Today's Issue: Is it really diabetes if you don't have complications?
Fascinating question and definitely worth an answer! Diabetes Health Magazine asks the question - is it really diabetes if you don't have complications? Nick Trubov wrote the article from the perspective of a person living with Type 1 diabetes since 1963. The mystery of blood sugar control will always be unsolved for those of us 'gifted' with diabetes. The word 'gifted' is spoken with tongue-in-cheek (and a choice finger gesture). However, there is no mystery that those people who were diagnosed with Type 1 and began insulin treatment with natural bovine or porcine insulins are better off today than those Type 1s who did not have the choice. Find out what has changed, then and now. Hint: look for words in the patent article like compromising and mixing and matching. Is it fair to sell insulin with His design compromised?
- Please support "Allies Voice" and SUBSCRIBE - it's FREE!
- Diabetes Health Magazine article: Is It Really Diabetes If You Don't Have Complications?
- Eli Lilly Patent (1997)
Allie--
I must confess . . . I haven't read the 1997 patent. I think, perhaps, I considered it an effort in futility; I spent the better part of a day, however, reading Lilly's original FDA APPLICATION (for the original approval of the FIRST rDNA genetically modified "insulin." That was an adventure--much like Alice's through the looking glass.
There were only self-annointed "experts" available to promote and/or evaluate the product; thus the guidelines were almost non-existent. The "comprehensive study" used to support Lilly's "human trials" were remarkably small. Somehow, it is NOT reassuring to me that the insulin-using population is now treated on the observations/tests of approximately 300 people. The early trials showed the few "troublesome" subjects" were tossed out of the trial; consequently, no deaths or "significant" side effects were observed among the remaining participants . . . and thus, synthetic insulin was judged to be equivalent to natural insulin.
Interestingly, whenever Lilly needed to show that their rDNA product was "just like natural" insulins, details that would indicate it was NOT (just like natural) were allowed to be marginalized as "not significant." Here's an example: The application stated: "No long-term carcinogenic or tetratogenic tests were requested or required. When these assay methods become compendial, compliance will be required.”
Isn't this saying, in effect, that "we don't know anything about long-term effects . . . and we don't currently have any way to evaluate them . . . but if/when we FIND a measure for evaluation, we will require such tests?" Ultimately, once approval was garnered, this disappeared down the rabbit hole, and any individual evidence/report that points to problems or complications is disparagingly labeled anecdotal--and DISMISSED.
After the ire that was provoked by reading the ORIGINAL application, I must admit, I didn't have the inclination to follow-up by reading further their distortions, omissions and lies.
Reply to this
As you can imagine, after diagnosis in 1956, I was one of those people with abnormal blood sugars who was put on Lilly natural beef insulin. (Incidentally, this diagnosis occurred after polio vaccination, a bout with chicken pox 6 months previously, and a summer/early fall where I worked 12-14 hours/day and lost about 10% of my body weight.) Interestingly, after diagnosis, in November, I was placed on Lilly’s newest long-lasting insulin, one shot per day. My “treatment” consisted of injecting 14 units of U40 (I weighed 110 pounds) and incorporating dietary changes. I did not have a single indicator until the fall of the following year that revealed full-blown diabetes. (IOW, 1 shot daily kept my fasting glucose test normal, and the 4x per day urine test showed no spillage.)
I have always wondered what intervention could have been put in place during this extended “honeymoon” period to give my pancreas a rest/recovery period.
Lawyers (many in the employ of powerful corporations) have long endorsed a philosophy that warns : if you don’t think you are going to like the answer, don’t ask the question. What you have recognized with C-peptide information is the fact science either didn’t recognize--or chose to ignore--this important molecule for obvious reasons. Just like with the alcohol market, if you choose to expand and promote your business, you will definitely have to look the other way when teens get killed, when statistics show that over 50% of domestic violence is alcohol-related, and every indication is that a larger percentage of the population is being turned into alcoholics at a younger age. (We won’t even mention collateral damage caused by alcohol-influenced drivers.)
What has always amazed me is that there has not been an insider/scientist with enough morals to step forward (after the fact) and at least admit this pursuit of synthetic insulin was, at the very least, unknown territory. To me, the other interesting feature is that (having KNOWN several company researchers/university professors in the field of ag-chemicals) some are willing to sell their souls as second-rate scientists, and merely “go along to get along.”
Your message today was very thought-provoking . . . I hope others will take a look back and see how past politics continue to drive current treatments. And what are the drivers—improved patient outcome or increased profits for the exploiters.
