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!

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.

DiabeCell has successfully been transplanted into the first type I diabetes patient. This trial is testing its efficacy and safety in controlling the dangerous blood glucose levels to prevent long-term secondary complications of type I diabetes.

Living Cell Technologies has announced the successful transplant into the first of six type I (insulin dependent) diabetic patients in a world-first human clinical trial using DiabeCell. Patients in the trial will receive two low doses of the pig islet cells every six months over a 12 month period, followed by a further 12 month study, evaluating the benefits. Recipients in this first trial are given the lowest clinically effective dose to demonstrate safety. The dosing is repeated for additional clinical benefit. The company hopes to commercialize the product for general use by 2012.

DiabeCell is a pig pancreatic islet cell product that secretes insulin in response to the patient's blood glucose levels. People with type I diabetes are not able to produce their own insulin because their pancreas cells are not functioning. DiabeCell has been uniquely developed with a gel that forms a tiny capsule around the cells. This prevents the patient's immune system from destroying the transplant and does not require immunosuppressive drugs. Think of DiabeCell as bubble wrap for islets -- cool, right?

As Bev just pointed out, diabulimia is a serious condition when a type 1 diabetic is not taking their insulin in order to lose weight. Diabulimia is a term that has only cropped up in recent years. Most people who experience diabulemia are stuck between two fears: taking increasing doses of insulin, which leads to weight gain, and the damage the destructive behavior is causing their body in the long-term.

One expert who has studied the phenomenon estimates that 450,000 type 1 diabetic women in the United States - one-third of the total - have skipped or shortchanged their insulin to lose weight and are risking a coma and an early death. Ann Goebel-Fabbri, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston says, "People who do this behavior wind up with severe diabetic complications much earlier". Is that supposed to be a warning or a promise? It sounds like she's saying complications are inevitable - but if you're contented with the weight gain - you'll deter the early arrival of complications. Poor advice, doc.

The caution of do as you're told and complications will arrive later is not a very promising guarantee. The behaviors of tight diabetes control are almost tantamount to cultivating eating disorders. Studies show that women with type 1 diabetes are twice as likely to develop an eating disorder. After all -- good diabetes management requires a preoccupation with food, counting carbohydrates and following a diet. Sounds like the ingredients for an eating disorder - throw in a hormonal imbalance (genetically modified insulin that arrives late to the brain, unlike natural vertebrate pork and cow insulin) and you've got yourself diabulemia. Thanks again, Big Pharma!! Where is the prize in good diabetes management if you are punished with weight gain?

The discovery of insulin, in 1922, was a breakthrough in the treatment of diabetes and it produced a remarkable increase in the life expectancy of diabetic patients. Animal-derived insulins have been used to treat people with diabetes since insulin was first discovered and continuously subjected to various purification technologies. In 1973, Novo produced a purer type of insulin, called monocomponent insulin. This set a new standard in purity. In 1982, Human Monocomponent was the world's first insulin preparation identical to human insulin. It was actually pig insulin, modified by enzymes, to appear identical to human insulin.

When Novo tried to introduce monocomponent insulin into the USA, Lilly fought back with 'human' Humulin insulin. Before Humulin insulin became available, insulin had been produced from animal sources, pigs and cows. It is believed by some that the animal insulin provided the diabetic with better awareness of hypos, and it is certainly true that the long-acting animal insulin such as Ultralente are longer-acting than their 'human' equivalents. The fact that both pig and cow differ from human insulin by certain amino acids (1 in pig and 3 in cow) has lead the majority of physicians to recommend 'human' insulin. 'Animal' insulin became increasingly hard to find, particularly in the USA (see This Little Piggy Left the Market).

In the late 1990s Eli Lilly developed Lispro, brand name Humalog. This was approved for prescription use in the UK and the US by 1996. This insulin has a shorter activity curve than Regular. This means it can be injected closer to the meal time, even after it. Studies have shown that it does not improve control as measured by long-term indicators (Hba1c), but that it does decrease the number of hypos. Glargine, brand name Lantus, was approved for use in the US in 2004. It has become widely touted as better than other long-acting insulins because it has a plateau effect on glucose control that lasts for approximately 24 hours. Some people find it acts a little shorter (and some doctors don't believe that's possible!) So there you have it - the short and sweet version of the history of insulin. I strongly suggest anyone who wishes to fill the spaces between the discovery in 1922 and present day to pickup The Discovery of Insulin (Michael Bliss). I welcome all comments to fill-in the pivotal details I've failed to include.

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.