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!

Good news and bad news: The reported death rate in diabetic men has gone down over the last 30 years, however it remains unchanged for women. How does this happen?

The study shows the death rate for men with diabetes had reduced 43% between 1971 and 2000. The date rate for women with diabetes throughout this period did not change. The death rate for heart disease among men with diabetes fell by more than half, but again, the death rate for women was static. Overall, the study showed that the decline in death rates for diabetic men mirrored a decline in death rates for all Americans during the study period. Anybody have any clues as to what changed? I have a few guesses - all of which amount to more stressful lives.

The finding in women is concerning, and means we may need to explore whether different approaches are needed to treat men and women. Men are more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes than women. I wonder if men with diabetes are bigger procrastinators than women when it comes to hormone replacement therapy. Insulin is a hormone, isn't it?

When I was a kid I used to include in my prayers a calculation of how many miles I would have to walk in order to lose enough weight to take less insulin. I never voiced my Forrest Gump like journey aloud - but if I had I would've turned to The Weigh Down Workshop for the faith-based healing I wanted so badly.

Over 1 million people have used faith-based healing for weight loss and freedom from other addictions and drug-dependencies. Featured on the Tyra Banks Show, The Weigh Down Workshop is based on the principal that diets have caused or exacerbated overeating. It has given people false hopes, and then failed them - making most people feel like failures. Weigh Down teaches people to depend on their Creator for help. There truly is a mindset where people have no desire to overeat anymore.

If you believe in our Creator, and you believe that weight loss will help you remove your dependency on Big Pharma pushing drugs unto you - I would love to hear your success story. If you believe it's all a ruse -- I'd love to hear that, too. I heard a lot of Family Radio on my road trip this past week. A lot of questions linger in my head about the Old Testment and things documented in biblical history. One comes to mind with this revelation of faith-based healing -- why did Jesus fast for 40 days and 40 nights?

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.