Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 8/28/2008 2:25 AM tony villar wrote:
  big pharma is really making all us fools to believe what they say.
  Reply to this
• 8/28/2008 8:02 AM Melody wrote:
  Perhaps the MOST heartening portion of your message is that there are SOME scientists still thinking outside the box--you know, that "box" defined by entrenched medical thought leaders at the behest of pharma. I worry that these trailblazers (whether the trail they are blazing is down the right path or the wrong path) will be muffled, threatened, silenced. Hopefully, freedom (of thought) cannot be easily quelled.
  Reply to this
• 8/28/2008 12:22 PM Glenn wrote:
  The perfect storm, I believe that the Phama industry found a very cheap way to manufacture insulin and by doing so this has allowed for higher profits for them but has also caused more health issues for Diabetics. In doing so they are feeding the business, one blogger on your web site said that he was 48 and in the last stages of renal failure, now he is on medicare, guess what all of his supplies is paid for by the government and an his insurance company. So every business is making money by him being sick. Who makes money big Phama, Metering companies, pump manufactures, and so on. Well guess who is the loser the Diabetic because with bad insulin complications and other issues such as having to go to the doctor because you can not control your blood sugar even he makes money. And if anything happens to the Diabetic well he or she had Diabetes and well guess what we can blame all issues on that. I believe that there is a total effort to keep us sick and dependant on doctor's, pharma, insulin, meters, and all the rest by keep us very sick. And by doing so everyone makes money and if you die well it was the diabetes and not the insulin or anything else. They want us to be sick and want us to have complications and want us to be suffering because it makes them money. No talks about a cure anymore, why because of money. And if you are working on a cure watch out because you will not get the funds you need because they don't want a cure. Natural insulins has worked for over 80 years and now all of the sudden it is no good. Why? Because of the profits of having diabetes. We are now fighting for our lives here and until people realize that there are better treatments and better insulins such as natural insulins the profit machine will keep rolling as we will keep dying. For anyone who has just become a type 1 diabetic please talk to older more experienced Diabetics as they will tell you it's not you but your insulin and do research to find out really what is going out there. No one in these industries cares about you they just want your money and then for you to dye. I hate to say it but I really do believe that this is the plan as I have had it for 30 years and I am still alive because I use natural insulin other I know are now gone because they did not. Good Luck and Good Night.
  Reply to this
• 8/28/2008 7:15 PM Sanktpauli wrote:
  The discussion of leptin for hyperglycemia control reminds me of the interest a few years ago regarding the use of vanadium for the same purpose. It was unfortunately found that while vanadium can replace insulin fairly effectively, it is toxic at the levels required to preserve a normal blood sugar level.
  
  From everything I have read, c-peptide could well play a decisive role in preventing diabetic complications. Some X factor is needed to explain 1) why many animal species live for a long time with huge blood sugar levels but never show complications; 2) why it is difficult to find animal models of the complications of type 1 diabetes, but very easy to make animals type 1 diabetics; and 3) why it is the case that the complications and blood sugar control do not perfectly track each other, so some with high average blood glucose never get complications, but others with near normal levels develop severe complications rapidly. The variable c-peptide levels in human patients and the absence of a c-peptide deficit in animals could explain these current puzzles. There was an interesting Japanese study which showed that type 1 diabetics with 'fulminant' diabetes, in which the autoimmune attack was so sudden and intense it destroyed every trace of the beta cells quickly, suffered ten times worse complications at the same blood sugar level as suffered by diabetics who had suffered a much more gradual and dramatic, and thus probably a much less totally destructive, initial autoimmune attack. Did these patients do so much better because their beta cells were producing significantly more c-peptide than were those of patients with fulminant diabetes?
  
  If so, then we should all be taking c-peptide injections. I have not checked to see yet whether biological supply companies have human c-peptide for sale of injectable grade. Does anyone else know if we might obtain it ourselves rather than waiting another century for the medical researchers to wake up to its benefits?
  Reply to this
• 8/30/2008 11:24 AM Nicholas Dynes Gracey wrote:
  .
  One answer to Sanktpauli's 'C-peptide' question ...
  
  "... Does anyone else know if we might obtain it ourselves rather than waiting another century for the medical researchers to wake up to its benefits? ..."
  
