How did we allow insulin to evolve into a genetically modified hormone?

It all boils down to propaganda. If you're confident your current insulin surpasses former natural insulin in: purity, availability, allergy response, similarity and safety - I encourage you to review the following facts that were conveniently neglected or not available, due to restraints of time travel.

Purity: In the 1970s, a Genentech scientist stated that natural insulin was incredibly pure. In the 1980s, rDNA humulin insulins were less pure than the natural insulins of the 70s. The advertising campaign for rDNA insulin suggested otherwise. Here's a quote, as printed in the book, Invisible Frontiers: "They impressed upon us very, very clearly that this (human insulin) was going to be no advantage at all."

Supply and demand: A USDA scientist told the world the diabetic population's insulin needs would outstrip the supply of natural pancreatic glands. This was sensational propaganda. Have you visited McDonald's or Wendy's lately? There doesn't seem to be a shortage of Big Mac's, does there?

Allergy response: About 5-10% of the diabetic population is allergic to natural analog insulins. Today, based on 25 years of human diabetic experimentation, the diabetic population is showing the same 5-10% allergic response to all the new products. Maybe that aforementioned 5-10% is the same latter 5-10%? From the looks of it - they're just allergic to insulin, rDNA, GM or natural.

Similarity to own insulin: rDNA human insulin is just like the body makes. Who wouldn't want to take human insulin? That's the propaganda. A recent research article found in a large portion of the diabetic population, their own human insulin may actually be the cause of their diabetes. Something tells me the study included the same 5-10% of diabetics mentioned in the allergy response paragraph.

Safety: Drug companies touted rDNA insulins as providing a good a warning to diabetic patients as natural analog insulins regarding low blood glucose levels. Are you kidding me? Driver and workplace accident statistics regarding diabetics indicate that the rDNA insulins do not cross the blood-brain barrier in the same manner as natural analog insulins. The part of the brain controlling endocrine response lags because it doesn't get the signal until it's too late (if it ever gets the message). The increase of diabetes-realted deaths since the introduction of rDNA insulin is remarkable! (Center for Disease Control). How safe is that?

Fact versus fiction is a scary line to smear for the sake of business. I suggest doctors, diabetes educators, and patients review the facts today and compare it to the propaganda in the 80s. There is no suppressing the truth!

Bev did a great job covering the study of obese mice having protection from elevated blood sugar due to a plethora of adiponectin. Adiponectin was shown to enhance insulin signaling which transported the excess glucose to less harmful areas of the body, rather than the cells which would endure diabetes complications. The results of this study created a condition called ratones mórbidamente obesos - which sounds better in Spanish because in English this means morbidly obese mice.

You know what they say about hindsight, right? A study from a year ago revealed some good news and some bad news. Good news first - turns out Type 2 diabetes drugs using troglitazone increased adiponectin. Rezulin was one of these drugs, but it was removed from the US market March 21, 2000. Now the bad news, the Type 2 diabetes drugs made with metformin were shown to reduce adiponectin. A few of the drugs that use metformin are Fortamet, Glucophage, Glucophage XR, and Riomet.

So why must diabetics be led with imperfect vision? Because the bottom line is researchers and doctors believe they are saving lives every day. Yes, they do. But there is a lot to behold when you tinker with His design. Remember the movie Malice? These lines don't make it into movies for nothing. Producers know human nature and they stretch it to the extreme. Whether or not you want to admit it - you know a few people with a complex like Alec Baldwins. Alec Baldwin says, "You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God". Click for the entire 1:30 scene, courtesy of YouTube.

Governer Ed Rendell is worried. An estimated eight percent of Pennsylvanians have diabetes. Nearly 800,000 people. We all know money talks, and what has caught the attention of state politicians is the tremendous cost to manage chronic diseases.

Governor Rendell recently shared that about 78 percent of the state's health care costs are linked to 20 percent of chronic diseased patients. The Governor has announced The Pennsylvania Diabetes Action Plan to improve how Pennsylvanians with chronic disease benefit from future health care.

