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!

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!

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.

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.

Now that the US market is suspiciously saturated with human insulin - and many of us diagnosed within the last 10 years did not have a shot at trying porcine insulin - I'd like to set the record straight. When the pharmaceutical companies cherry pick the studies they wish to use for their gain, and not so much for your enhanced quality of life - they must've lost this study.

Please read the entire study (if you have access to it in a local library) but what grabbed my undivided attention was the sentence that says: it was observed that the action of porcine insulin was associated with... a striking increase of prolactinaemia, in relation to semisynthetic human insulin.

Okay -- so as I look deeper into the function of prolactin -- aside from some definite dopamine enhancing activities (if you know what I mean) :::wink wink::: -- it is responsible for the formation of myelin coatings on axons in the central nervous system. This is a certifiable problem that results in diabetic neuropathy and the related side effects (numbness, nerve dysfunction, i.e, ED).

Ex-queeze me? Does this say that human synthetic insulin may be a cock blocking drug?

Sorry for the blunt delivery -- but this is the truth. Why doesn't human synthetic insulin have this listed as a side effect? My guess is: if you had a choice of human synthetic insulin versus highly purified porcine insulin -- and you knew the side effects of human synthetic might take a toll on the health of your sex life -- you might be praying to the porcine gods.

Shame on the companies who knew about this study and kept it undercover so you couldn't...

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!

Eli Lilly is introducing a unique insulin pen named the Memoir. It is the first on the market with a memory device to track doses administered. It is designed for use with Lilly's top-selling insulin, Humalog.

The battery-operated pen uses a computer chip to remember the last 16 insulin doses. And while insulin pens are popular in Europe and Asia, only about 800,000 of the 4 million U.S. diabetics who take injections use a pen-- most use syringes. It won't be too surprising if insurers and patients balk at the $100 sticker price for the pen alone. There is a separate fee for the insulin cartridges. I agree, it's a little pricey. Lilly plans to ignite the marketing campaign by offering a $45 coupon. Good start. This pen has been under development for seven years. Lilly plans to introduce two other pens this year to increase Humalog demand. I've got an idea (since nobody asked, but I was a former user). I traded up to Apidra because I became irate every time Humalog clogged my infusion set for my pump. Go back to the drawing board with that quandary while I'll work on my honey do list for product development.

Neither here nor there - my point is this: Eli Lilly you can be everything you want to be if you listen to your customers. The number of insulin-taking diabetics is rising along with the bar on product ingenuity. It's game day, Eli Lilly. I have more ideas to help bring out your A-game. Stay tuned...

In 2005, insulin cost state Medicaid programs $500 million. The diabetes epidemic is causing the government to question one of the big-ticket items on the shopping list - insulin. Insulin was developed over 20 years ago and many of these original forms are now off patent. This is a screaming opportunity for generic drug makers to prosper and government programs to save.

Two of the largest insulin makers, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lily, say they are opposed to any F.D.A. action that would approve generic insulin without clinical studies. Why the concern? The combined sales in the United States for Humulin and Novolin is about $1 billion. No wonder.

A drug maker needs to prove the generic version contains the same active ingredients, purity and quality, and provides equivalent delivery over time as the brand-name version. However the makers of generic drugs agree that the approval process for generic biologics, like insulin, would be more complex than the current shortened process for other generic drugs. Anybody have a guess as to what the hold up is for this much needed and overdue generic insulin explosion?