Reply to this
Hi Allison Love Beatty, Melody, Brent & AnyOne else ...
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2007/11/02/5548.html#comments
(A) HYPERglycemia is NOT a disease.
(b) HYPERglycemia does NOT negatively affect beta-cells.
(C) Relative-HYPOglycemia & HYPOglycemia ARE diseases and both negatively affect beta-cells.
Why do You think that so many Scientists argue as to the substantial safety of 'water-soluble' vitamins [alike glucose] EVEN being extremely safe when in excess [ie excessive blood concentrations] ... and by what means do many Scientists often claim the body naturally & safely excretes excess 'water-soluble' vitamins [alike glucose] ?
…Warm thanks; Nick Gracey, BSc(Hons) Medical Biochemistry, Birmingham University, UK, WATerian c/o www.AlliesVoice.com @ 18:08hrs MON.26.NOV.2007.
ps… Diabetes Is Caused By Food And Or Drug Administration Too Much And Or Too Often.
http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2007/04/19/no-food-no-problem
pps… Diabetes is NOT a disease … diabetes is the CURE [for relative-HYPOglycemia]…
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/24/8/950/_pdf
'Relative-HYPOglycemia As A Cause Of Neuropsychiatric Illness' @ Journal Of The National Medical Association @ Harry M Salzer MD @ January 1966 @ Vol 58 @ Number 1 @ Table 1 @ Figure 2.
Reply to this
Well 1 thing for sure is that Insulin is certainly No Cure for Diabetes - it's a constant Battle + for some a Struggle every day*
I never knew anything about this C Peptide Issue til U brought it up Allie* In fact even tho i was diagnosed in about 1971 + started on the Natural - i actually presumed that going to Novolin ge or Human Insulin? would be an improvement - Purer or whatever?
It's great that you are pursuing this cuz I doubt very few people would even Question something whole-heartedly Endorsed by all the Doctors + brought to us by our Friendly Neighbourhood Big Pharmaceutical Companies.
I hope U were able to enjoy a Nice Slice of Pumpkin Pie anyways for your American Thanksgiving!
Keep Up yer Great Work!!
Reply to this
Hmmm, well, I never thought about it, but when I was diagnosed with T1DM in 1976 at age 7, I used porcine insulin successfully for maybe the first 17 years. It wasn't until the synthetic stuff that I suddenly developed hypoglycemia unawareness, and I was told it must be because I'd had diabetes for almost 20 years. Perhaps that helps explain the fact that even today, 31 years later, I STILL have a higher-than-average endogenous C-Peptide level, meaning I retain at least some beta cell function. Now, the data suggests otherwise; that biosynthetic insulin actually causes glycemic variability and increases the body's immune response that causes the disease in the first place. Hyper and hypo glycemia are not diseases, glycemic variability IS.
I'm not convinced that animal insulin is necessarily the solution to all these issues, but we do know that there is little difference between porcine insulin and so-called "human" insulin analogs ... in fact, porcine insulin differs by just 1 amino acid, whereas Novolog/Novorapid and Apidra differ from human insulin by 2 amino acids each. Humalog contains the same amino acids, but the position of two of them have been inverted.
Bottom line: big pharma's arguments for keeping animal insulins off the market for reasons of safety is the ultimate in hypocracy -- the new analogs are worse than animal insulins ever were, and the long-term effects were never studied longer than 10 years when the FDA approved them. Patients today don't realize it, but they are actually the clinical trials on these insulin analogs, but I'm not sure we've yet seen the full extent of the adverse impact these things have had.
Reply to this
Don't you think the entire diabetic population would be outraged if they understood that the FDA approval of rDNA insulin was a sham . . . that long-term studies were actually quite brief, and that the entire population comprises an uninformed and unconsenting, ongoing "clinical" trial.
And how about the doctors--a whole new generation has emerged from med schools with BigPharma-skewed medication. Many of these NEW doctors have no knowledge or understanding of animal insulin--they have been cast on the heap of archaic medicines that served a brief purpose but no longer fit within NEW AND "BETTER" science?
Reply to this
Hi Allison Love Beatty, Melody, Brent, Billy Warhol, Scott & AnyOne else ...
