A study published in 1991, comparing the efficacy of human synthetic insulin to porcine insulin states "there is no reason to treat all insulin-requiring diabetic subjects with human insulin except those who have developed insulin allergy".

In light of this study - how was rDNA synthetic human insulin able to monopolize the US market?

The absence of highly purified porcine insulin in the US is probably (my guess) because it's cheaper to manufacture. The saturation of the US market with rDNA synthetic human insulin seems to be treating the masses with a specialized need existing in only a few individuals. But the top line of this marketing campaign must have had a good effect on the bottom-line, too. Sales reps convinced doctors to switch their patients because it was going to become nearly impossible to continue getting animal derived insulin. The insurance companies (the guys picking up the tab) must've loved this option, too. Why wouldn't they? It's better - right?

I'm going to do a self-analysis of the stuff, based on my IAA, IA and C-peptide levels. I've been on human synthetic insulin since 1985. I've never been on highly purified porcine insulin. The IAA is my insulin autoantibodies -- the antibody attacking my islets. My IA is the insulin antibody attacking the injected insulin and my c-peptide will tell me how much insulin my body is making. After 12 weeks on the highly purified porcine insulin - I'm going to do my labs again. I'm curious to see if these levels move, at all. If my c-peptide levels rise, that's a GOOD indicator what's best for Allie Beatty.

So is the best choice for me the best choice for all? Probably not. But at least I can see for myself - even if it costs me a pretty penny to get my hands on highly purified porcine insulin. Nobody said being an experimentalist was cheap. However, never exploring my options would deeply discount the value of experience.