1. The ADA is supposed to represent the interests, welfare and research to those with Diabetes. Unfortunately, what your post has described is the ADA representing THEIR OWN interests, that of $$ and power.
What crap!!
Another example of Hypocrisy by a Bureaucratic organization that probably gets "kick backs" from large pharmaceutical companies by promoting research and marketing of drugs only geared to those with IRD(aka Type 2 Diabetes).
Clinical studies show that C-peptide administration in type 1 diabetes patients, who lack the peptide, results in amelioration of diabetes-induced renal and nerve dysfunction.
There is a large Bibliography of research studies by investigators that show the benefit of using C-peptide along with insulin for both the bio-dynamics of said medication and the arresting of various organ/tissue complications created by T1DM.
It is just logical and ethical to have and make C-Peptide available to those with T1DM. Physicians are always talking about the importance of Good Management in T1DM and the Responsibility of those w/Diabetes to do everything possible to "control their Illness". Good Management is not only about controlling bs values, it is also vital to control ensuing Complications that can and do develop as a result of the Disease.
It is my feeling, that complications can develop as a result of not only erratic bs levels, but the longevity of the Disease itself independent of Glucose values.
It is time for those of us with T1DM to voice our feelings and support the availability of C-Peptide as vital to our needs.

Posted at 8:47AM on Apr 11th 2007 by BetterCell

2. So... BetterCell and AllieB, what can be done about this? Who should we (the diabetic community and those who love them) be contacting to push these trials?

Posted at 11:45AM on Apr 11th 2007 by Trish

3. Hi Trish....Regarding C-peptide, the most important thing for the Diabetes Community is to understand and accept the importance of Priorities. While it is "nice" to know that a movie star or/and athlete has Diabetes and is functioning, it is MORE important to deal with Drugs as well as life-style changes that again, will either prevent or/and delay Complications associated with Diabetes.
Public Relations has its place in getting across the message, that having Diabetes does not "Limit" what a person is able to accomplish(unless they have Complications).
Since organizations like American Diabetes Association(ADA) and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation(JDRF) are suppose to represent the INTERESTS of those with Diabetes, then it is OUR responsibility to make our feelings and viewpoint on C-Peptide known to them. Also those that manufacture Insulin, such as Lilly, Novo-Nordisk, Sanofi-Adventis all who have Customer Service Departments, must also be made aware of the "missing ingredient", C-Peptide.
There are many many Research Bibliographies attesting to the need of incorporating C-Peptide along with Insulin for Diabetes Management.
I personally feel that the prevention of Complications as well as treating them successfully are more important than which movie star has Diabetes.
Other Agencies to contact are: www.dlife.com
www.diabeteshealth.com
www.diabetestalkfest.com
medicalnewstoday.com
Most people do not seem to know that C-Peptide "works" together with Insulin, but has its own qualities that again serve to protect the Body against complications as well as work in repair.

Posted at 12:46PM on Apr 11th 2007 by BetterCell

4. Allie...I am only surprised it has taken you until now to identify irreconcilable differences with the ADA, an organization that has long been the last with the least, rather than on the forefront in diabetes education. (Follow the money, they always say, right?) For instance, how many years (decades) has their stance on the need to lower carb intakes been tepid at best, long after many diabetics themselves had already done so based on their own experiences. Take a look at their current food pyramid page, where there is much discussion of lowering calories. Hello? Like, what's your calorie-to-insulin ratio, sport? Hardly helpful, especially for those newly diagnosed. We have an awful time trying to help older friends with Type II who have been advised by their doctors to eat "lots of fruits and vegetables, and lower fat intake" based on ADA guidelines, who then suffer high BGLs from all those carbs without any conversion-rate-modifying fats. We have such a dear friend staying at our house right now, who is amazed how his BGLs came down to normal levels in 2 days -- from the upper 200's -- on the 'lower-carb' meal style that my wife uses to keep her Type 1 in good control. Yes, Nicholas Dynes Gracey, I expect to hear from you on my Type II comments. :) Our friend cannot grasp that his doctor could be wrong on this. Yikes. The first thing my wife's diabetes educator drummed into her 4 years ago when she got Type 1 was "a carb is a carb", and only after she clearly grasped that was she taught about glucose conversion rates and effective bolusing for different carb types, the effect of protein and fat on conversion rates, etc. How 'bout such real, meaningful educational programs from the ADA itself, instead of only from 'rogue' educators, to increase quality of life in a very tangible way? I won't hold my breath.
This comment wouldn't be complete without saying again what a great blog this is, including the discussions, Nicholas Dynes Gracey notwithstanding. (Nick, you know I'm kidding, right? I *am* waiting to see where you're going with your agenda artfully posed as polite information-seeking questions, though.)

