I don't mind high sugars as much as I loathe lows. Personally I'm not so ruffled by shots either (but my liver begs to differ). However, in a message posted on The Islet Foundation, Pfizer reported that insulin-dependent diabetics declared they most hate taking shots. Was this the warm-up for the Exubera campaign? Here's a fact I support! A close second to this hatred is the hypos. Any diabetic will confess -- hypos are unforgiving. So what if you could catch two birds with one capsule?

I must reiterate the scientific genius behind the Oramed gel caps. The encapsulated insulin bypasses destruction in the stomach cavity. It reaches an entry point in the intestines where it reports for duty to the liver. This allows the liver to resume command of the glucose metabolism, just like Mother Nature intended. Whey you inject insulin - you are overriding the livers ability to monitor blood sugar and putting yourself in the line of fire for the dangerous lows. We all know this state of derangement too well. You won't find my lows picture on a milk carton if I happen to lose it, either.

Frequent episodes of hypoglycemia (even mild ones) force the brain to become accustomed to the low glucose. Unfortunately this also causes suppressed signaling of adrenaline, the livers last resort before dangerous lows. More specifically, the glucose transporters located in the brain cells are damaged from frequent episodes of hypoglycemia. So what was once the hypo threshold for the brain to signal adrenalin release becomes lower. Clinically, the result is hypoglycemic unawareness. Down with the shots, down with the lows and big ups with the future of diabetes control! Now we're getting somewhere.

I'm outraged at the coverage CNN provided on diabulemia. They accuse diabetics who suffer with the condition of doing the wrong thing. CNN neglected to address the cause of diabulemia. The drug all insulin dependent diabetics must use is a synthetic hormone that has been genetically modified. It is nothing like human insulin or any natural vertebrate insulin, for that matter.

The fact that 1 in 3 diabetics choose to take less insulin is not because they wish to eat more food. It is a reaction provoked by an inadequate and dangerous genetically modified drug. The reason a diabetic would take less insulin is to avoid experiencing the unnatural side effects the insulin is causing. CNN sensationalized diabulemia and put a damaging veneer on the victims without fully researching the facts. Genetically modified insulin does not penetrate the blood-brain barrier like natural human insulin. Genetically modified insulin distorts hormone responses to hunger. Genetically modified insulin does not protect diabetics from entering ketoacidosis when their blood sugar becomes too high. An inadequate drug causes diabulemia. Accuse the drug manufacturers of making the wrong choice. Or is that biting the hand that feeds you?

Make it right, CNN. Mass media should be the defenders of righteousness, not the accomplices to Big Pharma. Do a study comparing human insulin (natural vertebrate insulin) and genetically modified insulin. The comparison should include: penetration zones of the body, hormonal reactions stimulating and suppressing hunger, amino acids, c-peptide, lipophilic and hydrophilic nature, and pH values. The difference in natural human insulin and Lantus pH is remarkable: 7.5 to 4.0. How similar is that? CNN you've slipped on the peel and missed the facts. Now perform your due diligence to help make it right. I ask every insulin dependent diabetic to email CNN and ask them to put the facts on the line. Link to this blog so they have an idea of where to start. Thank you!

Imagine taking insulin was as easy as applying skin cream. Guess what - it's not so far fetched an idea, thanks to Phosphagenics and it may be coming soon!

Phosphagenics' has patented a transdermal carrier technology (TPM) that rapidly transports insulin across the skin without disrupting or damaging its surface. The company has recently announced successful results from clinical trials in Australia. This confirmes the TPM technology is safe and effective at delivering insulin into the bloodstream, without adverse events. The trial showed that the insulin safely penetrated through the human skin and delivered insulin into the bloodstream over a sustained period of time. Could this be the next generation of basal insulin? Adios Lantus. Arrivederci Levemir! Almost -- TPM/Insulin, applied topically, delivered insulin through the skin and into the bloodstream for up to 8 hours. So like sunblock -- you'll probably have to reapply.

Weep not, fellow Americans. Although Phosphagenics is based in Australia, they are in the process of applying for Phase 2 clinical trials in the U.S. Big ups to the Muffin Man for keeping me abreast of his leading-edge news from the diabetes-friendly forefront!

A little over 2 weeks ago I posted something about diabulemia on site where diabetics exchange their feelings, frustrations, and experiences with the disease. Two Type 1 diabetic women took the time to write me a very thoughtful hate mail. Hate is a strong word but these are some strong accusations. For starters, they said, "There ain't no such word as diabulemia. It's called diabetic stupidity." That is cut directly from the email, and as you can see - it was written with an arrogant disregard for the 450,000 people suffering from this serious condition.

