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?

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!

Meet the Face of Change is a photo exhibit owned by Novo Nordisk featuring YOU -- the face of change. Change for what, I asked? Well, it seems Novo would like to change your opinion of the barriers to insulin treatment for Type 2 diabetics. The common belief of insulin treatment for Type 2 diabetes is that it is the point of no return. Why? First instincts are usually correct.

Studies have shown that Type 2 diabetics injecting insulin create insulin antibodies (IAA). Type 1 diabetics have these antibodies upon diagnosis. Type 1 diabetes was also formerly referred to as insulin-dependent diabetes. Insulin antibodies (IAA) develop and attack the natural insulin produced, resulting in insulin dependence. Type 2 diabetics do not have the same level of IAA. Once they begin injecting insulin that looks like human insulin (the kind Novo makes) - you run the risk of developing IAA. The use of animal-insulins did not cause the development of IAA to the same extent. If you plan to start injecting insulin - ask your doctor if he will check you for IAA. As a Type 2 diabetic, you DO NOT have to become an insulin-dependent diabetic.

I asked Novo to explain what Meet the Face of Change is about. What are they trying to change? The response I received from Nov explains their wishes to strengthen the drive of their business, among other core values. Now I ask you - how do you drive a business that sells insulin? Sell more insulin. For the 16 million Type 2s not yet in this lineup- please consider if insulin-dependent diabetes is the face you want to meet. Don't add insulin to injury. It may not be the path of least resistance, but cut back on simple sugars, increase fiber consumption, and take a walk after dinner. Meet the face of change by putting your best foot forward, not your face on a campaign for vulture capitalism.

Lately the news has seen a lot of devastating diabetic events due to hypoglycemic unawareness. Hypoglycemic unawareness is commonly defined as an inability to recognize the symptoms (sweating, tremor, hunger, anxiety, and palpitations) of decreased blood sugar or a failure of the warning signs to occur before development of neuroglycopenia, which means a shortage of glucose in the brain. Curiously, this term was not coined for diabetes until 10 years after the introduction of genetically modified human synthetic insulin and insulin analogues.

I hate to say it but diabetes is a crapshoot. You never know what you are going to get, but you can sure try your best to keep your eye on the ball. Removing the inherent dangers of hypoglycemic unawareness would make me a happier diabetic, and improve the lives of all those I care about (diabetics like myself). The answer might lie in the only type of treatment available nowadays, insulin analogues. Diabetics who do not take any form of drug to control blood sugar do NOT have hypoglycemic unawareness.

It's called human but it is nothing like natural human insulin. It may be faster acting or longer lasting but I'm sure He didn't intend for insulin to break sound barriers or last three moons. If Big Pharmaceutical companies were asked to compare insulin analogues with natural human insulin you'd hear crickets. I promise you NO Big Pharma will fund a study that would become the antithesis of their marketing campaigns, human insulin is better. It's not better, it's just different -- totally different! Natural insulin is fat-loving. Insulin analogues are water-loving. The global command center of the body (the brain) is one big blob of fatty material. This means as your blood sugar is dropping, your brain is last fed, if it eats at all. Here in the United States we are victims of circumstance in hypoglycemic unawareness. Sorry brain, no soup for you.

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.

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?