Posted at 1:38PM on Apr 11th 2007 by TechRightGuy

5. U are right to be outraged Allie*

It's exasperating when yer dealing on some of these Issues + the people in charge could give a Flying Fart less* FEMA & the Hurricane Katrina debacle comes to mind*

Any Cure is going to come from Time + Money + Scientific Research Resources*

Currently we are Wasting or impeding Efforts of all 3*

I hope U Allie or one of the other Folks here will do a proper Blog Post on the potential Stem Cell Cure for Diabetes*

It's on CNN fer crying out LOUD - i dropped it on this Blog over 12 Hours ago*

Is that not Newsworthy???

Somebody at Weblogs, Inc. needs to WAKE UP & smell the Coffee*


Cheers Allie!! Billy ;))

Peace*

Posted at 3:01PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Bill Braithwaite

6. Hi TechRightGuy,

What would happen to the ADA if EveryOne realised Diabetes IS an ILLusion created by ... ?

ADA tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing...

http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2005/05/18/after-sweet-industry-gift-ada-head-claims-sugar-has-nothing-to/

"...Richard Kahn, the chief scientific and medical Officer with the ADA said “What is the evidence that sugar itself has anything to do with diabetes? There is no evidence...”

...ADA says this is true, Richard Kahn says this is true, it is my belief it is true and it is my opinion that Millions/Billions have been so brainwashed to believe that it is other than true ... that even when the ADA speaks 'but the truth' ... Millions/Billions still believe that high blood sugar is Diabetes! [please 'rub your eyes' and read that again because beliefs can be changed]...

A. In respect of the comment: ‘…help older Friends with type 2 who have been advised by their doctors to eat "lots of fruits and vegetables, and lower fat intake" based on ADA guidelines, who then suffer high BGLs from all those carbs without any conversion-rate-modifying fats...’

type 2 = UNdrugTREATED or
type 2 = ANYdrugTREATED ?

What use are high BGL lowering drugs without high BGL?; and in respect of your adoption of the word "suffer" please ... BUT THE TRUTH ...

Belief for adopting the word "suffer" is?

Please provide any Peer reviewed reference [preferably with a web link] providing a foundation for … even a single life ever having been caused less 'suffering' in the case of an ANYdrugTREATED type 2 Diabetic as compared with an UNdrugTREATED type 2 Diabetic.

If there is scientific proof in the form of a Peer reviewed reference … please advise as to the details of any other scientific reference which confirms / validates the findings of that Peer reviewed reference.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-155291575.html In studies of ‘sitagliptin phosphate’ administered in combination with ‘metformin’ [eg Janumet aka Januvia] common side effects reported include: nasopharyngitis, back pain, arthralgia and cough, stuffy or runny nose and sore throat, upper respiratory infection and headache … One or more of which could contribute to an increased likelihood of a "suffer".

As compared with the relative joy of UNdrugTREATED type 2 diabetes…

Where’s the PROOF that type 2 diabetes ['insulin-resistant diabetes'] is anything other than beneficial? [when UNdrugTREATED]; and if that was other than clear...

Where’s the PROOF that type 2 diabetes ['insulin-resistant diabetes'] is anything other than beneficial? [when UNdrugTREATED]

Transient supernormal glycaemia ‘TSG’ occurs in every Human Being as a healthy and natural response to acute stress [‘adaptive medicine’] … distributing glucose to nerve cells [without insulin receptors] and preventing ‘hypos’ [the real concern] … and may well increase HbA1c … so what? … when glucose levels surge up for a transient period [and then down again] an above average HgA1c can just as easily be viewed as a marker for a very healthy ‘stress adapted’ Human Being who has the benefit of being ‘insulin-conservative’ [ie a criteria for being labelled a ‘type 1 Diabetic’] which protects INTRAcellular components of cells [with insulin receptors], from eg glycation of DNA, during periods of chronic stress.

