Recent Comments:
Why don't insurance companies insure diabetic kids?
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 11th 2007 8:32AM Allie--
I find the ADA response MOST resprehensible. This organization claims to function for the benefit of ALL diabetics--they certainly solicit ALL diabetics for fund-raising purposes! This quasi-corporation is ideally situated to form an insurance pool of their own to address diabetes-specific issues such as insurance . . . but I suppose the profit-margin would be too small. It's much easier to accept outright gifts from industry than to actually WORK to better the lives of ALL diabetics.
Dr. Bernstein answers your questions on September 19th
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 11th 2007 8:09AM I expect this is simply "a business decision"--the same kind Lilly made when they began (and finished) removing natural animal insulins from the market. I also suspect it was done at the behest of pharma/insulin--you know, along the lines of, "Hey, AOL, we'd be happy to advertise on your site ($$$$$) if only you could get rid of that pesky little DiabetesBlog.com site."
We agree with others readers' comments that this is a truly informative site (because of the contributors) and well-distanced from any commercial stance. Now you can appreciate that less well-informed bloggers, who willingly "play the game" of spinning BigPharma messages "SUCCEED." Remember this quote, "Freedom of the press belongs (only) to those who own the press."
The evolution of GM insulin 1983 - present
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 6th 2007 7:39AM Kelly--
1. Germany, too, managed to keep natural animal insulins available because of public outcry by the citizenry. There is a wealth of information on their website: http://www.pro-tierisches-insulin.info
2. As you journey through the pluses/minuses of the various "basal" insulins, you do not have as an option Beef Ultralente. Why? Because this, the only TRUE basal insulin (24-36 hour duration and no peak) was the first to be removed from the U.S. market. Beef UL is acknowledged in Lilly's rDNA patent applications as the only commercial product meeting these parameters. The complex crystalline structure of Beef UL made the pharmacokinetics less variable during heavy exercise. What you are now "studying" for basal qualities were formerly considered "intermediate" insulins.
3. Re: insulin antibodies. The only information I have immediately at hand was in the approval application that Lilly submitted to the FDA. It was acknowledged that there WERE antibody responses in the test population, but downplayed the significance of such responses. Obviously, the FDA did not request nor require additional information, which is amazing considering that the antibody responses were witnessed in an extremely small group, and the group was "observed" for an incredibly brief period.
4. Great job with the substantiation.
The evolution of GM insulin 1983 - present
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 5th 2007 4:40PM Jello--
You question undocumented claims and conspiracies.
You should consider that we all live in a world of conspiracy. Whether we consider the insulin I've used since 1956, or the electric car--there are always profit-mongers "conspiring" to do away with good products in favor of more profitable, but lesser, products. You questioned PROOF of the superior merits of animal insulin for 95% of the diabetic population. You might want to purchase a copy of Dr. Arthur Teuscher's new book on insulin—Insulin: A Voice for Choice. He is a professor of medicine and also a practicing endocrinological/diabetes specialist. After reading his book, and considering the facts presented by this world-reknowned diabetic specialist, get back to me if you still feel "there is no proof."
A link to the book publisher/seller is: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=showproducts&searchWhat=books&ProduktNr=233657
Read Lilly’s patents—you’ll be surprised that even their own researchers recognized that rDNA insulin could not meet the standards of natural products. Check out these patents—and read them carefully.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5534488.PN.&OS=PN/5534488&RS=PN/5534488
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5922675.PN.&OS=PN/5922675&RS=PN/5922675
Remember the words of Patch Adams, M.D. “In the ideal medical practice, healing becomes a loving, human interchange—not a business transaction.”
If you truly are interested in further substantiation, let me know. As to “conspiracy”—I can only state that sometimes “conspiracies” are unintended events that evolve—especially when large sums of money are involved.
The evolution of GM insulin 1983 - present
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 5th 2007 1:47PM Jello--
Your points are well-taken. I can only imagine that those "allergic" diabetics who had NO CHOICE except animal-based insulins saw the advent of rDNA human insulin as a true blessing. rDNA insulin was ADDITIVE to treatment options. But, when the natural animal insulins were withdrawn from the market, it appeared that (1) the insulin manufacturers just plain didn't give a damn about the segment who found they could not use their new "latest, greatest and most expensive" offerings; and/or (2) they chose to streamline their products, increase profitability, and FORCE ALL diabetics to use what THEY (the insulin manufacturers) chose to offer. Their arbitrary removal of needed insulins diminished treatment choices.
