Pfizer's bandwagon might be busted! Turns-out a study says inhaled human insulin, whether formulated as a powder or liquid, is more immunogenic than injected insulin.

Adverse effects of antibody formation have not been thoroughly investigated. But it was shown, comparatively, that inhaled insulin provokes more of an immune response than injections. Spitting is a dirty habit - but it's not good for nothing. The mucosal defense system is the body's primary line of defense against inhaled foreign matter - kind of like the MARINES of the human body. It is uniquely able to discern self from non-self bodies. So far - it looks like Pfizer's toker is a no go.

As I said before - the adverse events have not been thoroughly investigated. Until we know exactly what kind of mucosal revenge or pulmonary punishment lies ahead - I'd stick to the tried and true...subQ, for now. However the Generex Oral-lyn human trials are looking pretty promising. Stay tuned.

Read all about it. Professor Vincent Marks, a world expert on insulin who has assisted in some high profile cases of insulin murder, has written a book - the 'Insulin Murders - True Life Crimes'.

The first recorded incident of insulin used for murder was in 1957, and since then there have been about 50 cases globally of insulin being used for murder. Although insulin can be used to kill, Professor Marks said it was actually a very poor murder weapon. Detecting its use was difficult, but not as many assumed...impossible.

It is not a very good weapon especially nowadays. More tests are available to prove the misuse of insulin. If a non-diabetic is dead on arrival without a usual suspect - I suggest the coroner check the patient's blood sugar. If that's hovering around absolute zero I'd put a request in for the insulin antibody kit!

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!

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.

When TIME magazine does a piece on your plight - it's definitely gaining public interest. The fact that 1 in 3 people affected by Type 1 diabetes manipulate their insulin to lose weight is an eye-opening statistic. This lethal coping mechanism is termed diabulemia and a major national TV show is seeking diabulmics for a "sensitive, accurate portrayal of the condition" - at least that is what they told me.

I volunteered myself for the interview. I've struggled with diabulemia for the past 15 years until I did something a doctor would NEVER recommend. I called the station back - it was CNN. I divulged what a day in the life was like when I practiced diabulemia -- and I was good at it! When I told the interviewer that I noticed a world of difference when I changed my insulin from human synthetic to natural animal, she was surprised (so was my doctor). The key to mitigating my angst with insulin was getting the message to my brain at the same time the rest of my body was getting the glucose. This is less effective in newer insulin analogues. Big Pharma does not profit by selling natural vertebrate insulin even if it is better for hormonal response in suppressing appetite and preventing your body from entering ketoacidosis (DKA). Big Pharma profits if they own the patent for the specific insulin analogue you use. In my land of milk and honey - I realized Big Pharma is not my mom, not my dad and not my best friend. Big Pharma is not personal -- Big Pharma is business. So I took my business elsewhere because I didn't like the way Big Pharma was handling my business.

I don't mind explaining my abusive relationship with insulin if it helps anybody struggling with diabulemia. It's a shameful thing but it doesn't have to be. It's controversial but it's all true. For those of you considering your 15 minutes for diabulemia -- don't be concerned about your privacy. The TV show is planning to shoot the interview in shadow. If you wish to learn more about contributing to this documentary, please see The Sugar Shock.

I was excited to see my friend, Lissa Coffey, appearing on The Today Show this morning. Lissa is a PhD, a relationship expert and sociologist. Lissa shares her ancient wisdom and modern style through her site, Coffey Talk, and her newsletters. A recent newsletter addressed homeopathic medicine and I share with you how this applies to the treatment of diabetes.

Homeopathic medicine is a natural pharmaceutical science developed in the early 1800s. It uses small doses of natural substances (animal, vegetable, and mineral) to stimulate the body's own defenses. Homeopathy is a word derived from the Greek words for similar and disease. It is medicine based on the law of similars that says a substance will help to heal symptoms similar to those that it is known to cause. This is the same principle behind immunization.

When I received Lissa's newsletter on homeopathic medicine immediately I thought of how this applies to diabetes - a disease of insulin antibodies attacking the naturally produced insulin in the body. Why would you treat a disease with the exact hormone that caused it? Novo, Lilly, Aventis - you are all making a grave mistake in forcing American's to use GM human insulin, both Type 1 and Type 2. The extinction of porcine and bovine insulin has consequently proven to be detrimental to diabetics over the last 25 years. Studies show tighter control - yet complications on the rise. How do you explain this? I'm not excited for what the future holds, unless we see a return of these similar but not exact insulin forms.