B. What is the most definitive study which substantiates the benefit of reducing HbA1c in drug/insulin treated acute&chronic 'insulin-resistant diabetes' [Type 2] … as compared with treatment-free [drug/insulin] acute&chronic 'insulin-resistant diabetes' [ie in a ZERO drug (repeat zero) treatment control Group ie UNdrugTREATED]? {ps please note the word written there says: “zero”} ie completely ignoring HbA1c value variability…

... Am seeking any ‘Peer reviewed’ study that clearly disassociates drug/insulin treatment from any changes in Patient behaviour [eg diet/exercise] and/or categorically proves that drug/insulin treated acute&chronic 'insulin-resistant diabetes' is healthier than doing absolutely nothing [‘zero’] ie just accepting the higher HgA1c value and [possibly beneficial] blood glucose value [and possibly beneficial “insulin resistance”]; and

C. What is the most definitive study which provides incontrovertible evidence that the apparent insulin receptor mediated down-regulation [in response to: transient supernormal glycaemia ‘TSG’] is anything substantially other than a stress-adaptive mechanism of 'local' [on a cell-by-cell basis] intracellular cyto-protection from influx of excessive [blood] circulating glucose [ie homeostasis] eg cardio muscle protective?

... My understanding is that insulin receptor mediated down-regulation ‘IRD’ [aka “insulin resistance”] is primarily an adaptive [protective/regulatory/beneficial] reply to transient [and chronically repeated] oral indulgence/stress …

eg "...healthy young students were fed a very high fat diet containing egg yolks, heavy cream, and butter, and within 2 days all of the students had blood sugar levels high enough to be labelled diabetic..."
Sweeney J. Dietary factors that influence the dextrose tolerance test: A preliminary study. Archives of Internal Medicine 1927; 40:818.

http://www.DrFuhrman.com
“…After World War I, when insulin was first discovered, the medical profession thought diabetes would be totally curable as a medical problem. Diabetes was believed to be due to insulin deficiency, and everyone thought that since insulin would now be given to patients there would be no more problems. It seemed this way for a few years, but terrible things started happening to patients with diabetes who were given insulin to control their blood sugar levels. They developed eye disease, kidney disease, and, most important, accelerating atherosclerosis leading to blood vessel disease and early heart attacks. Their problems were worse than ever. Decades later, when the insulin assay became available and doctors were able to measure insulin levels in their patients’ bloodstreams, they found most interesting results: the insulin levels of type 1 (childhood-onset) diabetics were indeed low, but the levels in type 2 (adult-onset) diabetics were not only not low, but also were higher than those of people without diabetes. It became clear that type 2 diabetes is a disease of insulin resistance, not insulin deficiency. Type 2 diabetics produce plenty of insulin … I can only view today’s treatment of diabetic patients as malpractice…”
(1995) Dr Joel Fuhrman [a board-certified Family Physician practising in Belle Mead, New Jersey who specialises in preventing and reversing chronic conditions of high blood sugar; Dr Fuhrman is an active staff member of Hunterdon Medical Centre and provides nutritionally oriented medical care to Patients as well as nutritional education to other Physicians; Author of “Fasting and Eating for Health” ‘A Medical Doctor’s Program for Conquering Disease’].

Warm thanks, Nicholas Dynes Gracey, BSc(Hons) Medical Biochemistry, Birmingham University, UK c/o www.TheDiabetesBlog.com @ 19:25hrs WED.11.APR.2007.