A... Most glycemic variability is relative-HYPOglycemia [leading to nerve starvation] following HYPERinsulinemia [excess insulin] usually associated with eating carbohydrates too often.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/05/22/metabolism-and-ketosis/
B... Most Diabetic emergency challenges are in relation to HYPERinsulinemia [excess insulin] induced HYPOglycemia not HYPERglycemia.
http://bettercell.blogspot.com/2007/11/first-aid-at-whole-foods.html
C... Following HYPERinsulinemia [excess insulin] sudden treatment with excess glucose causes glycemic variability called relative-HYPERglycemia [ie 'meal-induced' oxidative stress (especially of nerve tissue)].
www.tinyurl.com/ynpp4g
1... What about honey in such an emergency?
http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/art99/ray.htm
HYPERglycemia aka "above average blood glucose" ... does NOT negatively affect beta-cells...
2... Keen to read any Peer reviewed reference that evidences otherwise. Please name at least one for discussion?
HYPERglycemia DOES affect the beta-cells and the body as whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucokinase
We are dealing with a system that strives for correction & balance in everything [the body].
http://www.cellmetabolism.org/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1550413107002562
Having continuous excess amounts of glucose can put more stress upon the beta-cells to manufacture MORE insulin [a & b peptide] & c-peptide in order to correct the existing imbalance ... and other systems [especially insulin resistance] may come into play trying to correct this state of in-equilibrium as well.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5836/369
HYPERglycemic stress is adapted to, by the body, provided sufficient water & rest/sleep time between eating ... HYPOglycemic distress diseases the body and is the foundation of all Diabetic challenges.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17159157
HYPERglycemia is usually 'treated' with HYPOglycemic drugs [commonly called anti-Diabetic drugs rather than anti-diabetes drugs].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-diabetic_drugs
3... Why do You think that so many Scientists argue as to the substantial safety of 'water-soluble' vitamins [alike glucose] EVEN being extremely safe when in excess [ie excessive blood concentrations] ... and by what means do many Scientists often claim the body naturally & safely excretes, from the body, excess 'water-soluble' vitamins [alike EXCESS glucose] ?
…Warm thanks; Nick c/o www.AlliesVoice.com @ 10:14hrs TUE.27.NOV.2007.
ps Mirror images of exactly the same molecule can have substantially different chemistry ... changing just the temperature of a molecule changes its quantum physics ... changing its HYDROphobic / HYDROphilic nature 'changes its changes' so profoundly that even a patent can NOT fix it...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070722134818.htm
db-IS-cure
Reply to this
Allie,
Why does C-peptide (or the lack of it in the case of bottled insulin) need to be replaced for those who were diagnosed and started on insulin therapy AFTER 1985 (or whenever it was that pig and cow insulin was no longer available). With a more thorough purification processes in place at that time the C-peptides that WOULD have been waiting in the cow's beta cell granules would have been removed, too, would they not?
No doubt there are a LOT of things that might make some of our lives "better" there are many things that would, now, be much worse if these advancements had NOT come about.
I am not saying that our bodies (most likely our nerve tissues) do NOT benefit from the presence of C-peptides, but they would be doing a lot better with a lot of things that they are not getting today. c-peptides are just one of many.
You made me look up c-peptide information and for that I am eternally grateful.
Thank you.
NT
Reply to this
I use animal insulins only since 1963 because of a lifethreatening allergy to synthetic "human"insulin.
Reply to this
Yosemite--
But . . . but . . . but . . . pharma says THAT can't happen. rDNA insulin is "just like the human body makes." And they spent a great deal of time (maybe even up to a year) doing "major comprehensive studies" (comprised of less than 500 people) PROVING that the only allergic response might be a bit of redness/swelling/itchiness at the injection site. Who do you want us to believe? Your life threatening ANECDOTAL experience? or the insulin cartel's (junk) science?
{Interestingly, a Lilly VP, speaking before HealthCanada ADMITTED that not all diabetics can use genetically-engineered insulin. Then his company removed all natural animal insulins from the U.S. market.)
Reply to this
.
Posted by Nicholas Dynes Gracey on 03 January 2008
www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2008/01/03/5611.html#comments">http://www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2008/01/03/5611.html#comments
Hi John White & AnyOne Else,
DiabetesHealth.com/read/2008/01/03/5611.html
John, in your opinion, is a 'glucose tolerance type test' a "stress" or a "distress" ?
…Warm thanks & AdrenalinLove
Nick Gracey, BSc(Hons) Medical Biochemistry, Birmingham University, UK, WATerian c/o www.DiabetesHealth.com @ THU.03.JAN.2008 @ 21:03hrs (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