  ... is likely this:-
  
  1. Current non-human insulin is questionably called "human insulin" [why?] but it is a GM synthetic drug compromise having just the A & B-peptide components of the 3 peptides present in genuine Human proinsulin ... Current non-human proinsulin is called "human proinsulin" but it is a GM drug compromise but at least includes a synthetic version of the A & B & C-peptide components of the 3 peptides that are present in genuine Human proinsulin. Imagine how much better genuine Human proinsulin is?
  *
  http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.ORG/cgi/content/abstract/37/3/276
  
  2. The acute auto-immune associated 'immunoillogical aspects' referred to in type 1 diabetes 'HYPnOtism' is, in fact, a natural system of adaptative down-regulation of beta-cells that physiologically helps Humans to prevent, for example, HYPOglycemia unawareness, sudden fainting & schizophrenia one or all of which are the clearly foreseeable side-effect-side of 'leptin induced diabetes' and/or leptin without looking to see why proglucagon is so helpful 'therapy'.
  *
  www.Relative-HYPOglycemia.cOM
  
  3. 'HYPERglycemia' [EG from proglucagon] is substantially always very safe providing sudden 'bends-type-reductions' are prevented via excessive exercise, leptin, insulin and/or proinsulin [for that time].
  *
  www.Olivia-Raby.cOM
  
  4. 'HYPERglycemia' is defined by the lack of dilution, by water, of glucose in blood and is associated with an elevated CONCENTRATION of glucose [EG 110 mg per dL = 6.1 mmol per L] that becomes 'a coma stop eating safety valve' as a function primarily associated with DEHYDRATION associated with a lack of water drinking and excessively often CARBOphilia [for that time].
  *
  http://alliesvoice.cOM/2007/11/27/todays-issue-how-to-avoid-diabetes-this-season.aspx#Comment
  
  5. Insulin, in place of water and rest from CARBOphilia, has been associated with 'addiction to insulin' ...
  *
  http://alliesvoice.cOM/search.aspx?q=eisenbarth&sc=tconcom&dt=a&al=
  
  6. The journey back to genuine proinsulin [IE including genuine C-peptide] starts with an awakening [from HYPnOtism] as to how genuine proinsulin was reduced + an open-minded determination to be 100% www.UnDrugTreated.cOM
  
  7. Please email to discuss ... You can find my email address at www.HYPO-thesis.cOM
  
  8. AnyOne specific question answered in exchange for $25 or more to my 'HYPO-glycemia research', via PayPal, EG in respect of the abovementioned "Gracey HYPO-thesis" that freely evidences a factual CAUSE of diabetes [the HYPO-glycemia EFFECT of which is treatable for less than $25 (far far less than the $25,000,000 mentioned earlier)].
  
  ...Warm thanks & Adrenalin Love
  Nick Gracey, BSc(Hons) Medical Biochemistry, Birmingham University, UK, WATerian (C) SAT.30.AUG.2008 @ 17:14hrs c/o www.LIFE2345.cOM
  .
  Reply to this
• 8/31/2008 4:46 PM GemWinds wrote:
  Interesting article on Leptin. Will it ever become used.. who knows. Its like the oil industry, although there is technology to run clean efficient cars the industry is still fueled by dinosaurs. Pharma will stop at nothing to always push for what makes more money.
  
  Allie.. have you ever come across ingredients that are in insulin?
  I discovered years ago that all lilly insulin and the porcine insulin by wockhardt all have two ingredients which are deadly. M-Cresol and Phenol. both are used in industrial cleaning supplies etc etc. If go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol you will see that phenol was used in extermination camps by the nazi's, at a higher purer amount.. but the point is we're getting trickles of this toxin daily.. and because its oil based it will lodge in the liver untill a proper cleanse is done. My point is.. with all the technology these companies are exposed to they have to put these constituents in it. WTF!
  Reply to this
  1. 9/3/2008 6:00 PM Kelly wrote:
     GemWinds,
     I listed the ingredients in response to another one of Allie's posts. Go to http://alliesvoice.com/2008/03/11/allies-voice-whats-in-your-bottle.aspx. Do a search on Kelly and/or scroll down about halfway. I list all of the ingredients for the most common insulins and what they mean...
     Kelly
     Reply to this
• 9/6/2008 2:40 AM KellyJayne wrote:
  Hi Allie,
  
  I have been reading your site for a long time now, but have not posted before. But, I have much to ask you! You seem to know so much about all this stuff we have to inject ourselves with on a daily basis, I have multiple autoimmune diseases and have to submit myself to all sorts of additional drugs on top of these synthetic insulins, what I am asking is, is there an email address I can contact you on personally? I am particularly interested in switching to animal insulins! I have asked my doctor but am not surprised when he says no!
  
