There is still no evidence to declare superiority of rapid-acting insulin analogues in the treatment of type 1 diabetes. These studies compared either insulin aspart (NovoLog) or insulin lispro (Humalog) with human insulin; no such study was available for glulisine (Apidra).

Based on average HbA1c values, patients treated with NovoLog had lower levels. However, statistical comparisons were so small that an effect on patients' health is not to be expected. It was also hypothesized that Humalog may prevent night time lows better than Apidra.

Even though patients have been treated with insulin analogues for 10 years, it is still unclear as to how these types of insulin affect long-term complications of type 1 diabetes. The long-term effects of insulin decisively increase the risk of heart disease and cancer, according to recent studies at Howard Hughs Medical Institute. Would you be surprised to learn that one of the insulin analogue manufacturers chose to withhold some of the results of their studies?

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!

Eli Lilly has an award they give to people who have been diabetic for 25, 50 and 75 years. They call it the Lilly for Life Award. The award recognizes people who have been enslaved to the exorbitant expenses of diabetes management, in addition to the other schedules of daily life. Endearing isn't it? The award is a significant token of Lilly's appreciation for all you have endured and sacrificed.

Lilly awards people who have used insulin for 25 years with the monetary equivalent of what your diabetes management has cost. All your copays for each bottle of insulin, each box of syringes, each blood sugar testing strip, and your ability to adapt to the ever-changing technology of diabetes care (I swear, it says that in block letters) - Lilly awards you $42,500!! I told you I lived in the land of milk and honey. ACTUALLY - it's a medal and a consent form to have your face exploited in Big Pharma marketing. You should've bought the stock! The shareholders of LLY paid approximately $1.75 per share 25 years ago, when you were diagnosed. Today that share is worth approximately $56. Anybody know the math on that return? It's probably around 3,000%.

Let's go back to that statement ever-changing technology of diabetes care. Why must it be ever-changing? Doesn't that sound a lot like never-ending? We need not spend too much time on identifying how to treat this disease when we've got that down. What we need to do is spend more time and energy on preventing the disease from happening in the first place. That is what I consider achievement. Achieve that, Lilly! And by the way - I'll take 3,000% of my $42,500 while you're at it. Thanks.

Diabetes is making a name for itself and it's spreading like wildfire. Politicians are uniting to build a $120 million campaign to educate diabetics to prevent the spread of the disease and its complications.

Senator Clinton criticizes the reaction to the problem, rather than taking measures to prevent it from occurring. She questions why current money is unquestionably $pent on treating complications from diabetes -- such as amputations and dialysis. Good point, Senator. Ask Bush if he's got any friends up at Eli Lilly. A good answer can always be found in a temporary restraining order. She and fellow politicians propose more money be spent on programs for weight-loss, nutrition education and other preventive efforts to best curtail the growing number of diabetics in the United States.

The legislation proposed would provide $90 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Diabetes Translation for diabetes surveillance, research and educational activities. It would also allot $30 million for three four-year projects that would examine how best to translate diet and exercise interventions into effective clinical practice.

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.

The Wall Street Journal posted an interesting story about a man who needed a drug to treat his ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease. He could not get the funding for a large scale trial to approve the drug. I empathize, completely! See that picture of the Hulk? That's me. I'm angry. You won't like me when I'm angry.

As a type 1 diabetic, my concern for improving the lives of people affected by diabetes involves preventing and reversing the complications associated with the disease. The American Diabetes Association states the same somewhere in their mission statement. Ok ADA, put MY money where YOUR 501(C)3 is!!

When I called the American Diabetes Association and shared my excitement for the C-peptide treatment in human trials (in Sweden) reversing type 1 diabetic complications - I was floored when I heard their response.

Allie B: Can the American Diabetes Association please encourage a big pharmaceutical company to sponsor these trials here in the United States? The results in Sweden have conclusively shown reversal of complications associated with type 1 diabetes.

Mat P at the American Diabetes Association: The topic of C-peptide is very sexy in scientific forums. BUT - we don't like to tell big pharmaceutical companies what to do with their money because we don't like them to tell us what to do with ours.

Allie B (in my head): WHAT THE F%^&*)(*&^%$F do you DO as an organization to improve the lives of people affected by diabetes if you are not going to push for trials to prevent and arrest complications associated with the disease?

I'm afraid the American Diabetes Association and I do not share the same goals any longer. It was a long marriage, over 21 years - but I want a divorce. The largest diabetic organization in the United States is not willing to assist in getting a trial underway to prevent and reverse complications that could affect 2 million type 1 diabetics and between 2 and 4 million type 2 diabetics injecting insulin (without C-Peptide).

I didn't feel this way until I realized how disconnected their perception of diabetes is from the reality of the disease. What do you think?