Note: The contents of this blog are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice or substitute for professional care. For medical emergencies, dial 911!
Posts with tag NaturalInsulin
Posted Sep 5th 2007 6:51AM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Drugs, Opinion, Allie Beatty, Retro Review, Personalities
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!
Posted Jul 14th 2007 1:12AM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Childhood, Daily News, Opinion
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!
Posted Jul 9th 2007 10:50AM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Childhood, Lifestyle, Drugs, Opinion, Support
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.
Posted Jul 5th 2007 3:24PM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Lifestyle, Products, Support
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.
Posted Jun 11th 2007 10:46PM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Drugs, Research
Slow and steady wins this race -- and that is why Flamel Technologies took the more natural approach with basal insulin in developing Basulin. The results in a comparison study with Lantus showed patients, while on Basulin, experienced 50% less hypoglycemic events.
Basulin is a controlled release of human insulin, not an insulin analogue like Lantus. The goal with Basulin is to deliver human insulin in order to reduce the risk of potential immune response which can be created by artificial insulins. Lantus has been the preeminent leader since its introduction in 2000. However, Lantus is an insulin analog, meaning that its molecular structure has been changed slightly, to sustain this long-lasting effect. The long-term effects and safety of insulin analogues have not been established.
In a human study, patients formerly treated with Lantus were then changed to Basulin. On the day prior to replacement of Lantus with Basulin, 11 hypoglycemic events were experienced in the 30 patients receiving Lantus. Once these patients were switched to Basulin for the 14 day trials, an average of only 5.1 hypoglycemic events per day occurred. This result is very encouraging, because hypoglycemia is a severe and commonly observed event in T1DM patients. Here is the billion dollar question (In 2006 over 60% of $8.9 billion was spent on long-acting insulin) -- is this more natural Basulin more fat-loving (like real human insulin) in comparison to the insulin analogue Lantus?
Posted Mar 27th 2007 9:38AM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Childhood, Adult Onset, Lifestyle, Drugs, Research
When treating diabetes, today's doctors focus on establishing blood glucose control, but often overlook the need to protect against common diabetic complications such as blindness, kidney damage, and nerve damage. The DCCT, even with a comprehensive treatment program, had a complication rate of approximately 40% of participants.
People who do not have diabetes make insulin with C-peptide. Those of us diabetics who inject synthetic insulin do not get the C-peptide. When scientists began developing insulin - they weeded out the pieces of the amino acid chain they felt were insignificant in lowering blood glucose. Synthetic insulin was designed to reduce the dangerous buildup of excess sugar in the bloodstream. Uh oh - hindsight is surprisingly clear! The long-term complications were initially thought to be caused by lack of insulin - not lack of something that should've been in it. It would make sense if insulin came equipped with this critically important element, wouldn't it?
Tada! C-peptide is the connecting peptide found on the amino acid chain of naturally produced insulin, but left on the cutting room floor in the lab. Studies have shown that C-peptide prevents the development and progression of many diabetic complications and was shown to improve glucose metabolism up to 66%.
Regardless of the potential profit decay C-peptide might cause the production of insulin - the bottom line is the salvation it will provide every man, woman, and child injecting insulin. If you're taking insulin injections, chances are you won't stop taking insulin because you're adding C-peptide to your daily lineup. Chances are - you'll be around a lot longer, and a lot healthier because you do not have the complications most often associated with long-term diabetes.
Wouldn't that be reason enough for you to celebrate the company that brings C-peptide to the drugstore nearest you? Consumer loyalty goes a long way. For those companies who knew a long time ago how beneficial C-peptide would be but didn't do a thing about it - is it really the 33% loss in insulin sales you didn't want to encounter? C'mon. We can handle the truth.
Posted Jan 23rd 2007 11:26AM by Allie Beatty
Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Adult Onset, Opinion, Products
Those of us who don't have a metabolism like Sea biscuit might fall for the too good to be true ads every time. This time the object of my curiosity is Diamaxol. The product was formerly called Diabeticine, but the FDA didn't like the hint of medicine in the name, so the manufacturers changed it.
The product supposedly reduces blood sugar levels, eliminates (strong word) insulin resistance, and normalizes insulin production. A partial list of Diamaxol ingredients include: Banaba, Guggle (Guggul), Bitter Melon, Licorice extract, Cinnamon herb powder, Gymnema Sylvestre, Yarrow, Cayenne, Juniper Berries, Huckleberry, and Vanadyl Sulfate How exactly does Diamaxol claim to work it's magic? It's not magic - it's simply science. The magic behind the formula is actually the miraculous human body doing its job. Diamaxol is more like the stage crew for David Copperfield, rather than the show itself.
Diamaxol interferes with glucose absorption and prevents the stimulation of glucose from the liver. This effectively reduces blood sugar levels. It also eliminates insulin resistance by repairing cell receptors to better handle insulin. Scientists agree, insulin resistance is one of the leading causes of type 2 diabetes. The normalization of insulin production is restored (in type 2) and replaced (in type 1) by an organic compound. Curiously enough, banaba is at the top of the list of ingredients. Banaba contains corosolic acid, which activates the transport of glucose across cell membranes, resulting in blood sugar reductions. It has been used in the Philippines for years to treat diabetes. Because the FDA has approved Diamaxol as a supplement, at least we know that it can't hurt. Sounds interesting, perhaps worth looking into - but is it worth the $75 to $100 a bottle?