  Thanks so much, i hope we will get in touch
  
  Kelly.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/7/2008 9:48 PM Kelly wrote:
     Kelly,
     My doctor said the same thing. I insisted though and got it. There are all sorts of reasons why Lantus and Glargine are not the best insulins. I can't remember where I posted it, but I did an analysis of the insulin types and posted it to Allie's blog on insulin types somewhere about 9 months or so ago... In short, after doing my research, I insisted and got the prescription to get porcine. My doctor was incredibly undermining and even tried shaming me and threatening me. After the experience, even though I got the insulin I wanted, I felt the doctor was so bad that I switched doctors and got another prescription from my new doctor instead - my point is: you CAN insist on getting the prescription and you CAN switch doctors. I did both. Funnily enough though - you don't need a prescription anyway. You can buy porcine insulin directly through GetCanadianDrugs.com, online. I switched about 6 months ago and am glad I did. I won't say "good luck" - you don't need luck. If you want to switch insulins to porcine, what you need is determination - so, "good determination"!
     Kelly
     Reply to this
• 9/7/2008 10:13 PM Kelly wrote:
  Allie,
  As you've done so often in the past, your blog spurred my own research efforts further. Thank you for the post. I wanted to add a couple of things I've found. I have also been looking into leptin and have long thought that if I could improve my sleep, I could improve my leptin levels and reduce my insulin needs. When I became hyperglycemic and was diagnosed as diabetic, I complained ALL THE TIME that I felt SOOOO tired/zombie-like, that it felt like the exogenous insulin was draining me of life energy. Everyone just kind of patted me on the head and ignored me. But, it hasn't changed. And when I don't take insulin, I feel A TON more rested. (There have been a handful of times I haven't needed insulin because of my exercise levels....)
  
  Anyway, a friend recommended I look at the effects of exogenous insulin on leptin levels after I told her about your post. I did. This is what I found. It's fascinating stuff. The quotes are from the abstracts. I plan on hunting down the papers tomorrow.
  
  (1) "Administration of a single non-convulsive dose of insulin (1.0 IU/kg) which produced no observable gross behavioral changes in rats, reduced rapid eye movement (REM) sleep 100% in the first 3 hours, and 82% by the 4th hr, reaching control subject levels by the 6th hr.... A 44% reduction in REM sleep time was observed in insulin treated animals compared to that of a saline treated control." (Life Sciences, 1982 Aug 23; 31(8): 763-9 "Sleep; sequential reduction of paradoxical (REM) and elevation of slow-wave (NREM) sleep by a non-convulsive dose of insulin in rats"). I swear I don't get good sleep until 4AM.
  
  I appears from another article I found that the cause is not from the effects of insulin and hypoglycemia itself, but from the direct effects of insulin on brain chemistry of neurotransmitters... (Life Sciences, 1988; 42(15): 1425-9 "Reduction of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep by glucose alone or glucose and insulin in rats").
  
  Another paper I found directly looked at human versus porcine insulin in patients and the differences the sleep quality. This one isn't a blinded study, but "subjects rated their sleep as more sound and their state in the morning as more relaxed during porcine insulin treatment." It further states that "results indicate that human insulin may affect brain functions differently compared to animal insulin undernear- normoglycemic conditions." (Sleep, 1998; 21(1): 92-100, "Human versus porcine insulin in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: differences in sleep and the sleep EEG during near-normoglycemia). I felt my sleep improved with porcine.
  
  It's such a catch-22 - you're diagnosed diabetic, they put you on insulin, the insulin disturbs your REM sleep, the lack of REM lowers your leptin levels and decreases your insulin sensitivity, so they put you on more insulin...
  
  So here in your post, researchers give rats a big dose of leptin. Could it be that the leptin dose breaks the cycle???
  
  Kelly
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 1:53 AM kellyjayne wrote:
  Hi Kelly!
  
  Thanks for your reply! So you are glad you made the switch? care to share why? like do you feel better on it? I have tried searching around for that post you made about 9months ago, but cannot find it, or cannot seem to!
  
  Kel x
  Reply to this
  1. 9/9/2008 10:59 PM Kelly wrote:
     Hi Kel X,
     Well, you have my permission to skewer me for sending you on a wild goose chase. I went looking for my post, and I too, couldn't find it. And then, I realized I posted it to Allie's former blog, www.thediabetesblog.com, not this one. Instead of referring you since that blog may/will probably disappear since it's no longer supported, I'll repost it here following this post, so it'll have full margins. I am so sorry! Then I'll come back and respond to your other question...
     Kelly
     Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:02 PM Kelly wrote:
  Kellyjanye,
  Here's the research I did on the various insulins before I made the switch to porcine (about 5 months ago). Due to the length limitation, it'll be in several chunks. The original was posted here: http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2007/09/05/the-insulin-evolution/#comments
  Kelly
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:04 PM Kelly wrote:
  Hello all,
  
  Thanks Allie, for your blog. I totally agree that the move to GE insulin was a highly calculated for-profit business move, unsupported by scientific fact and evidence, and driven by greed, hope, fear and poorly informed consumers. (In the U.K. by the way, animal insulins weren't taken off the market due to public outcry - an outcry that was non-existent in the U.S.)
  
  I wanted to follow up in response to Jello's comment in regard to "a lot of unsupported speculation in the blog and responses, without reference to sources of information". I appreciate your neccessity to see the facts and wholeheartedly agree with Melody, on her Informed Consent comment. After doing my own research on the topic, the only area in my opinion where the existing body of research lacks is on the question of the level, impact and importance of insulin antibodies. (If someone has some information to add in that area, I'd really appreciate seeing it. I'm still trying to decide on which basal insulin to switch to though I've narrowed it to NPH or Hypurin Porcine.)
  