In an effort to prepare Pennsylvania to educate the public about diabetes and diabetes prevention, and improve management of the disease to reduce complications, the Plan focuses on four key areas: surveillance, standards of care, health policy, and evaluation.

Truly a collaborative of care, more than 200 stakeholders, agencies, organizations and individuals contributed to the Pennsylvania Diabetes Action Plan. The plan was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a state appropriation.

In 2005, potentially avoidable hospitalizations for diabetics in Pennsylvania cost nearly $730 million. Now that is a number even the Governor cannot ignore.

According to the CDC journal of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (easily one of the least appealing names of a publication that I've ever come across, but I digress), half of the estimated 21 million adults living with diabetes in the U.S. rate themselves as having only "fair" or "poor" health. The researchers involved in putting forth this information found this self-estimation of health very unsettling, for it can be associated with the increasing number of people with diabetes who are experiencing complications such as kidney failure, lower extremity amputation, and heart disease.

Despite what may be expected, these self-appraisals are coming not from people who are 45 and older, rather they are being reported by people aged 18 to 44. The information was collected through a survey conducted by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and reexamined by the CDC. The researchers discovered that almost half of the respondents who had diabetes reported being only in "fair" or "poor" health -- as compared to people who do not have diabetes, who were three times less likely to claim such an unhealthy status. Moreover, the statistics from this study show that the reports of people with diabetes who reported "fair" or 'poor" health rose from about 36% in 1996 to 43.4% in 2005.

It's highly unlikely that these self-reports of health are anything but accurate, since the overall number of people of diabetes soared from 9.9 million to 13.7 million between 1996 and 2003. And, the individual spending of people with diabetes also rose markedly over this period of time; from an average of $476 to $883. These numbers are staggering, and it only serves to further support the need to find a cure for this chronic illness. If the government needs more convincing (as if the numbers mentioned aren't somehow enough), it should look at just how much diabetes will cost the health care system in the years to come. As it stands now, overall care for patients with diabetes -- including treatment in and out of the hospital and for other illness such as congestive heart failure -- averaged more than $10,000 annually. Bottom line: find a cure. Treatment is great, insulin is amazing, and all these fancy glucose monitors and every other expensive gadget to hit the market are all well and good, but they are not a cure. Plain and simple. Again, find a cure. Fast.

The Center for Disease Control announced that they will run a study to examine the cost-effectiveness of treatment interventions for type 2 diabetes. "People with diabetes are at considerable risk for heart disease, strokes and other serious health complications," said David Fleming, M.D. acting CDC director. "This study confirms that aggressive treatment interventions aimed at reducing the risks of cardiovascular disease increase life expectancy and, at the same time, may reduce lifetime health care costs," The footer of the Press Release where I got this story says:

CDC protects people's health and safety by preventing and controlling diseases and injuries; enhances health decisions by providing credible information on critical health issues; and promotes healthy living through strong partnerships with local, national, and international organizations.

Here comes my spiel, so grab a seat. Remember that huge event back in 1993? I'm talking about the announcement of the DCCT study that proved tighter control reduces the complications of eye, kidney, and nerve diseases caused by type 1 diabetes. And 5 years later the UK reiterated these results for type 2 diabetes. The $2.5 billion question is (yes, diabetic complications cost the United States $2.5 billion in 2005): why are we still relying on an antiquated test that can only be administered every 3 or 6 months to tell us how well we are controlling our diabetes? If more accurate testing and earlier therapeutic intervention result in less diabetic complications - where is the holdup?

To those concerned at the CDC, in an effort to protect people's health and safety by preventing and controlling diseases and injuries why haven't we seen a new test that can monitor our overall diabetes control on a monthly basis, rather than waiting to test every 3 or 6 months? This would, in effect, allow tighter control, which has been proven to reduce the potential of diabetic complications. (Please note: the original issue of the sited press release was May, 2002). Just a thought - you could use that extra $2.5 billion for something else like promoting healthy living through strong partnerships with local, national, and international organizations.