Posted at 3:28PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey

7. Hi Bill,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6541887.stm

OR stem cell ‘Scientists’ [seeking lots of money from ?] use high-dose chemotherapy on healthy Children, with high blood glucose readings, to create type 1 Diabetics and deliberately [or do Scientists now withhold ‘a control Group’ by chance ?] withhold monitoring and/or data of an UNdrugTREATED control Group [or even 1 Child] which was far more likely, in each case, to result in the total remission “Honeymoon Period” ie CURE [subject to proof any Child was other than healthy in the first place] than the partial remission “Honeymoon Period” [results] allegedly ‘discovered’, in Brazil, by the stem cell ‘Scientists’ …

http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2007/04/03/the-honeymoon-period/

… the “Honeymoon Period” which is extremely common [and capable of being extended indefinitely] provided JDRF advice on treating the “Honeymoon Period” with insulin is questioned and questioned and questioned…

http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=106137

JDRF says…

“Even though you may not need insulin, some doctors prefer that you take small doses of insulin daily throughout the honeymoon period.”

“some doctors”?

JDRF says…

“This may decrease the stress on the pancreas.”

“may”?

JDRF says…

“It may also help prevent your child with diabetes from thinking that the disease is gone.”

“help”? "from thinking that the disease is gone.”??

Warm thanks, Nick

Posted at 3:38PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey

8. I've long felt this way about the ADA. I'm very frustrated because a friend of mine (close to being former friend, frankly) has embarked on a new diet to help her pre-diabetes: a 60% carb diet. She's actually eating way *more* carbs than she was before! I tried telling her this wouldn't work, but she won't listen, because she's doing what the ADA says and following a "diabetic diet."

They're out of touch.

Posted at 5:56PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Lili

9. Hello back, Nicholas.

You have tipped your hand to some extent -- "it is my belief it is true and it is my opinion that" -- but I am a bit puzzled by sweeping statements about "diabetes"; can I assume in most instances you are referring to Type II, unless you specifically bifurcate Type I?

With respect to "suffer", a carelessly chosen word, but an apt one as it turns out; my friend, referenced above, and everyone I know who experiences high BGLs -- admittedly "high" is a relative term depending on the individual -- also experiences 'brain fog' along with it. Yes, they suffer. My wife, and others I know with Type I report the same feeling that my friends with Type II report. Perhaps you have not experienced this, or do not know anyone who has? Apologies for anecdotes rather than double-blind testing published in peer-reviewed journals, but for all that lack, what I relate is no less true. While lowering BGLs in someone with Type II might be merely treating a symptom, your suggestion seems to be to just leave it alone. Surely I am misunderstanding you...? (No, it has not escaped notice that you have "drug" in "untreated", which merely begs that question of what treatment exactly you propose, if any.)

Don't misunderstand; I am very interested in what you have to bring to the discussion, but aside from raising some interesting questions about cause, affect, symptoms, treatment or lack thereof, I cannot yet see where you are headed. If you suggest that Type II has no ill affects, and should be left alone -- word like "joy" might lead one to think so -- well, sorry, on the basis of severe 'brain fog' alone I must part ways with you. If however, you propose that it is a manifestation of insulin resistance alone, or something else, I am happy to listen. If you complain about current drug treatment regimens, I'm still listening interestedly to hear about the alternatives. (I'm a big fan of lowering carb intake, and getting more exercise, but don't get me started.)

So there you have it. I do not mean to be confrontational, merely to find out exactly what your theories are, as opposed to what you do not believe because of a lack of true scientific support.

Thanks in advance.

(Apologies Allie for mis?using your blog for this discussion!)

Posted at 6:03PM on Apr 11th 2007 by TechRightGuy

10. Hi TechRightGuy,

This all relates to Allie's ADA post because my agreement was with the ADA's 'statement of truth' and ... type 0, type 1 & type 2 all meet up eventually [its a trilogy, like the 'Matrix' movie, so let's start with type 2 and work backwards]...

Tom Hanks, UNdrugTREATED, in 'Joe verses the Volcano' [movie] was diagnosed with "brain cloud" as compared to 'brain fog' suffered by an apparently UNdrugTREATED type 2 Diabetic referred to in your post?

Before embarking on being ANYdrugTREATED, for a lifetime, it's necessary to determine whether this is a genuine case 'brain fog disease' or just a "brain cloud".

(A) If that type 2 Diabetic [focussed upon in your post #4] is ANYdrugTREATED as compared with UNdrugTREATED ... please list ALL the drugs, the duration of their 'use' [within 12 months of the 'brain fog' first arising] and ANY of their known side effects?

(B) "alternatives" for what?

(C) Where is the "true scientific support" ??

