The scientific community has been in a heated debate about xenotransplants (transplanting pig islets into humans). Although the procedures are showing to be effective - is the insulin secretion entirely pig? Some experts surmise that after the transplants, diabetic patients are actually able to produce some insulin on their own, after all.

The latest press release from Tissera, Inc (an Israeli-based company) made a statement that raises my hopes. It was, "By the fourth month after transplantation, the insulin dose needed to maintain near-normal blood sugar levels decreased by more than 90% in comparison with the insulin dose needed before transplantation, meaning that endogenous insulin production was predominantly responsible for blood sugar control."

The question of the origin of endogenous insulin was addressed by measurement of blood C-peptide. C-peptide splits from insulin and indicates the level of insulin secretion from the patient. C-peptide levels were measured both at baseline and in response to a sugar load, which brings about a rise in blood C-peptide. The measured C-peptide was shown to be predominantly of pig origin. So herein lies my question: is predominantly more than 50%? A type 1 diabetic has undetectable levels of C-peptide. Period. After the xenotransplant the C-peptide level is all of a sudden detectable? Could these islet transplants assist in regenerating the diabetics' own islets?

A little over 2 weeks ago I posted something about diabulemia on site where diabetics exchange their feelings, frustrations, and experiences with the disease. Two Type 1 diabetic women took the time to write me a very thoughtful hate mail. Hate is a strong word but these are some strong accusations. For starters, they said, "There ain't no such word as diabulemia. It's called diabetic stupidity." That is cut directly from the email, and as you can see - it was written with an arrogant disregard for the 450,000 people suffering from this serious condition.

I understand strong words come from passion. An email with the subject title "There's type 1, and then there are fools with type 1" could only have been composed with hateful passion. Within the passionate lines of this email were statements like "Insulin shock therapy was used in mental institutions (where you belong)." Not exactly nice words to come from a teacher - but again, the words were incensed with passion. Good, bad or ugly - feedback is terribly important to me because it conveys what matters to you. Knowing is half the battle.

By logging my experiences with diabetes on the web, these hate mailers refer to me as "You fool" for exercising my Freedom of Speech (First Amendment). To this I add -- thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act. If I'm a Fool for sharing my experience with overcoming diabulemia and trying to lend consoling advice to others struggling with it - I'm a damn proud Fool! Hate on, haters!

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?

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.

Meet the Face of Change is a photo exhibit owned by Novo Nordisk featuring YOU -- the face of change. Change for what, I asked? Well, it seems Novo would like to change your opinion of the barriers to insulin treatment for Type 2 diabetics. The common belief of insulin treatment for Type 2 diabetes is that it is the point of no return. Why? First instincts are usually correct.

Studies have shown that Type 2 diabetics injecting insulin create insulin antibodies (IAA). Type 1 diabetics have these antibodies upon diagnosis. Type 1 diabetes was also formerly referred to as insulin-dependent diabetes. Insulin antibodies (IAA) develop and attack the natural insulin produced, resulting in insulin dependence. Type 2 diabetics do not have the same level of IAA. Once they begin injecting insulin that looks like human insulin (the kind Novo makes) - you run the risk of developing IAA. The use of animal-insulins did not cause the development of IAA to the same extent. If you plan to start injecting insulin - ask your doctor if he will check you for IAA. As a Type 2 diabetic, you DO NOT have to become an insulin-dependent diabetic.

I asked Novo to explain what Meet the Face of Change is about. What are they trying to change? The response I received from Nov explains their wishes to strengthen the drive of their business, among other core values. Now I ask you - how do you drive a business that sells insulin? Sell more insulin. For the 16 million Type 2s not yet in this lineup- please consider if insulin-dependent diabetes is the face you want to meet. Don't add insulin to injury. It may not be the path of least resistance, but cut back on simple sugars, increase fiber consumption, and take a walk after dinner. Meet the face of change by putting your best foot forward, not your face on a campaign for vulture capitalism.

Lately the news has seen a lot of devastating diabetic events due to hypoglycemic unawareness. Hypoglycemic unawareness is commonly defined as an inability to recognize the symptoms (sweating, tremor, hunger, anxiety, and palpitations) of decreased blood sugar or a failure of the warning signs to occur before development of neuroglycopenia, which means a shortage of glucose in the brain. Curiously, this term was not coined for diabetes until 10 years after the introduction of genetically modified human synthetic insulin and insulin analogues.

I hate to say it but diabetes is a crapshoot. You never know what you are going to get, but you can sure try your best to keep your eye on the ball. Removing the inherent dangers of hypoglycemic unawareness would make me a happier diabetic, and improve the lives of all those I care about (diabetics like myself). The answer might lie in the only type of treatment available nowadays, insulin analogues. Diabetics who do not take any form of drug to control blood sugar do NOT have hypoglycemic unawareness.

It's called human but it is nothing like natural human insulin. It may be faster acting or longer lasting but I'm sure He didn't intend for insulin to break sound barriers or last three moons. If Big Pharmaceutical companies were asked to compare insulin analogues with natural human insulin you'd hear crickets. I promise you NO Big Pharma will fund a study that would become the antithesis of their marketing campaigns, human insulin is better. It's not better, it's just different -- totally different! Natural insulin is fat-loving. Insulin analogues are water-loving. The global command center of the body (the brain) is one big blob of fatty material. This means as your blood sugar is dropping, your brain is last fed, if it eats at all. Here in the United States we are victims of circumstance in hypoglycemic unawareness. Sorry brain, no soup for you.