  For those interested in the nitty gritty, here are the pro's and con's I've found on each type of insulin currently available along with the references to support it.
  
  (1) In regard to Glargine:
  1. Category C drug in pregnancy. (FDA.gov)
  2. High IGF-1 qualities. 6-8x IGF-1 response as genetically-engineered (GE) Human insulin. IGF-I receptor affinity 641+/- 51 (glargine) vs 100 (GE human insulin). (8)
  3. Increased mitogenicity (induction of cell division) with glargine vs Humulin R in a malignant cell line (osteosarcoma cells (Saos/B10). (8)
  4. Glargine was more mitogenic in potency than B10Asp, an insulin analog that increased tumorigenic potentential in female Sprague-Dawley rats.(8)
  5. 3-grade progression of retinopathy in some T2D using glargine for >1 year.
  6. Short history. Approved by FDA on 4/20/2000 (7 years); no obvious problems have arisen yet.
  7. Of note, there was a Cochrane Protocol issued in April, 2005 to study effects of glargine relative to NPH, Lente and Ultralente.(3)
  
  (2) In regard to Detemir:
  1. Category C drug in pregnancy. (1)
  2. Very short history. Approved by FDA in June 2005.
  3. Requires significantly larger dose, expect ~ 2x UL dose likely due to high bonding hexamer.
  4. Short shelf-life (only 28 days) = expensive and difficulty in traveling. Shelf-life at 86F = 42 days.
  5. Unknown antibody response. It looks like it's less than GE Human. (1)
  6. Higher required dose = higher dose response (antibodies/growth factor)
  7. Unknown placental transfer. (1)
  8. Cannot be mixed with other insulins.
  9. On the pro side of things, it shows a 5x decrease in potency for binding IGF receptor than Humulin R. IGF-I receptor affinity 16+/- 1 (detemir) vs 100 (human insulin). (8)
  Reply to this
  1. 6/26/2009 4:42 PM Annie wrote:
     I found this interesting however you have incorrect information listed. #3 significantly larger dose is incorrect. You are looking at dosing of twice a day compared to once a day. In Detemir once a day, doses are comparable to glargine. Using Detemir twice a day, doses are comparable to NPH. researcher: Klein glucose clamp
     
     #4 Short Shelf life??? Detemir has the LONGEST life of any other insulin- 42 days. Glargine & NPH 28.
     Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:07 PM Kelly wrote:
  (3) In regard to NPH insulin:
  1. Cochrane Review: human insulin was introduced without proof of being superior to animal insulin. Moreover, studies have not assessed patient-centered outcomes like patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and diabetes-related morbidity.(5)
  1. May be possible to improve profile trying a 3x or 4x/day dose to get a better profile, but this regime may significantly increase difficulty in making modifications/lifestyle.(4)
  2. Introduced in 1950; 57 yr history.
  3. Cochrane protocol issued August 23, 2006: Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus. (10)
  4. Category B in pregnancy.
  
  (4) In regard to Hypurin Bovine:
  1. 70 year history.
  2. Same HbA1C response as GE and analog insulins. No clear advantage of one species over another with regard to HbA1C. (5)
  3. Good profile.
  Neutral. Onset: 30-60 min, Peak: midrange, Duration: 6-8 hr.
  Isophane. Onset: 2 hr, Peak: 6-12 hr, Duration: 18-24 hr.
  Lente. Onset: 2 hr, Peak: 8-12, Duration: up to 30 hr. Introduced in 1953; 54 yr history.
  Protamine Zinc. Onset: 4-6 hr, Peak: 10-20 hr, Duration: 24-36 hr.
  4. May resolve lethargy/fatigue.
  5. Cochrane Review: no identified substantial differences in the safety and efficacy between GE human and animal insulins.
  6. Cochrane Review: concluded that the evidence did not support the contention that treatment with human insulin per se affects the frequency, severity or symptoms of hypoglycaemia.
  7. Cochrane Review: about 50% of the studies were published before 1987 (shortly after introduction of GE insulins) and 70% were sponsored by the manufacturers of animal and human insulins, most studies were of poor methodological quality ('C'), only 3 provided a power calculation
  8. Structurally, bovine insulin differs from human GE human insulin at 3 positions (B30, A8 and A10).
  9. Cochrane Review: it seems logical that human insulin, which is identical in chemical structure to pancreatic insulin in man, should offer additional advantages in diabetic patients, though this was always disputed.(5)
  10. Cochrane Review: One crossover study looked at patient preference: 3/15 opted for porcine and 8/15 opted for human. (The review was almost exclusively on porcine, not beef.)
  11. Cochrane Review: Beef insulin was associated with higher insulin antibody levels than pork or human. (5) In one study comparing bovine, porcine and GE human, porcine produced a 60% lower antibody response than did GE human and a 900% lower response than with bovine.(13)
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:08 PM Kelly wrote:
  12. The diabetic death rate has increased 244% since GE insulin was introduced. Since hypo unawareness has been reported to occur more often with GE insulins and death by hypo is often mistaken for heart failure, it is very plausible that death by hypo is primarily responsible for the increase. 1980 thru 2002: The number of hospital discharges for heart failure as the 1st listed diagnosis and diabetes as the 2nd diagnosis increased dramatically from 97,000 to 334,000 = 237,000 increase [244%]. While deaths from heart failure declined for the rest of the population.(19)
  a. 1982 Death Rate: 14.9/100,000 (only animal insulin available)
  b. 1983 GE insulins introduced. Death Rate: 15.5/100,000.
  c. 1995 Beef insulin discontinued. Death Rate: 22.6/100,000.
  d. 1996 Diabetes Definition lowered (% diabetics increased, diluting death rate) Death Rate: 23.3/100,000.
  e. 1998 Beef/Pork discontinued. Death Rate: 24/100,000
  f. 2002 Death Rate: 25.4/100,000 (increase of 244%)
  