Warm thanks; Nick

Posted at 7:30PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey

11. Nicholas,

I hope, in spite of my first comment in the stem cell post, that you will not mind if I continue discussion, as long as I keep my comments specific to either Allie’s post or your response to them?

If I am catching your drift, in comment 6 you are quoting Richard Kahn to show that there is no evidence that high blood sugar is related to diabetes. (Direct link to the article referenced in the post: http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/diabetes051605.htm ) After reading the article, it is my interpretation that Mr. Kahn was referring to dietary sugar intake, rather than blood glucose. If you go about a quarter of the way down you will find that Kahn explicitly contradicts what you are claiming he said.

“CCR (Corporate Crime Reporter): …Okay, let’s define our terms. What is diabetes?
KAHN: Diabetes is an abnormally high blood glucose level”

Therefore, if you continue to discuss this topic, be advised that this is not the strongest evidence.

Sincerely,
Emily

Posted at 8:42PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Emily

12. Hi Emily,

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/diabetes051605.htm

KAHN: What?

What is the evidence that sugar itself has anything to do with diabetes? There is no evidence.

CCR: There is no evidence that sugar has anything to do with diabetes?

KAHN: None. There is not a shred of evidence that sugar per se has anything to do with getting diabetes.


... so still ADA tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing...

http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2005/05/18/after-sweet-industry-gift-ada-head-claims-sugar-has-nothing-to/

"...Richard Kahn, the chief scientific and medical Officer with the ADA said “What is the evidence that sugar itself has anything to do with diabetes? There is no evidence...”

...ADA says this is true, Richard Kahn says this is true, it is my belief it is true and it is my opinion that Millions/Billions have been so brainwashed to believe that it is other than true ... even when the ADA speaks 'but the truth'.

Your interest is for the ADA? or JDRF?? or ???

Furthermore... Millions/Billions still believe that high blood sugar is a 'disease' called Diabetes! [please 'rub your eyes' and read that again because beliefs can be changed]...

Warm thanks; Nick

Posted at 9:26PM on Apr 11th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey

13. Nick:

Your style makes it difficult, through this medium at least, to discern true intent, so I have tried to ascribe only the finest interpretation to your words and responses when in doubt.

Regarding my question of whether you are generally commenting on all that is commonly called diabetes, regardless of "Type" or only that which is commonly called Type II, unless you specifically state "Type I", you respond...what? (Let's not start anywhere, just provide an answer regarding all you have posted, in general, so we know what your underlying thesis pertains to.)

You agree with Emily, yes? Kahn is clearly talking about dietary sugar, not blood glucose; his words and the context make that inarguable. Your answer is obscure. A simple statement of your understanding of Kahn would suffice here. "No, Emily, I think Kahn meant blood glucose when he said 'sugar'" or "Yes, Emily, I agree he was referring to dietary sugar." Again, it is impossible to tell whether you are purposefully obscure in your answers, or if it is merely your style, so I assume the best and simply ask for clarification.

With respect to Type II diabetes, I think we are all suspicious that there is some yet-to-be-determined underlying cause to the insulin resistance, however, what is certainly clear is that when one lowers one's intake of carbohydrate, BGLs are lowered. There is a demonstrable cause/affect relationship. What you debate, I think, is the question of whether high BGLs are harmful, at least for Type II. Your interesting movie references and word play notwithstanding, unchecked high BGLs leads not only to difficulty thinking and processing information in the brain, but more importantly to ketoacidosis. That's a fact. Ask any Type I on this blog. Ask my wife, who found out she had Type I diabetes in the hospital emergency room (before any drug or insulin treatment, I might add) in full ketoacidosis, less than 24 hours away from dying, in pain everywhere, so out of her mind as to seem a complete mental case. No drugs, no insulin, just dying. But your claim is that...what? she would have been OK, if we just hadn't give her any of that nasty insulin? I know that can't be your thesis. Which is why I have patiently tried to extract from you what your thesis is, exactly. Again to the same point I've woven into this discussion several times: since you prefer to lampoon my references to 'brain fog', what is your prescription, Nick, for ketoacidosis? And yet again, what exactly do you propose for someone experiencing high BGLs? Any sort of treatment to lower them? or let them rise freely? same treatment for Type I and Type II?

