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!

Former head of the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), was executed for taking bribes in return for approving the use of certain medicines. No, you didn't miss anything. The SFDA to which the news story refers is in China. At ease, boys- you're all safe (for now).

Mike Adams of NewsTarget explains in his cartoon that the FDA is a clear and present danger to the health and safety of the American people. The agency is so deeply entangled in protecting drug company profits and corporate interests that it has utterly abandoned its mission of protecting the people. In fact, bribery is routine in the United States drug approval process. A policy exists that allows FDA decision panel experts -- the people who decide which drugs to approve or reject -- to accept up to $50,000 in bribes from drug companies and still serve on such decision panels.

What's really interesting about the press coverage of China's execution is that virtually no one has bothered to call for arresting and prosecuting corrupt FDA officials in the United States. We inherently trust everything we are told by our doctors and our elected officials - we chose them in the first place. It is not until we are awakened to someone else's problem, and realize that it is ours. The U.S. FDA is trustworthy, right? Our people would never stoop to accepting bribes - especially not the president elect for the American Diabetes Association, right?

Congressional investigators have been looking into very serious claims that Avandia's maker silenced medical professionals who attempted to speak out about the potential for cardiovascular problems by using the drug.

Dr. Buse, who is about to become the president of the American Diabetes Association, was an early and frequent critic of Avandia after it reached the market in 1999. In a March 2000 letter to the F.D.A., he said Avandia might raise patients' risk of heart attacks, and he criticized the company's marketing, saying it employed "blatant selective manipulation of data" to overstate the drug's benefits and understate its risks.

More recent questions about Avandia's potential risks, as outlined in a New England Journal of Medicine article last week, have prompted the Congressional hearing. The author of that article, Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a heart specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, has also been called to testify. See the full story on the upcoming congressional hearing.