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.

Mad Money is a stock show on CNBC hosted by Jim Cramer - a well-known iron fist on Wall Street. He has a following of stock enthusiasts who regard his recommendations (buy or sell) as gospel. Why is he so good at what he does? He just wants to help you make money.

And to this end -- the reason I bring Cramer's passionate drive to The Diabetes Blog is simple: last week he called Novo Nordisk as a SELL. Cramer said he's beginning to worry about a backlash on drug stocks. He advised that viewers should not be greedy and should take gains in Novo Nordisk (NVO).

Perhaps the NY Times article raised some eyebrows at Big Pharma. It appears doctors are receiving handsome gifts and stipends for handing out samples of drugs that were not all that safe for most patients. The payments give physicians an incentive to prescribe the medicines at levels that might increase patients' risks of heart attacks or strokes. In light of this blood curdling synopsis Novo got a dishonorable mention. Novo Nordisk professes to operate their company in two parts: biopharmaceuticals and Diabetes Care. The Diabetes Care segment provides insulin analogues, human insulin and insulin-related products, and oral antidiabetic drugs.

The cross examination of the C-peptide disappearing act and mysterious insulin auto-antibodies appearing where they shouldn't is just getting started. Thanks for making them sweat, Cramer!

While patrolling the PubMed database this weekend, I came across a very interesting study that investigated the effects of new insulins on insulin and C-peptide antibodies, insulin dose, and diabetic control. Please note - this study was published in 1983. After reading -- I invite EVERYONE to let me know if it is possible to get purified pork insulin and whether or not you have been on it-- and if you have seen a difference in your diabetes control. Please?

24 diabetic patients using bovine (beef) insulin and possessing insulin antibodies underwent a study of the immunological and clinical consequences of changes in both purity and species of their insulin. The new insulin regimes tested were one of three: a) purified bovine insulin, b) highly purified porcine insulin, and c) semisythetic human insulin.

The patients underwent 3 consecutive 4-month periods on each insulin regimen. The average insulin antibody levels changed little on purified bovine (beef) insulin; actually increased on semi-synthetic human insulin but fell substantially on highly purified porcine insulin. Okay - so this means, in lay terms that the patient's insulin antibodies (the stuff killing your islets) remained relatively the same on beef insulin but became categorically HIGH on synthetic human insulin. And most importantly - to me-the highly purified porcine insulin actually DROPPED the insulin antibodies. Of course - it would cost big pharmaceutical companies more to manufacture highly purified porcine insulin.

C-peptide antibodies fell significantly and continuously throughout the study. The slower rate of fall in C-peptide antibody levels is likely to be due to the prolonged half-life of circulating exogenous proinsulin in the presence of insulin antibody. Although insulin dose remained constant the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes did not increase and glycosylated haemoglobin levels rose significantly when patients were on porcine insulin. The deterioration in diabetic control may have been due to greater temporal mismatch between insulin needs and insulin availability with pork or human insulin than with beef insulins, and to reduced insulin antibody levels.

The use of purer insulins which more closely resemble the human form can cause a significant reduction in levels of insulin and C-peptide antibodies. These changes may not necessarily produce better diabetic control. Recent studies have shown that a depletion of C-peptide in the body results in a greater chance of microvascular complications associated with diabetes.

This study was published around the time when all of the synthetic human insulins were sweeping the Nation. I tried calling my local CVS Pharmacy on Saturday morning to see if I could get some purified porcine insulin. No such luck. Go figure. The big guys were successful at convincing the medical community and patients that no other insulin is better. Correction - no other insulin is cheaper to manufacture and that means it is better for them. And the importance of C-peptide was overlooked entirely - or was it? C-peptide prevents the complications associated with injecting insulin - but that sounds like another marketable drug. After all - synthetic human insulin doesn't have C-peptide. REAL HUMAN INSULIN does (the way it comes out of the beta cells, in natural form, it does)!!! And as long as your body is producing insulin antibodies - you NEED their synthetic insulin (conveniently -- the only kind you can buy). Best business model - customer for life!