  (5) In regard to Hypurin Porcine:
  1. Structurally, porcine insulin differs from human GE insulin by 1 amino acid (at the carboxy-terminal alanine, position 30 of the B-chain).
  2. One study reports finding antibodiy titers above 0.6 U/l more frequently in patients treated with porcine (13/101) versus GE human (3/83) or 12.9% vs 3.6%.(15) (0.5U/l is considered the normal range.) Another said they were the same, and another said 44% with GE human vs 60% porcine. It's all over the place.
  3. Studies vary in their results on antibody response with porcine insulin compared to GE human insulin and the studies are difficult to compare because of the different assays for insulin antibodies. In one, insulin antibody production was no different for pork and GE human insulin over a 5 year period. (9) In another, "it has been shown in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetic patients treated with human insulin that insulin antibodies still arise but ina smaller percentage of patients and in lower titres. In studies in patients previously treated with animal insulin, GE human insulin caused a decrease in insulin antibodies in some studies, but in others no change was found. (12)(13)
  4. Cochrane Review: Beef insulin was associated with higher insulin antibody levels than pork or human. (5) In one study comparing bovine, porcine and GE human, porcine produced a 60% lower antibody response than did GE human and a 900% lower response than with bovine.(13)
  5. One study reported that metabolic control, insulin dosage and B-cell function in both porcine and GE human were similar throughout a 18 month trial. (18)
  6. While the clinical relevance of antibodies remains controversial, one study reported that at 9 months, the group without antibodies had higher C-peptide responses to a meal, longer duration of remission and a lower insulin requirement than the group with antibodies. (17)
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:10 PM Kelly wrote:
  (6) In regard to Humulin R:
  1. Cochrane Review: no information on late complications such as problems with eyes, kidneys or feet are existing. (2)
  2. Cochrane Review: 76% of trials could clearly be identified as industry sponsored. 88% of studies were of poor methodological quality ('C'). For studies of 'B' quality, the difference in HbA1c was 0.0% for analogues over regular insulin. For those with pharmaceutical funding, the difference was -0.1%. Bias cannot be excluded.
  3. Cochrane Review: no trial provided information on eventual carcinogenicity.
  4. Category B in pregnancy.
  5. Cochrane Review: short-acting insulin analogues were almost identically effective to regular human insulin in long-term gycaemic control with similar episodes of hypoglycaemia. (2)
  6. Cochrane Review: no significant differences in overall hypo compared with analogues. (2)
  7. Cochrane Review: short-acting insulin analogues were almost identically effective to regular human insulin in long-term gycaemic control with similar episodes of hypoglycaemia. (2)
  8. Cochrane Review: incidence of severe hypo lower with analogues vs regular (median 21.8 vs. 46.1 episodes/yr). (2)
  9. Introduced in 1983; 24 yr history.
  
  (7) In regard to Humalog:
  1. Category B drug in pregnancy. (FDA.gov)
  2. IGF-1 response 1-1.5x higher than GE Human.
  3. Scarce data exists on lispro use in pregnancy.
  4. A few cases have been reported associating lispro with retinopathy. (1)
  5. Inhibit thrombocyte function, inhibits apoptosis in tumour (insulinoma) cells and protein degradation (7)
  6. Numerous reports of increase in hypo unawareness with GE human insulin.
  7. No evidence of lispro crossing placenta in cord blood.
  8. Same antibody response as Humulin R.
  9. There is speculation that the shorter action of lispro may decrease its immunogenicity relative to Humulin R.
  10. No reported adverse effects on neuropathy, no increase in congenital malformation rates or early pregnancy loss and no increase in antibody response.
  11. Introduced in 1996; 11 yr history.
  12. IGF-I receptor affinity 156 +/- 16 (lispro) vs 100 (GE human insulin). (8)
  
  (8) In regard to Aspart:
  1. Unknown placental transfer (1)
  2. Higher antibody response than GE Human (1)
  3. Lower IGF-1 response than GE Human (1)
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:11 PM Kelly wrote:
  References:
  
  1. Preece R, Jovanovic L. New and future diabetes therapies: are they safe during pregnancy? The Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2002; 12: 365-375.
  
