http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMoa0802987v1.pdf
Download it and check out the graphs yourself. They appear to me to demonstrate clear cut improvement in the group that lowered their blood sugar more aggressively. Also check out the description of the drugs they used. All were put on Gliclazide (Diamicron), which is the sulfonylurea drug that is not approved for use in the U.S.. Most were also given Metformin and many were given insulin too. And of course, the high carb diet.
I don't, alas, have the time to go into this further now. I'll discuss it in 2 weeks when I'm back. It's a shame there isn't a Metformin ONLY study where people were encouraged to drop their carbs rather than follow the toxic "Eat your carbs! Cut out Fat!" advice that these people were given.
June 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, the treatment appeared more effective in reducing BGs, but more people died. The treatment worked but the patient died isn't much of an endorsement for lower is better management philosophies of BGs.
I cannot find a single credible randomized clinical trial demonstrating improved mortality with extreme BG control, regardless of the intervention used.
In ADVANCE there was NO difference in mortality between the two groups. One group had a lot less kidney disease.
And as you can see on the graphs there was a suggestion towards the end of the study that the tighter control group did have better cardiac health.
For the people who remained alive--which was most of them--the 21% reduction in kidney failure meant a massive improvement in quality of life.
Do you know who supports the research you are citing? I would suggest that the insulin cartel is the underwriter (silent or otherwise), seeking to break into and exploit yet another vulnerable population. I have pasted below several paragraph from another source that appear diametrically opposed to what you endorse. Can you reconcile?
You may agree or disagree but historical statistics on diabetes support that "genetic modifications" to biosynthetic human insulin analogues prove less effective at avoiding complications of diabetes than highly purified natural insulins from former years. In fact, human insulin analogues possibly catalyze the rate at which complications occur. Isn't the whole point of insulin to avoid complications of diabetes? So who's really winning here - the insulin industry or the captive consumer?
Anybody remember the research from 1983? Yeah, me neither. But thanks to modern technology and super powered databases - PubMed refreshed my memory with studies of days gone by. I'm sure the kingpins of the insulin cartel aren't as thankful for the fruits of the information superhighway - but I assure you I'm smitten as a kitten with it! Why you ask? It appears that information in 1983 (the BIRTH YEAR of biosynthetic human insulin) led a small group of researchers to the conclusion that using biosynthetic human insulin would catalyze the destruction of beta cells. Put on your science sunglasses - this study is blazing with jaw dropping evidence that Big Pharma wished we never knew. Genetically modified insulin is conveniently deliberately destroying beta-cell activity in type 1 & type 2 diabetes. Aren't you curious why the insulin analogue companies are pumping the gas to light the fire for doctors to treat people with Type 2 diabetes with insulin analogues as fast as they can ?
The study published in the Lancet (January 22, 1983) is titled, "Effects of new insulins on insulin and C-peptide antibodies, insulin dose, and diabetic control."
The researchers concluded that the use of insulins which more closely resemble the human form do not necessarily produce better diabetic control.
Researchers concluded from this study that patient insulin protocol should be based on antibody response. They studied how the body recognizes biosynthetic human insulin as a "foreign protein" - and treats it as a "proteina non grata" (aka we don't want your stinkin' insulin analogues!) What the immune system wants - the immune system gets.
A study done 15 years later explained why the use of biosynthetic human insulin was not preferential for ALL people with diabetes. The Type 1 immune system didn't want its own insulin in the first place. What makes Big Pharma so sure that biosynthetic human insulin would be the best CHOICE for treatment? According to Stephen Hall, investigative writer, "Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize the Human Gene" - not a gosh darn thing but the all-mighty dollar!
As the little lady from the old Burger King Commercials would say, "Where's the beef?" I've got your beef right here, lady. That study I mentioned in the last paragraph confirms the allegation that the insulin, itself, is what provokes the autoimmune attack on the beta cells. What does thi s mean? Insulin-dependent diabetes is the blueprint for the cash cow of Big Pharma - insulin analogues! In 2006 the cumulative bank between Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi Aventis was approximately $3.3 billion.
Fellow Type 1s - shouldn't we be demanding royalties for the industry capitalizing from our genetic misgivings?
I'm not a diabetic, but I come here to read about how diabetics can control their blood sugar, and improve insulin sensitivity, because I believe that the less insulin my pancreas needs to pump out to control my own blood sugar, the healthier I will probably be. I think that's one thing anonymous is missing here; insulin is a very necessary hormone. The trick's needing as little of it as possible.
Post a Comment