I don't mind high sugars as much as I loathe lows. Personally I'm not so ruffled by shots either (but my liver begs to differ). However, in a message posted on The Islet Foundation, Pfizer reported that insulin-dependent diabetics declared they most hate taking shots. Was this the warm-up for the Exubera campaign? Here's a fact I support! A close second to this hatred is the hypos. Any diabetic will confess -- hypos are unforgiving. So what if you could catch two birds with one capsule?

I must reiterate the scientific genius behind the Oramed gel caps. The encapsulated insulin bypasses destruction in the stomach cavity. It reaches an entry point in the intestines where it reports for duty to the liver. This allows the liver to resume command of the glucose metabolism, just like Mother Nature intended. Whey you inject insulin - you are overriding the livers ability to monitor blood sugar and putting yourself in the line of fire for the dangerous lows. We all know this state of derangement too well. You won't find my lows picture on a milk carton if I happen to lose it, either.

Frequent episodes of hypoglycemia (even mild ones) force the brain to become accustomed to the low glucose. Unfortunately this also causes suppressed signaling of adrenaline, the livers last resort before dangerous lows. More specifically, the glucose transporters located in the brain cells are damaged from frequent episodes of hypoglycemia. So what was once the hypo threshold for the brain to signal adrenalin release becomes lower. Clinically, the result is hypoglycemic unawareness. Down with the shots, down with the lows and big ups with the future of diabetes control! Now we're getting somewhere.

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?

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!

For those diabetics injecting insulin and getting frustrating results - this blog's you. I include in this group of frustrating results: hypo unawareness, diabulemia, lethargy, weight gain, erratic blood sugars, and missed periods (for the ladies) - these are all side effects people have experienced once beginning genetically modified human insulin. It so happens it is the only kind available in the United States.

Bev did a terrific blog on the Insulin Dependent Diabetes Trust and the difference a choice has offered me: more controlled blood sugars, lower blood pressure, less hunger and even a little weight loss - high five! But herein lies the problem - the choice is not easy to come by. Most doctors believe Big Pharma pushed genetically modified human synthetic insulins because it was better. However this, like the insulin analogues - was nothing but stellar marketing with lackluster scientific proof.

If any of those symptoms listed in my first paragraph kept you reading to this point - please ask your doctor to give natural animal insulins a second chance. Do yourself and other diabetics a favor and request information to bring to your doctor by emailing enquiries@iddtinternational.org. The IDDT will send information on natural animal insulins. You may not be interested, but another diabetic may love the fact it will soon be a choice for them. Freedom of choice - isn't the Liberty Bell appropriate here?

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?

TuDiabetes.com is a site for people touched by diabetes. The creator of the site, Manny Hernandez, got the ball rolling on a topic of interest we all take to heart - diabetes book recommendations.

When you ask diabetics to brainstorm on a terribly intrinsic topic you get some pretty good responses. One suggested read was The Diabetes Improvement Program. This book helped a diabetic overcome depression, when the talented team of healthcare professionals could not. Other honorable mentions include: Psyching Out Diabetes, Dr. Bernstein's' Diabetes Solution, Diabesity, and Diabetes for Dummies.

Somebody actually asked something very interesting - where is the book on the evolution of diabetes treatment? Often a topic of discussion, and yet so rarely documented is the sequential events of diabetes treatment, starting with the discovery of insulin. A lull ensued from about 1930 till the boom of genetically modified human insulin, in the early 80s. Any investigative journalist willing to take a stab at it? I guarantee the book will make my must read. And Eli Lilly might actually pay you not to write it.

P.S. One reader pointed out - a chapter of Brent Hoadley's book, Too Profitable to Cure presented a chronology of the evolution of diabetes treatment.

The CafePharma message boards are for pharmaceutical sales professionals and those interested in the pharmaceutical industry. A former Lilly sales rep started a thread about Eli Lilly and the lies they've told over the years. Pro Lilly responses flooded in, as did the anti-Lilly responses. Yesterday, however, two comments seemed to hit the message board with a vengeance.

Comments #23 and #24 epitomize the anatomy of a good old fashioned debate. Comment #23 is an Eli Lilly sales rep who claims to have helped with the successful launch of rDNA insulin, and the conversion of patients on pig and cow insulin to Humulin. He remarked from the perspective of a salesman that it was a successful venture resulting in unilateral domination. In response to his yesteryear achievement - commenter #24 raised some wonderful counter-points for modern day consideration. The following paragraph summarizes the results 25 years after the market saturation of Humulin and genetically modified human insulin.