  2. Siebelhofer A, Plank J, Berghold A, Jeitler K, Horvath K, Narath M, Gfrerer R, Pieber TR. Short acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. no.: CD003287. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD003287.pub4.
  
  3. Roberts DE, Van Walleghem N, Chang HM, poluha W, Cheang MST, Moffatt MEK, Taback SP. Glargine versus other basal insulins (NPH, Lente, or Ultralente) fo the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Protocol) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD005271. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005271.
  
  4. Rossetti P, Pampanelli S, Fanelli C, Porcellati F, Costa E, Torlone E, Scionti L, Bolli GB. Intensive replacement of basal insulin in patients with Type 1 diabetes given rapid-acting insulin analog at mealtime. Diabetes Care 2003; 26:1490-1496.
  
  5. Richter B, Neises G. 'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1, Art. No.: CD003816. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003816.pub2.
  
  6. Fireman P, Finebert SE, Galloway JA. Development of IgE antibodies to human (recombinant DNA), porcine, and bovine insulins in diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 1982; 5: Supplement 2:119-125.
  
  7. www.IDDT.org">www.IDDT.org. Reviews and reports. The safety of insulin analogues - should patients be concerned? http://www.iddtinternational.org/reviewsandreports/index.htm (May 1, 2007).
  
  8. Kurtzhals P. Shaffer L, Sorensen A, Kristensen C, Jonassen I, Schmid C, Trub T. Correlations of receptor binding and metabolic and mitogenic potencies of insulin analogs designed for clinical use. Diabetes, 2000; 49: 999-1005.
  
  9. www.IDDT.org">www.IDDT.org. The GM 'Human' versus natural animal insulin debate. http://www.iddtinternational.org/gmvsanimalinsulin/index.htm (May 2, 2007).
  
  10.Vardi M, Nina A. Intermediate acting versus long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes mellitus. (Protocol) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006297. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006297.
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:12 PM Kelly wrote:
  11. Hirsch I. Insulin analogues. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 352: 174-83.
  
  12.Storms GEMG, Lutterman JA, Laar AV. Efficacy and immunogenicity of human and monocomponent porcine insulin: a randomized double-blind study in diabetic patients previously treated with insulin. Netherland Journal of Medicine; 1986, 29: 296-302.
  
  13. Venekamp WJRR, Van Der Hooft JC, Jacobsen L, Van Schaik CL. Immunogenicity of bovine, porcine and semisynthetic human insulin. Netherlands Journal of Medicine; 1985, Supplement 1, 28: 57-58.
  
  14. Ciaraldi TP, Carter L, Seipke G, Mudaliear S, Henry RR. Effects of the long-acting insulin analog insulin glargine on cultured human skeletal muscle cells: comparisons to insulin and IGF-1. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism; 2001, 86: 5838-5847.
  
  15. Luyckx AS, Daubresse JC, Jaminet C, Scheen A, Lefebvre P. Immunogenicity of semisynthetic human insulin in man. Long-term comparison with porcine monocomponent insulin. Acta diabetologica latina, 1986; 23(2): 101-106.
  
  16. Van Haeften TW. Clinical significance of insulin antibodies in insulin-treated diabetic patients. Diabetes Care, 1989; 12:641-48.
  
  17. Heding LG, Marshall MO et al. Immunogenicity of monocomponent human and porcine insulin in newly diagnosed Type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic children. Diabetologia, 1984; 2: 96-98.
  
  18. Marshall MO, Heding LG et al. Development of insulin antibodies, metabolic control and b-cell function in newly diagnosed insulin dependent diabetic children treated with monocomponent porcine insulin. Diabetes Research, 1988; 9: 169-175.
  
  19. Chart: Data & Trends, Diabetes Surveillance System, Hospitalization for Heart Failure as First-Listed Diagnosis, Number (in Thousands) of Hospital Discharges with Heart Failure as First-Listed Diagnosis and Diabetes as Secondary Diagnosis, United States, 1980-2002 http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/cvdhosp/hf/table1link.htm [Note: when one drops dead for no findable cause, their heart stops thus [Heart Failure]
  
  Regards,
  Kelly
  Reply to this
• 9/9/2008 11:56 PM Kelly wrote:
  Hi Kellyjayne,
  
  You also asked, "So you are glad you made the switch? care to share why? like do you feel better on it?"
  