Debates will continue regarding this subject, but the underlying issue is one of FREEDOM OF CHOICE and the freedom of speech that allows competing interests to supply sufficient information so patients can make INFORMED decisions and to have alternatives.
The insulin cartel and diabusinesses are not alone in their abuse of money and power in their pursuit of ever-increasing profits from vulnerable patients. But as diabetes continues to proliferate, and consume a disproportionate amount of healthcare funding, it will become increasingly urgent to address issues that have long managed to stay beneath the radar of medical professionals and educators, media, government regulators and patients.
The evolution of GM insulin 1983 - present
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 5th 2007 9:01AM Allie--
Thanks for the information. I've wondered why, with emerging "latest and greatest" contributions by the insulin cartel we have not seen a reduction in the complications associated with diabetes. Even "tight control"--the current ruling paradigm in diabetes treatment--does not seem to improve any numbers except those associated with the bottom lines of diabusinesses.
Perhaps my greatest fear is that, like the long-hidden negatives now associated with women's hormone replacement therapy, a damning "truth" may be revealed regarding rDNA technology/products.
Vegetable fiber a first-rate diabetes defense
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 1st 2007 9:15AM Diane--
Just a consumer-oriented comment . . . one that certainly doesn't detract from the benefits of fiber. I recently saw a TV segment about "baby carrots." Carrots are indeed high in fiber; but consumers are paying premium prices for what is perceived to be a "premium" product--pre-washed, conveniently packaged BABY CARROTS. The reality is that "baby carrots" are formed from the detritus that otherwise would be un-sellable, or recycled as animal fodder. Misshapen, oversized, severely-blemished "adult" carrots are salvaged from the refuse bins, committed to a shaping-machine that whittles away the undesirable parts and magically produces "baby" carrots.
I'm sure these "baby" carrots are high in fiber, and certainly a better snack-food choice that many other things. But doesn't it gall you that the perception exists that convinces us to pay premium prices for salvaged, non-premium goods!
Lobbying the feds don't come cheap
The Diabetes Blog
Sep 1st 2007 9:06AM Scott--
I would further suspect that these "educators" work to carve out a grandfather-loophole. If the products that are now creating their wealth--products and processes already around for quite awhile--were held to the same standards that they seek for generic manufacturers, they might find themselves hoist by their own petard.
When all (current) insulin manufacturers have to do is prove that their latest, greatest product LOWERS BLOOD GLUCOSE and DOESN'T KILL the consumer (immediately), the bar is really quite low, isn't it? The effort, then, becomes one of maintaining the low bar requirement for those already 'in the club' while raising it to unattainable heights for the 'wannabes.'
CNN coverage of diabulemia is bananas!
The Diabetes Blog
Aug 29th 2007 8:23PM Devon--
I LOVE ALLISON, too. I believe she is doing more than sitting behind a computer screen--but "An Army of One" when it comes to warring with those who seek to enslave us with new medicines, new protocols, new 'guidelines' and new gadgets won't cut it. Did YOU voice your view to CNN? Did YOU write your Senators/Congressman today? How about the Congressional Diabetic Caucus--did you let them know how they could help? Did YOU submit yet another article to your local paper (knowing it would be rejected)correcting misperceptions that the media continue to endorse? Did YOU talk to you doctor? Was he listening???? Did you contact the ADA to let them know they certainly are not serving ALL diabetics, as their solicitations imply? (Isn't this fradulent advertising/solicitation?) Did you contact JDRF and ask them to revisit their current grant-funding decisions?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step . . . and we all need to step out so Allie will no longer be an Army of One. There's lots of work to be done . . . have YOU enlisted?
(And yes, I'll be happy to share copies of two of the letters I sent today . . . just didn't want to clutter up the comment site.)
CA man leads police on bizarre low-speed car chase
The Diabetes Blog
Aug 29th 2007 11:49AM Diane--
I've tried for years to encourage our "named" charities (JDRF, ADA) to put on an educational campaign with some of our charitable contributions alerting federal, state, county and municpal law enforcement officers, as well as ALL first responders, that diabetes should be foremost in their minds when pulling someone over for traffic violations or when at the scene of a traffic accident that appears to have a non-sensical basis. Many diabetics are in jail today because low blood sugar caused them to harm someone else. This travesty is being overlooked by our charities because they do not want to admit today's guidelines and insulins are dangerous.