Perhaps by answering these questions directly, you can provide greater enlightenment to your readers (me, for instance), rather than just leaving us all scratching our heads wondering what the point is here.

Thanks Nick.

(Again, Allie, just let me know if I'm abusing the forum you provide, OK?)

Posted at 10:51PM on Apr 11th 2007 by TechRightGuy

14. BTW, re: Dr. Furhman.

Here is what he says on his web site about Type I diabetes:

About ten percent of diabetes is Type 1. Excess body fat does not cause this type of diabetes, and those with Type 1 diabetes always will require insulin to prevent serious hyperglycemia and life-threatening ketoacidosis....I find that when Type 1 diabetics adopt a high-nutrient, dietary approach, they can lower their insulin requirements by about half.... Even though the Type 1 diabetic will still require exogenous (external) insulin, but by following my Eat To Live diet-style, they will no longer need excessive amounts of it.

So, just for the record, Dr. Fuhrman makes no claim that insulin is unneccessary for Type I diabetics, nor that he can eliminate the need. Essentially he advocates lower-carb, high-nutrient foods, not unlike the standard diet practiced in our house.

Nick, do you agree with these statements from Fuhrman's web site?

Thanks!

Posted at 11:04PM on Apr 11th 2007 by TechRightGuy

15. Hi TechRightGuy,

In respect of your post #13 [and my outstanding post #6 questions in respect of your post #4 & #9] …

This all relates to Allie's ADA post because my agreement was specifically with ADA's Richard Kahn's quoted 'statement of truth' ... and ... type 0, type 1 & type 2 all meet up eventually [its a trilogy, like the 'Matrix' movie, so let's start with type 2 and work backwards]...

Your post#4 apparently raised your first question [in relation to type 2] so please allow my answering this first …

Tom Hanks, UNdrugTREATED, in 'Joe verses the Volcano' [movie] was diagnosed with "brain cloud" as compared to 'brain fog' suffered by an apparently UNdrugTREATED type 2 Diabetic referred to in your post(?).

Both clouds and fog are made of water so there is a clue there … Dr Richard K Bernstein [ http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/ ] … comments: “... dehydrating illness can be life threatening to a diabetic …”.

Before embarking on being ANYdrugTREATED, for a lifetime, it's necessary to determine whether ‘brain fog’ is a genuine disease or just a "brain cloud".

In relation to your apparent concern for your type 2 Friend and your [TechRightGuy] post #4 comment:-

“I expect to hear from you on my Type II comments. :) Our friend cannot grasp that his doctor could be wrong on this.”

Please answer the following 3 specific questions [and in future please help by dealing with all outstanding questions chronologically] …

(A) Please clarify whether the type 2 Diabetic [focussed upon in your post #4] is ANYdrugTREATED or UNdrugTREATED; and if that type 2 Diabetic [focussed upon in your post #4] is ANYdrugTREATED as compared with UNdrugTREATED ... please list ALL the drugs, the duration of their 'use' [within 12 months of the 'brain fog' first arising] and ANY of their known side effects?

(B) In respect of your adoption of the word "alternatives" … "alternatives" for what??

(C) In respect of your adoption of the words "true scientific support" … where is the "true scientific support" ???

In respect of your post #13 second paragraph [and your post #9 first paragraph] my reply is / was …

This all relates to Allie's ADA post because my agreement was with the ADA's 'statement of truth' and ... type 0, type 1 & type 2 all meet up eventually [its a trilogy, like the 'Matrix' movie, so let's start with type 2 and work backwards]...

Please answer my questions in relation to your type 2 Friend.

Warm thanks; Nick

Posted at 9:19AM on Apr 12th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey

16. WHAT a reply! Yes, being Swedish myself, I have followed the C-peptide studies in Sseden. By the way I am back from Croatia.....

Posted at 1:19PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Chrissie in Belgium

17. Hi Allie; I'm the "Matt P" at ADA that you spoke with a couple of weeks ago regarding c-peptide. I just want to make sure you and your loyal readers know that I think c-peptide is a very promising treatment for complications of diabetes, especially neuropathy, and that I would have hoped that I made that clear in our conversation. I'm sorry if I didn't, because it's certainly how I feel.