Worrisome news released Tuesday courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): diabetes cases in the US are expected to triple by 2050. That would mean 48.3 million Americans would be suffering from the disease. That's a lot, to be sure. What makes this announcement really significant, however, is the fact that the CDC found it necessary to increase its previous prediction - made in 2003 - by 9.3 million to arrive at this figure. It also predicts that, viewing the increase by ethnic group, diabetes will climb 481 percent amongst Hispanics, 208 percent for blacks and 113 percent for whites.

The man chiefly responsible for the new number is K. M. Venkat Narayan, formerly of the CDC and now at Emory University. Says Narayan in a Fox News feature, "The numbers are very worrying. There is an epidemic going on that - if left unchecked - will have a huge effect on the US population and on health care costs." On the other hand, Narayan's advice is not to panic just yet. "There are effective interventions available. If we could apply those interventions across the country, we could slow down the diabetes rate." Meaning that it's possible these dire predictions might never come to pass.

Fox News also quotes Ronald B. Goldberg of the Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine. Goldberg goes even further than Narayan, predicting that the economic consequences of unchecked diabetes growth "will cripple our health care budgets." Of the lifestyle interventions required to check climbing diabetes rates, he says "We have made some progress, but unfortunately not enough."

I believe one of the most humiliating moments in my life was having my body mass index (BMI) calculated while in high school. Ugh. Talk about child abuse. I still cringe when I see BMI turn up in the news. However, it may be worthwhile to undergo the BMI test because it can be an awareness-raising tool. According to Dr. K. M. Venkat Narayan of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) it is especially useful as regards diabetes.

Dr. Narayan, who works with the division of diabetes translation at the CDC, believes BMI can be used to calculate your risk of developing diabetes. He has devised a statistical model for tracking health probabilities for a given individual's lifetime. In the case of diabetes, Narayan takes the BMI of a person at age eighteen and then uses that to estimate diabetes risk, in the form of percentages. For example, a woman who is overweight at age eighteen has a thirty-five percent chance of developing diabetes later in life. In contrast, a woman whose BMI is normal at age eighteen has only a seventeen percent chance, while a very obese eighteen year old has a seventy-four percent chance.

Ignorance is not bliss, and nowhere is that more true than as it relates to your health. Eventually, you will pay the price for ignoring a health problem you suspect you might have or for neglecting your overall health long-term. Turns out, this is frequently the case with diabetics. According to the results of a new study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), around one-third of diabetics don't yet know they have the disease. That figure amounts to around 2.8 percent of the population.

Interestingly, the NIH and CDC found that although diabetes is much more prevalent than in the past, the percentage of adults being diagnosed has not changed significantly. Needless to say, this is bad news for the diabetics themselves and for the nation as a whole.

The NIH's press release on the study provides an excellent summary of the findings. The results have also been published in the latest issue of Diabetes Care (June 2006), should you want to read more.

A question that has long puzzled diabetes researchers is why some ethnic groups are more susceptible to the disease than others. To this end, a new study based in Starr County, Texas, seeks to explain why Mexican Americans are afflicted at rates disproportionate to their overall numbers in the US. Researchers suspect there are genetic factors at play here, perhaps in conjunction with other factors such as lifestyle and eating habits. Starr County was chosen as the site for the study because it has the highest diabetes-mortality rate in Texas, with local doctors reporting they were overwhelmed by diabetes cases. In addition, researchers found that Mexican Americans in Starr County suffered from diabetes at a rate of up to five times higher than that of the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that Mexican Americans are 1.7 times more likely than the general population to have diabetes.

Mr. Eagle and Miss Rabbit are the cartoon stars of a new Eagle Books series that aims to educate Native American children about the value of healthy lifestyles. In the first book of the series, "Through the Eyes of Mr. Eagle," Mr. Eagle reminds a young Indian boy about the healthy ways of his ancestors. In another, "Knees Lifted High," Mr. Eagle tells kids to be active, to ride bikes or play ball instead of hanging out with video games. Government health officials say that Native American kids suffer from higher than average rates of obesity and diabetes. The initiative involves the Indian Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with the nonprofit group First Book in order to distribute free copies of the book to tribes, schools and nonprofit groups.