UNdrugTREATED type 2 diabetes is 'curable' [relatively fast if desirable] without being ANYdrugTREATED for 'glucose-lowering'.
If say 90% of Diabetics, diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, really had type 2 diabetes [eg possibly Halle Berry] ... but because of the lack of administration of a simple test [the '1972' C-Peptide test] were mistakenly diagnosed as type 1 ... then virtually all Diabetics, before being ANYdrugTREATED, for 'glucose-lowering', were actually type 2 Diabetics and therefore CURABLE 'as-of-1972' [ie more than 35 years ago].
www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2007/11/02/5548.html
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-peptide
NOW [more than 35 years since 1972] ...
Continued...
.
Reply to this
.
Continued...
Now in my opinion, founded upon more than 27 years of diabetes associated research, is that UNdrugTREATED type 2 Diabetics, WITH the BENEFIT of C-PEPTIDE are STRONGER & HEALTHIER than the average Person of the same age.
BEFORE...
Before being ANYdrugTREATED for 'glucose-lowering' ... it is reasonable to believe that evidence MUST exist to provide proof that being ANYdrugTREATED, for 'glucose-lowering', does not HARM type 2 Diabetics.
Before or since 1972 ... Where is the proof [ie comparing a 'type 2' Diabetic Group entirely UNdrugTREATED] that being ANYdrugTREATED, for 'glucose-lowering', does not HARM type 2 Diabetics?
PLEASE identify [or have your Doctor or diabetes Nurse/CDE or diabetes clinic identify] ANY Peer-reviewed scientific reference, with an UNdrugTREATED control [ie comparing a 'type 2' Diabetic Group entirely UNdrugTREATED for 'glucose-lowering'], that has ever been produced, that has ever evidenced that type 2 Diabetics are less healthy UNdrugTREATED for 'glucose-lowering'?
What if there is ZERO reference [ie comparing a 'type 2' Diabetic Group entirely UNdrugTREATED for 'glucose-lowering'] anywhere, before or since 1972, that provides Peer-reviewed evidence that ANYdrugTREATED, for 'glucose-lowering', is better than UNdrugTREATED, for 'glucose-lowering', for all type 2 Diabetics?
Please AnyOne identify just 1 such reference [ie comparing a 'type 2' Diabetic Group entirely UNdrugTREATED for 'glucose-lowering'].
In the continued absence of any such reference it is reasonable to suppose that every type 2 Diabetic 'complication' arises as a result of the treatment of the 'glucose insulin resistance' that was actually keeping type 2 Diabetics, WITH the BENEFIT of C-PEPTIDE, stronger & healthier than the average Person ... in the first place.
> 1107 www.tinyurl.com/3bcr7h [LoveDiabetes.com]
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ? ...
Presumably, in respect of 'Who is ultimately responsible for any consequential side-effects of 'glucose-lowering'?' ... such a reference should be producible by a GP or an MD or any other prescribing Physician BEFORE or during treating ANY of their type 2 Diabetic Patients who have had their C-PEPTIDE tested and quantified...
WHEN WERE YOUR C-PEPTIDE LEVELS MOST RECENTLY TESTED?
Continued...
.
Reply to this
.
Continued...
The Hippocratic Oath says: "...To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death..."
> 0107 www.aapsonline.org/ethics/oaths.htm [AAPSonline.org]
... 2006 http://tinyurl.com/2gtyp4 [ Roy_Poses@Brown.EDU]
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
... 1950 http://tinyurl.com/345uzh [TIME.com]
... 2007 http://tinyurl.com/3xv8y2 [ lsn@lifesite.net]
> 0407 www.tinyurl.com/2dad25 [ Kauffman@hslc.org]
... 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2jphjr [ rob.butler@uhns.nhs.uk]
... 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2c3yj8 [ malcolm@llp.org.uk]
> 0107 www.tinyurl.com/2tt8ho [healthexpert]
> 0107 www.tinyurl.com/2jlt7v [funniinnit]
... 2007 http://tinyurl.com/yqmqnj [ Kauffman@hslc.org]
... 2006 http://tinyurl.com/nx2bk [ BBC.co.uk]
> 0103 www.thincs.org [ ravnskov@tele2.se]
WHAT IS YOUR STRATEGY FOR GRADUALLY INCREASING YOUR C-PEPTIDE?
In my opinion type 1 Diabetics can benefit a great deal from glucose insulin resistance [which appears to be one of the PROTECTIVE roles of C-peptide]. One of the functions of GIR is to PROTECT the body from relative-HYPOglycemia. Apparently, from reading BetterCell's blog, it appears BetterCell's glucose insulin resistance is relatively LOW ... especially on the day of his recent alarming challenges with apparent absolute-HYPOglycemia...
> 1207 www.tinyurl.com/2k6979 [ BetterCell.blogspot.com]
GM insulin treatment is really Insulin A & B-peptide treatment and it is increasingly apparent that most type 1 Diabetics would benefit from MORE glucose insulin resistance / C-peptide.
> 0107 www.tinyurl.com/2eyxy3 [ john.wahren@ki.se]
What's new about this understanding is understanding the profound similarities, in common, between type 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 diabetes ... all of which are apparently triggered & sustained [ie 'the CAUSE'] by 'cyclical neural starvation' of glucose availability aka "relative-HYPOglycemia".
Diabetes is NOT a disease [it is the associated 'relative-HYPOglycemia' that is the 'disease'] ... diabetes aka HYPERglycemia [that can exist for years] is a 'physiological body state' that protects the nervous system [especially the brain] from the extraordinary dangers of ... beta-cell and/or HYPERinsulinemia [excess insulin] associated ... "relative-HYPOglycemia" [which starves the nervous system of fuel and can result in profound challenges within minutes or even seconds with little or zero notice].
In my opinion UNdrugTREATED type 2 diabetes [aka "cellular dietary restriction"] is a protective adaptative response which, by means of protecting the brain from "relative-HYPOglycemia", can be expected to reduce or eliminate type 3 diabetes aka 'Alzheimers'.
> 0107 www.tinyurl.com/2farm9 [temorgan@usc.edu]
Continued...
.
Reply to this
.
Continued...
In respect of ALL the opinions included within & associated with this comment ... please AnyOne ... ALSO ask your current licensed Specialist for advice, including the provision of supporting Peer reviewed references, evidencing their understanding of this important matter. Pending adoption of the "Gracey HYPOthesis" ... Particularly recommended are Dr Richard K Bernstein's & Dr Joel Furhman's treatments to help minimize relative-HYPOglycemia or Dr Bernarr's CURE for diabetes.
> 0367 www.tinyurl.com/2uxb99 [Dr Allan Cott]
> www.HealSelf.org/Diabetes.html [DrBernarr@aol.com]
…Warm thanks & AdrenalinLove
Nick Gracey, BSc(Hons) Medical Biochemistry, Birmingham University, UK, WATerian c/o www.DiabetesHealth.com @ THU.03.JAN.2008 @ 18:23hrs (C) "I-Fast-23hours-45minutes-EveryDay-OrMore"
The "Gracey HYPOthesis" for the CAUSE and CURE of diabetes...
CURE... www.tinyurl.com/2guhfd
Eat not less but less OFTEN...
Eating too OFTEN causes & sustains all diabetes...
Eating less OFTEN is profoundly more healthy than eating less...
CAUSE... www.tinyurl.com/32z33w
Diabetes is not a disease ...
... diabetes is the CURE for relative-HYPOglycemia...
http://www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2007/11/29/5564.html#comments
.
Reply to this