  In answer, yes, I am glad I made the switch. The reasons are numerous.
  
  First, I made the switch because the research evidence supported it. There was no evidence to support switching everyone to GE human insulin from porcine in the late 80's when they did. It was purely a marketing/money-making move by the pharmaceutical industry, unsupported by the research. The medical community bought it hook, line and sinker. When I coupled that with the safety problems of both Lantus and Glargine summarized above, the switch to porcine made sense. Porcine has a very long and safe history. The hard part wasn't the choice - the hard part was going against the medical establishment, learning to find my voice, and learning to take decisions regarding my own health care fully into my hands.
  
  Second, while I'm not comfortable with the idea of animals losing their lives to "save" mine, I am more comfortable taking a glandular product - one that is "live" as opposed to one that is a straight man-made chemical brew. (Although I have to caveat this as I believe GE insulin has a base of porcine.) In any event, since I made the connection of the source of my hyperglycemic condition (short story; chemical exposure to an chemo drug/antibiotic called Norfloxacin), I've become very skeptical about Western medicine's approach of using highly distilled and purified drugs. The human body just hasn't evolved to handle that kind of potency. It’s so different from the body's natural make up, that I've come to think of these drugs as nearly universally doing more harm than good, along with the medical doctors who prescribe them.
  
  On how I feel, as I mentioned, I’ve only been on porcine for about 5 months now, and I’m still using humalog as my short-acting insulin. But, the first thing I noticed was that I slept noticeably better. It wasn't like "fireworks" better, but it was noticeable and consistent. I absolutely cannot sleep if I'm low or going low, which is a clear sign I've got to get up and go check my sugars. Since exogenous insulin does affect REM sleep, this was big for me. I couldn’t sleep when I was low before on ultralente either, but it feels a bit different, and I like the feeling better than when I was on ultralente. With porcine, I generally seem to notice the low coming on earlier. With ultralente, I’d pretty frequently be at 40 and bombing badly, miserably drinking juice and holding on until my sugars came up. I think this has happened once since I switched.
  
  In regard to control, I’d say it's about the same. The porcine NPH exits my system much more rapidly than did the ultralente, which I also like – it feels “cleaner” for lack of a better way to describe it. At 12 hours, if I don’t take another shot, I’ll really notice my bg rising.
  
  That’s about it. I'd love to hear from other's experiences too!
  
  Kelly
  Reply to this
  1. 9/16/2008 11:32 AM MARY TURNER wrote:
     HI Kelly my name is mary i have been diabetic since 8years old im now 36 and im a very unstable diabetic im on novarapid through the day and my long acting one is levimere i do 5injections a day also im losing eyesight and have neurology in my arms/hands so i just get on with it you were saying you cant sleep when bloodsugars r low well im the opposite i tend to fallasleep as ive been into the fitstage especially when pregnant i lost 2babies due to diabetes thats where the loss of sight started from also not being told when a child as today they know more now than they did in the 80s but i just get on with it all my love mary sorry about going on as its good to talk
     Reply to this
     1. 9/20/2008 12:49 PM BetterCell wrote:
        You obviously NEED a more intelligent and experienced Physician to help you manage your Diabetes!!
        Reply to this
• 9/10/2008 8:55 PM Kelly wrote:
  Another thought came to mind after I posted...
  
  After I did this research above, I posted some additional research I did on insulin preservatives in response to another one of Allie's awesome blogs (to read it, scroll down about halfway on http://alliesvoice.com/2008/03/11/allies-voice-whats-in-your-bottle.aspx). In regard to insulin preservatives, the one it seems to be most concerning is m-cresol; and this research further reinforced the decision of switching to porcine N over both Lantus and Glargine, which contain significantly more m-cresol.
  Kelly
  Reply to this
• 10/8/2008 11:50 AM Kelly wrote:
  Allie,
  
  Last night I watched a new movie out called SimplyRaw (aka Raw for 30 Days, www.rawfor30days.com). They've had the trailer out for forever, but the movie has only been released through a screening or now, if you buy the DVD. I got tired of waiting, so I bought it.
  
  It was well worth watching - they put 6 diabetics on a raw diet for 30 days. 2 of the 6 were Type 1s; one of the Type 2s didn't finish. Of the T1s, one got off insulin entirely in 30 days, and the other probably could if he'd work through the other issues he's dealing with - but even then, he went from 70 units a day to 5.
  
  I think this is a leptin story. Clearly it is for the Type 2s (it's similar to The Rosedale Diet I think, which aims at increasing leptin sensitivity), but I wonder if it also is for the Type 1s.
  
  Has anyone else out there seen this movie??? or truly tried a raw diet for 30 days? Does anyone know what their leptin levels are? (high? low? please share!) I would love to participate in a group of people who take a leptin test, then go raw for 30 days and connect here for discussions on what's going on. Wouldn't that be interesting?
  