I understand strong words come from passion. An email with the subject title "There's type 1, and then there are fools with type 1" could only have been composed with hateful passion. Within the passionate lines of this email were statements like "Insulin shock therapy was used in mental institutions (where you belong)." Not exactly nice words to come from a teacher - but again, the words were incensed with passion. Good, bad or ugly - feedback is terribly important to me because it conveys what matters to you. Knowing is half the battle.

By logging my experiences with diabetes on the web, these hate mailers refer to me as "You fool" for exercising my Freedom of Speech (First Amendment). To this I add -- thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act. If I'm a Fool for sharing my experience with overcoming diabulemia and trying to lend consoling advice to others struggling with it - I'm a damn proud Fool! Hate on, haters!

For those diabetics injecting insulin and getting frustrating results - this blog's you. I include in this group of frustrating results: hypo unawareness, diabulemia, lethargy, weight gain, erratic blood sugars, and missed periods (for the ladies) - these are all side effects people have experienced once beginning genetically modified human insulin. It so happens it is the only kind available in the United States.

Bev did a terrific blog on the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust and the difference a choice has offered me: more controlled blood sugars, lower blood pressure, less hunger and even a little weight loss - high five! But herein lies the problem - the choice is not easy to come by. Most doctors believe Big Pharma pushed genetically modified human synthetic insulins because it was better. However this, like the insulin analogues - was nothing but stellar marketing with lackluster scientific proof.

If any of those symptoms listed in my first paragraph kept you reading to this point - please ask your doctor to give natural animal insulins a second chance. Do yourself and other diabetics a favor and request information to bring to your doctor by emailing enquiries@iddtinternational.org. The IDDT will send information on natural animal insulins. You may not be interested, but another diabetic may love the fact it will soon be a choice for them. Freedom of choice - isn't the Liberty Bell appropriate here?

There is still no evidence to declare superiority of rapid-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. These studies compared either insulin aspart (NovoLog) or insulin lispro (Humalog) with human insulin; no such study was available for glulisine (Apidra).

Based on average HbA1c values, patients treated with NovoLog had lower levels. However, statistical comparisons were so small that an effect on patients' health is not to be expected. It was also hypothesized that Humalog may prevent night time lows better than Apidra.

Even though patients have been treated with insulin analogues for 10 years, it is still unclear as to how these types of insulin affect long-term complications of type 1 diabetes. The long-term effects of insulin decisively increase the risk of heart disease and cancer, according to recent studies at Howard Hughs Medical Institute. Would you be surprised to learn that one of the insulin analogue manufacturers chose to withhold some of the results of their studies?

The CafePharma message boards are for pharmaceutical sales professionals and those interested in the pharmaceutical industry. A former Lilly sales rep started a thread about Eli Lilly and the lies they've told over the years. Pro Lilly responses flooded in, as did the anti-Lilly responses. Yesterday, however, two comments seemed to hit the message board with a vengeance.

Comments #23 and #24 epitomize the anatomy of a good old fashioned debate. Comment #23 is an Eli Lilly sales rep who claims to have helped with the successful launch of rDNA insulin, and the conversion of patients on pig and cow insulin to Humulin. He remarked from the perspective of a salesman that it was a successful venture resulting in unilateral domination. In response to his yesteryear achievement - commenter #24 raised some wonderful counter-points for modern day consideration. The following paragraph summarizes the results 25 years after the market saturation of Humulin and genetically modified human insulin.

The adverse events include: (1) Complications of diabetes are increasing. (2) Dead-in-bed syndrome is up over 300%. (3) Traffic accidents caused by people using rDNA insulins are increasing (especially in Type 2). (4) rDNA insulins are producing immunogenic responses in the same manner and numbers in the diabetic population as did pig and cow insulins. (5) No long-term studies have ever been conducted to define the dangers of the synthetic insulin hormones relative to cancer and other diseases.

Of course my favorite point is the fact that recent studies have shown that the culprit in many Type 1 diabetics may actually be the human insulin antibody produced by the diabetic. This may be self-serving beyond Type 1 diabetics needing insulin - it's giving Type 2s the very same problem.

Story time!! Today is Bastille Day. The French National holiday commemorates the storming of the Bastille, which was a mark of the French Revolution - a revolt against absolute power.

Although I am not French - I am convinced there needs to be a revolution against absolute power of the insulin cartel. You all know them very well - Lilly, Novo and Sanofi Aventis. You've been a loyal customer, in spite of the shortcomings of their products. One example of a shortcoming is the absence of C-peptide. It is found in proinsulin and protects cells from the complications resulting from long-term diabetes. The other is the possibility that another source of insulin might be better for your treatment than synthetic human insulin. The fact the US only offers genetically modified human insulin is not fair when it comes to balance of power. Does this sound like a revolution that a feisty diabetic like me is starting?