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.

Now that the US market is suspiciously saturated with human insulin - and many of us diagnosed within the last 10 years did not have a shot at trying porcine insulin - I'd like to set the record straight. When the pharmaceutical companies cherry pick the studies they wish to use for their gain, and not so much for your enhanced quality of life - they must've lost this study.

Please read the entire study (if you have access to it in a local library) but what grabbed my undivided attention was the sentence that says: it was observed that the action of porcine insulin was associated with... a striking increase of prolactinaemia, in relation to semisynthetic human insulin.

Okay -- so as I look deeper into the function of prolactin -- aside from some definite dopamine enhancing activities (if you know what I mean) :::wink wink::: -- it is responsible for the formation of myelin coatings on axons in the central nervous system. This is a certifiable problem that results in diabetic neuropathy and the related side effects (numbness, nerve dysfunction, i.e, ED).

Ex-queeze me? Does this say that human synthetic insulin may be a cock blocking drug?

Sorry for the blunt delivery -- but this is the truth. Why doesn't human synthetic insulin have this listed as a side effect? My guess is: if you had a choice of human synthetic insulin versus highly purified porcine insulin -- and you knew the side effects of human synthetic might take a toll on the health of your sex life -- you might be praying to the porcine gods.

Shame on the companies who knew about this study and kept it undercover so you couldn't...

While patrolling the PubMed database this weekend, I came across a very interesting study that investigated the effects of new insulins on insulin and C-peptide antibodies, insulin dose, and diabetic control. Please note - this study was published in 1983. After reading -- I invite EVERYONE to let me know if it is possible to get purified pork insulin and whether or not you have been on it-- and if you have seen a difference in your diabetes control. Please?

24 diabetic patients using bovine (beef) insulin and possessing insulin antibodies underwent a study of the immunological and clinical consequences of changes in both purity and species of their insulin. The new insulin regimes tested were one of three: a) purified bovine insulin, b) highly purified porcine insulin, and c) semisythetic human insulin.

The patients underwent 3 consecutive 4-month periods on each insulin regimen. The average insulin antibody levels changed little on purified bovine (beef) insulin; actually increased on semi-synthetic human insulin but fell substantially on highly purified porcine insulin. Okay - so this means, in lay terms that the patient's insulin antibodies (the stuff killing your islets) remained relatively the same on beef insulin but became categorically HIGH on synthetic human insulin. And most importantly - to me-the highly purified porcine insulin actually DROPPED the insulin antibodies. Of course - it would cost big pharmaceutical companies more to manufacture highly purified porcine insulin.

C-peptide antibodies fell significantly and continuously throughout the study. The slower rate of fall in C-peptide antibody levels is likely to be due to the prolonged half-life of circulating exogenous proinsulin in the presence of insulin antibody. Although insulin dose remained constant the incidence of hypoglycaemic episodes did not increase and glycosylated haemoglobin levels rose significantly when patients were on porcine insulin. The deterioration in diabetic control may have been due to greater temporal mismatch between insulin needs and insulin availability with pork or human insulin than with beef insulins, and to reduced insulin antibody levels.

The use of purer insulins which more closely resemble the human form can cause a significant reduction in levels of insulin and C-peptide antibodies. These changes may not necessarily produce better diabetic control. Recent studies have shown that a depletion of C-peptide in the body results in a greater chance of microvascular complications associated with diabetes.

This study was published around the time when all of the synthetic human insulins were sweeping the Nation. I tried calling my local CVS Pharmacy on Saturday morning to see if I could get some purified porcine insulin. No such luck. Go figure. The big guys were successful at convincing the medical community and patients that no other insulin is better. Correction - no other insulin is cheaper to manufacture and that means it is better for them. And the importance of C-peptide was overlooked entirely - or was it? C-peptide prevents the complications associated with injecting insulin - but that sounds like another marketable drug. After all - synthetic human insulin doesn't have C-peptide. REAL HUMAN INSULIN does (the way it comes out of the beta cells, in natural form, it does)!!! And as long as your body is producing insulin antibodies - you NEED their synthetic insulin (conveniently -- the only kind you can buy). Best business model - customer for life!

A Canadian biotech company claims to have devised a way to produce human insulin from genetically modified safflower plants. You know, the same plants you get the oil from. High tech, indeed.

Representatives of the company in question, SemBioSys Genetics Inc. of Calgary, say the discovery could have a big impact on the diabetes market, and compare the breakthrough to the discovery of insulin back in 1921 by Frederick Banting and Charles Best (also from Canada!). Not only does the company hope to make big bucks from the technology, it's CEO also says they hope their product could eventually make insulin supplies affordable for people in the developing world.

Interesting fact: the insulin currently used by diabetics is also genetically engineered, but from bacteria and yeast, which are mixed together in large steel vats. SemBioSys, on the other hand, took a human insulin gene and inserted it into a safflower plant. The insulin then grows itself as the plant grows. The safflower insulin is not going to be available anytime soon, however. First the company has to prove that its insulin is as effective as the regular kind. Then there would have to be a succession of trials to make sure it's safe for people to take.

The story of SemBioSys is pretty interesting in and of itself, even aside from all this insulin news. To read more, visit this article in the Globe and Mail.