  Kelly
  Reply to this
  1. 10/13/2008 11:32 AM Kelly wrote:
     Also,
     Has anyone gone to The Tree of Life? or participated in their Reversing Diabetes program? (This is the place where the Simply Raw movie was filmed.) I would love to hear about other's experiences...
     Thanks,
     Kelly
     Reply to this
• 10/8/2008 1:23 PM Nicholas Dynes Gracey wrote:
  .
  'RAW' is an auto-immunity [aka inflammation 'cooler' / allergic 'reaction-reducer' / liver cell 'reliever' (re unRaw heat deNATUREd foodstuffs)] ...
  *
  www.HYPO-thesis.cOM for the CAUSE and CURE of diabetes... www.tinyurl.com/32z33w
  CURE auto-immunity [100pc Fresh Organic Raw Liquidiet]... www.tinyurl.com/3cw8eu
  CURE diabetes [Relative-NormoGlycemia (RNG)]... www.tinyurl.com/2guhfd
  CURED diabetes [Relative-HYPOglycemia-Distress (RHOD)]... www.tinyurl.com/yno298
  PREVENT ... HYPOglycemia-Unawareness (HOU)... www.tinyurl.com/2y3zpq
  PREVENT ... Relative-HYPERglycemia-Distress (RHRD)... www.tinyurl.com/ynpp4g
  PROVIDE ... Relative-NormoGlycemia (RNG)... www.tinyurl.com/3bcn7j
  Eat not less but less OFTEN... www.tinyurl.com/299t3f
  Eating less OFTEN is profoundly more healthy than eating less... www.tinyurl.com/ys63gk
  Eating too OFTEN sustains & CAUSES all diabetes... www.tinyurl.com/2j7p3t
  PROTECT from HYPERglycemia-Dehydration-Coma (HRDC)... www.tinyurl.com/2mcyx6 &
  ...from HYPOglycemia-Distress-coma (HODC) ... FOR Liquidiet... www.tinyurl.com/2ohk2a
  Diabetes is not a disease ... www.tinyurl.com/2uxb99 ... diabetes is the CURE...
  ...for ... Relative-HYPOglycemia-Distress (RHOD)... www.tinyurl.com/36qxn3
  Eating-less-OFTEN-Fasting-more-OFTEN-Loving-more-OFTEN www.CELIBATOR.cOM
  http://www.DiabetesHealth.com/read/2007/11/29/5564.html#comments
  AdrenaLINE... www.1MealPerDay.cOM ..."Lovingly-I-Fast-Every-23hrs-45mins-OrMore"
  *
  www.UnDrugTreated.cOM
  
  ...Warm thanks & Adrenalin Love
  Nick Gracey, BSc(Hons) Medical Biochemistry, Birmingham University, UK, WATerian (C) WED.08.OCT.2008 @ 19:17hrs c/o www.LIFE2345.cOM
  .
  Reply to this
• 10/12/2008 8:18 PM Kelly wrote:
  Does anyone out there know if there is a test to measure leptin sensitivity? Not free serum leptin levels, but leptin sensitivity? (Kind of like how Type 2s have a ton of insulin, but are insulin insensitive, I'm wondering if there is a test to measure how sensitive one is to leptin...) I tested my free serum leptin levels (they were 7.2 ng/mL); but, now I'm thinking that's not the right test to seek given recent research, including the paper Allie refers to here.
  
  My thinking is: these researchers gave T1 rats a huge dose of leptin, and it stopped the hyperglycemia. They think it acts to shut down the liver from producing glycogen. It seems to me that they're saying the body is hyperglcemic but it's insensitive to the free serum glucose levels, so the liver continues to secrete glycogen thinking it's fasting or glucose starved. Then if you give a huge shot of leptin, it screams at the liver that you just ate a huge meal, the signal is received, and the liver stops secreting glucose, at least until the shot of leptin eventually wears off.
  
  So - what's the mechanism? If you were to go on a raw diet or other leptin and glucose resensitizing diet for a spell, would that also do the same thing - by reteaching the liver to sense that the glucose is around? So - if you were to eat a raw diet, and take gymnema sylvestre to rebuild pancreatic beta cells degenerated into laziness from exogenous insulin use, could that be the reason the raw diet worked for the T1 people in the Simply Raw movie?
  
  Anyway - does anyone know of a leptin sensitivity test?
  Thanks,
  Kelly
  Reply to this
• 5/13/2009 4:33 AM Ethan - Copy Watches wrote:
  yeah, diabetes treatment is always accute and gathers so many readers. I have nothing to add to what is already written, just wish all of you nice health and happiness in life...
  Reply to this
• 6/29/2009 5:02 AM retaw wrote:
  nice post
  Reply to this

Leave a comment