I am not here to tickle a revolution. I'm determined to achieve it. Every diabetic deserves the right to choose their insulin. This choice should not be made for you by those who profit from the sale. I'm a type 1. I am a diabetic because my body made antibodies for human insulin. Why must I use insulin that continues creating these antibodies? I'd like to use something a little different that makes antibodies for horse or cow or PIG insulin. Can I get some pork up in here, please? It's difficult to obtain. It's as difficult as Ricky Bobby trying to say something in French. This Bastille Day Blog is a proclamation. As a prisoner of the insulin cartel - I declare that there will be a choice one day soon. Given the choice - you might opt for an insulin revolution, too. Laissez-faire!

In light of Novo's Meet the Face of Change campaign, I figured I'd address an idea worthy of mention coming out of the Novo product pipeline. This treatment is for Type 2 diabetics but it is not insulin - it's called liraglutide. Liraglutide is a once-daily human analog of the natural hormone Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1). It causes neither excessive hypoglycemia nor weight gain.

Liraglutide works by stimulating the release of insulin only when glucose levels become too high. Unlike many other diabetes drugs - liraglutide also leads to weight loss instead of weight gain. Now we're getting somewhere, Novo!! Patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with liraglutide had a greater reduction in average blood sugar than those patients treated with placebo or insulin glargine (Lantus). As expected, the combination of a GLP-1 analog with a sulfonylurea caused some of the patients to experience hypoglycemia. Okay, point taken. So why impose a glucose lowering drug while mitigating the problem causing elevated sugar in the first place? One drug at a time, folks.

So this is a step in the right direction and I like where it is going. Treating Type 2 diabetes with insulin is counter-intuitive. Looking at another hormone that might interfere with the use of insulin might be the culprit. So here lies a very good idea and I like it. Gold star, Novo! Now when can we meet the face of liraglutide?

For more the more than 300,000 users that once relied on animal-derived insulin, the final chapter of animal insulin is finally ending for the US market. In December 2007, Novo Nordisk has officially decided to discontinue making animal-insulin. Their explanation doesn't go into great detail why they chose to discontinue it. But the supporting evidence they use to warrant the decision is a little weak.

Novo says, animal insulin is derived from the pancreas of slaughtered animals. This statement is as true as the statement "human insulin is derived from the pancreas of slaughtered humans". Novo continues, since that time there has been significant improvement of insulin quality and formulation. Absolutely true! In fact, a Novo pork product was shown to be greater than 99% pure, while an Eli Lilly human insulin only exceeded the 97 percentile. As a consequence, demand for these old animal insulins has declined by as much 20% in the last year to a point where approximately 2% of all insulin users are currently using these products. Largely due to the fact doctor's were advising their patients they must prepare to switch to GM insulin because animal-derived insulin would be nearly impossible to obtain. True. The research that introduced GM insulin (back in the 80s) was preemptive, at best. The claims supporting it was better than the existing insulin choices was clearly debatable .A telling similarity to the discovery about Avandia.

The long-term results of GM insulin and its analogs would prove to be a nightmare if the right questions were asked, and the data properly collected. Is it fair for any of the companies to ask us to change from an insulin product we have grown to love? No, but much like the off-Broadway play suggests: We love you (as a customer). Your diabetes is perfect (for our bottom line). Now change your insulin (we don't feel like making that kind anymore). Too bad type 1 diabetics forced to change to GM insulin didn't have the outspoken advocates like those taking Avandia.

When blood sugar is falling, the stopper built into the body is the release of glucagon from the alpha cells of the pancreas which stimulates the release of glucose from the liver (but only if your adrenaline is flowing). However, when hypoglycemia is due to injected insulin - the stopper isn't entirely in place. Scientists explain how epinephrine (adrenaline) plays a major role in regulating glucose in times of low blood sugar and how this response could be adversely affected by the use of beta-blockers.

During insulin-induced hypoglycemia in dogs, the roles of adrenaline and glucagon were evaluated. The dogs fasted overnight to remove excess glucose from the blood. The dogs also had their adrenal glands removed. The adrenal glands are the source of adrenaline. Adrenaline is released into the bloodstream in response to physical or mental stress,to initiate the stimulation of glucose, among many other functions. Adrenaline and insulin were released at two different rates: a basal rate or a variable rate to simulate an adrenaline response. When the blood sugar fell to 42 mg/dL, the dogs in the basal rate group failed to release glucagon, but the simulated adrenaline response group increased normally. The liver response to releasing glucose fell in the basal group but increased in the simulated adrenaline response group. The researchers conclude that adrenaline must be responsible for this critical response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.

Beta blockers are a common class of prescription drugs that counteract the stimulatory effects of adrenaline. Diabetics who inject insulin and take beta-blockers should be extra cautious of hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemic unawareness is already established for diabetics injecting GM insulin (genetically modified human insulin). Given the side effects of beta blockers, there is greater reason to be more aware of hypoglycemis unawareness -- yes, oxymoron. Those individuals who are on the brink of diabetes should avoid beta-blockers at all costs, according to a study in The Lancet (January 2007) beta-blockers used for hypertension increase a patient's risk of developing diabetes.