The adverse events include: (1) Complications of diabetes are increasing. (2) Dead-in-bed syndrome is up over 300%. (3) Traffic accidents caused by people using rDNA insulins are increasing (especially in Type 2). (4) rDNA insulins are producing immunogenic responses in the same manner and numbers in the diabetic population as did pig and cow insulins. (5) No long-term studies have ever been conducted to define the dangers of the synthetic insulin hormones relative to cancer and other diseases.

Of course my favorite point is the fact that recent studies have shown that the culprit in many Type 1 diabetics may actually be the human insulin antibody produced by the diabetic. This may be self-serving beyond Type 1 diabetics needing insulin - it's giving Type 2s the very same problem.

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!

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.

When TIME magazine does a piece on your plight - it's definitely gaining public interest. The fact that 1 in 3 people affected by Type 1 diabetes manipulate their insulin to lose weight is an eye-opening statistic. This lethal coping mechanism is termed diabulemia and a major national TV show is seeking diabulmics for a "sensitive, accurate portrayal of the condition" - at least that is what they told me.

I volunteered myself for the interview. I've struggled with diabulemia for the past 15 years until I did something a doctor would NEVER recommend. I called the station back - it was CNN. I divulged what a day in the life was like when I practiced diabulemia -- and I was good at it! When I told the interviewer that I noticed a world of difference when I changed my insulin from human synthetic to natural animal, she was surprised (so was my doctor). The key to mitigating my angst with insulin was getting the message to my brain at the same time the rest of my body was getting the glucose. This is less effective in newer insulin analogues. Big Pharma does not profit by selling natural vertebrate insulin even if it is better for hormonal response in suppressing appetite and preventing your body from entering ketoacidosis (DKA). Big Pharma profits if they own the patent for the specific insulin analogue you use. In my land of milk and honey - I realized Big Pharma is not my mom, not my dad and not my best friend. Big Pharma is not personal -- Big Pharma is business. So I took my business elsewhere because I didn't like the way Big Pharma was handling my business.

I don't mind explaining my abusive relationship with insulin if it helps anybody struggling with diabulemia. It's a shameful thing but it doesn't have to be. It's controversial but it's all true. For those of you considering your 15 minutes for diabulemia -- don't be concerned about your privacy. The TV show is planning to shoot the interview in shadow. If you wish to learn more about contributing to this documentary, please see The Sugar Shock.

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.

The American Diabetes Association's (ADA) 67th Scientific Sessions conference will draw to a close tomorrow. Among the latest presentations was a report on quality of life for people suffering from diabetic retinopathy. A recent Eli Lilly-funded study involving 684 patients concluded that diabetics with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy who lose at least ten letters in visual acuity - the measurement used by eye specialists - suffer a notable decline in quality of life. Significance? Vision loss used to be defined as beginning at a loss of at least fifteen letters, but this study says even mild to moderate visual impairment impacts physical functioning. More details of the findings are reported on the website DocGuide.

An example of the insidiousness of diabetes-related health complications, diabetic retinopathy causes damage to blood vessels in the eye's retina. The disease harms vision, and can even lead to blindness. Basically what happens is this: as the disease progresses, blood vessels form on the retina that are particularly susceptible to breaking and bleeding into the eye. This is known as proliferative retinopathy. It obscures the vision and can also lead to the formation of scar tissue that can eventually lead to retinal detachment.

Health Tip: Sadly, you can't cure retinopathy once you have it. However, you can slow its progress by keeping blood sugar and blood pressure levels under control. Diabetics who have not been diagnosed should also know one important fact: diagnosis usually comes after damage has already occurred. It's therefore imperative that you get screened for the disease by an ophthalmologist or optometrist annually. View the ADA's full recommendations by clicking here.

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?

Once again Diabetes Health gets to the bottom of a breaking point question: why does insulin cost more than ever?

When Fred Banting and Charles Best first discovered insulin in 1921, they sold the patent for a dollar ($1) so that insulin could quickly become available for life-saving use. Within 2 years, Eli Lilly had sold over 60 million units of its purified extract of pig and cow pancreas. Over the next 60 years, purification and duration improvements were applied to insulin. However, each new version of insulin came with a new patent and a higher price tag. By the 80s, yeasts were being used as tiny insulin-making factories. Once the gene for human insulin was inserted into one yeast DNA, the yeast multiplied ad infinitum, and each new yeast came with a little copy of human insulin. This breakthrough, naturally, carried with it a big, profit-making patent.

In 1996, the FDA approved the first insulin analog. Newer insulins are called analogs because they're similar to human insulin-- but not quite exactly. Before being put into the yeast, the human genetic material is slightly changed, to produce slower or quicker acting insulin, for instance. Each one of these improvements comes, of course, with a patent. And all these patented insulins cost - big time. For the entire story, comments from influential diabetes advocates and the evolution of insulin price gouging - see the full article at Diabetes Health!