Creator of Diabetes Health Magazine, Scott King, has been a type 1 diabetic for over 34 years. Needless to say, he knows diabetes, and he is doing a remarkable job of introducing cutting-edge treatments for diabetics. In the first Diabetes Health TV broadcast, he shared interviews from the recent AADE Conference. A really exciting product he featured is called Neuragen - a topical treatment for diabetes neuropathy.

With diabetes neuropathy, people experience pain due to damage to the peripheral nerves. Neuropathic pain is often characterized by burning sensations or shooting pain, or may occur as numbness or chronic itching. Clinical trials have shown Neuragen to be effective in 70% of patients for the pain associated with diabetes. The ingredients are pretty kosher, too. Neuragen is made of a proprietary blend of essential oils from special species of geranium, lavender, bergamot, eucalyptus, and tea tree.

The Neuragen rep was blunt when he described the effective nature of this all natural product - using more does not make it any more effective! You have to admire his refreshing honesty. But like I said upfront - if Scott King is willing to spend the time getting the scoop on this product - it's probably worth your time using it. For more interviews, checkot the full coverage of the AADE Conference on Diabetes Health TV!

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!

The American Association of Diabetes Educators has spent big bucks this year ensuring its point of view gets across to our representatives in the federal government. The AADE spent $375,000 on lobbying in just the first half of 2007, according to a Senate disclosure form that has been picked up by the media. The law requires that such disclosures be made public. Members of the organization include big Pharma names like Eli Lilly, Novartis and Merck.

The AADE is, obviously, a member organization for diabetes educators, with advocacy in Washington - for professionals and patients - coming as an additional service. The government-run site Healthfinder lists more about the AADE if you're interested. Given the amount of money involved, I'm surprised how little attention this has attracted on the Web. Many news services have featured the disclosure, but only in brief. What I'd like to know is: what issues were the AADE lobbying for and against?