Like a student driver -- the function of proinsulin (c-peptide) is as critically important as driver's education. The research was done, but because the information highway was just picking up speed (at the time back in '88) dissemination of such research was difficult, at best. Never fear - I found a good study to start things rolling.

Proinsulin (c-peptide) is made along with insulin in a 1 to 1 ratio from the beta cells. After a dose of proinsulin was administered - it took 5 to 10 minutes longer to lower a patient's blood sugar in comparison to insulin, alone. The rise of blood sugar following the lowest point was much slower, as well. In lay terms this means that insulin, coupled with proinsulin (c-peptide), results in a more controlled reaction. Kind of like the teenager with his permit to drive and Dad riding shotgun. The permit gives the kid the right to drive the car, but Dad is telling the kid when to accelerate and when to slow down. Insulin and proinsulin are quite similar in nature except we're talking about a life threatening hormone without the parental guidance.

The antilipolytic effect of proinsulin (tapping fat cells for energy and ANTI means this is stopped) was significantly stronger in comparison to insulin alone. Human proinsulin has a stronger effect on prevention of fat burning for energy in the absence of insulin (ketoacidosis). This seems logical because if you metabolize the glucose in your blood for energy - you will have little (if any) residual glucose to store as fat. Type 2 diabetics have a plethora of c-peptide in their body upon diagnosis but their blood sugar is also high. Looks like insulin and proinsulin reduces the risk of ketoacidosis and regulates fat metabolism.

Why did they decide to manufacture human synthetic insulin without it again? A personal experience pumping piggy proinsulin for 2 days now and I've seen definite control in my blood sugar fluctuations - less than 20 mg/dL in any testing window. It feels like the newly introduced highly purified porcine proinsulin came with a built-in continuous glucose monitor (i.e., C-peptide). More to come...

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.

"A few times I've been around that track so it's not just gonna happen like that because I ain't no hollaback girl", like Gwen Stefani says in her motivational chant - I want answers.

This is not an attack in any way. This is an attempt to get answers as to why human synthetic insulin was manufactured without C-peptide. Yesterday Eli Lilly called me back. Admittedly, J Scott Macgregor told me he doesn't receive many questions about human synthetic insulin development. He asked me to email. No problem. My email said:

Why did Eli Lilly manufacture human synthetic insulin without c-peptide?

As Scott Strumello points out in his blog, I've tried to contact Eli Lilly before about this issue. And I guess it look a little while for the resonating curiosity of the blogosphere to provoke a response. Again - no problem. The content of my email is an open opportunity for every diabetic injecting insulin to ask away. I think we've got Eli Lilly's attention and we're on the right path to getting answers. Now where's that turn for C-peptide?

As a diabetic with the esteemed honor of pouring my heart and soul out for an audience as well-informed as you - I feel it is OUR job to inform our doctor's of the important discoveries being made in diabetes. The discovery I am most concerned with these days is raising awareness of C-peptide.

When I learned that all forms of synthetic human insulin these days DO NOT have C-peptide (like natural human insulin does) I asked my doctor what C-peptide does. My doctor explained, "C-peptide is nothing more than a biomarker to tell us [doctors] how much insulin your body is naturally producing."

When Chrissie in Belgium asked her doctor he told her that [C-peptide] has absolutely no importance. Uh oh...

Doctor's are convinced that C-peptide is useless for type 1 diabetics. Give the next paragraph consideration and you and your doctor might have a new perspective on the importance of C-peptide.

In a healthy, nondiabetic individual -- islets produce insulin. Insulin is made of 51 amino acids in 2 chains, with a tail of something called C-peptide (connecting peptide). Insulin grabs sugar from the blood and transports it into the cells where it becomes energy. It gets into and out of the cells through cellular pathways that are monitored by a delicate balance of sodium (Na) and potassium (K). This balance is regulated by C-peptide. The movement of insulin and glucose through these cellular membranes without C-peptide is dangerous and causes diabetic complications that develop in small vessesls of the eyes, kidneys and nerves.

Tight control of diabetes results in complications over time. If you find 500 mg of protein in a 24 hour urine collection - it's a complication (nephropathy). If your nerve conduction velocity reaction time is measured at 5.0 seconds - it's a complication (neuropathy). You take your insulin -- these complications should not occur, right? The reason for diabetic complications may not be your insulin at all. It may be the thing that your insulin is lacking.

So here's a little community service we ALL can do to enlighten our doctor's. Ask your doctor about C-peptide. Chances are you will get the same answer Chrissie in Belgium and I did. When this happens - smile, and politely hand your doctor a printout of this blog.

After all, if the Creator put receptors in our cellular membranes - He must've done it for a reason. The path to enlightenment is paved with gold.