I also pointed out that ADA is funding a clinical research project on the effect of c-peptide on sensory neurons, and that beyond the project we are supporting there is a LOT of research going on in this area.

I'm afraid I was being a bit glib in saying we don't want to be seen as telling industry what to do. We certainly do tell industry what we think they should do all the time, in broad strokes, in terms of improving the accuracy of devices and developing drugs that are safe and effective. But with the metabolic processes involved in diabetes being SO vast and SO complex, ranging from primary prevention strategies to improved blood glucose control to management of complications, I don't see how we could pick specific areas of research and say "you should develop this, you shouldn't waste your time doing that". There's no area of scientific investigation that SHOULDN'T be explored. And, as I say, there already is considerable research going on specifically on c-peptide. (We often don't know the full scope of what research going on within industry, because that research is always kept under wraps until they publish results either in scientific journals or present it at scientific meetings.)

Our advocacy for research occurs at every level: right now we're really pushing on the stem cell issue, since it's before Congress right now and there's some hope that we can unblock the freeze that's been in place for years now. We also advocate for across the board increased funding for diabetes research funding for NIH, the VA, and elsewhere. I still think there's not much purpose in our pushing industry for specific research, because they are not accountable to us the way elected officials are.

I just want to reiterate: I think C-peptide is a very interesting, very promising potential therapy. ADA itself is funding research on it. We really don't know yet exactly how it works or how effective it is---for years, scientists didn't think it did ANYTHING. Now that they believe it does, they'll have to figure out what it does, how well it does it, and whether there are limits to it's safe use. Because it's an active compound, the FDA will require extensive research be done on it to define its safety and efficacy before it could ever get approved for use. That research is going on.

I believe ADA does most things right when it comes to fulfilling its mission, and that the commitment from ADA staff and volunteers is strong and sincere. Speaking for myself, my father has had diabetes for about 40 years and will be starting dialysis in the next few months; his father was blind for the last 20 years of his life from diabetic retinopathy. If c-peptide turns out to work well for those complications, I sincerely hope we can get it to people before they reach the stage that my father and grandfather did. On that, I'm sure, we agree.

Yours sincerely, Matt

Posted at 5:20PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Matt Petersen

18. Hi Matt,

In respect of your comment: "...right now we're really pushing on the stem cell issue..."

WHY?

http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2007/04/11/a-knockout-cure-for-diabetes/#comments

OR stem cell ‘Scientists’ [seeking lots of money from ?] use high-dose chemotherapy on healthy Children, with high blood glucose readings, to create type 1 Diabetics and deliberately [or do diabetes Scientists now commonly withhold ‘a control Group’ by chance ?] withhold monitoring and/or data of an UNdrugTREATED control Group [or even 1 Child] which was far more likely, in each such UNdrugTREATED case, to result in the total remission “Honeymoon Period” ie CURE [subject to proof any “newly diagnosed” Child was other than healthy in the first place] as compared with the partial remission “Honeymoon Period” [results] allegedly ‘discovered’, in Brazil, by the stem cell ‘Scientists’ [and if those UNdrugTREATED results were published the research grant for stem cell ‘Scientists’ would amount to ? … approx ??] …

http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2007/04/03/the-honeymoon-period/

… the “Honeymoon Period” which is extremely common [and capable of being extended indefinitely] provided JDRF advice on treating the “Honeymoon Period” with insulin is questioned and questioned and questioned…

http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=106137

JDRF says…

“Even though you may not need insulin, some doctors prefer that you take small doses of insulin daily throughout the honeymoon period.”

“some doctors”?

JDRF says…

“This may decrease the stress on the pancreas.”

“may”?

JDRF says…

“It may also help prevent your child with diabetes from thinking that the disease is gone.”

“help”? "from thinking that the disease is gone."??

please WHY?

Warm thanks; Nick

Posted at 6:25PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey

19. Just to make sure no one forgets, the ADA is an association -mainly of doctors and nurse practitioners who treat diabetes, quite unlike JDRF which is an organization founded by volunteers dedicated to finding a cure for type 1 diabetes. The ADA does call itself a patient and the diabetes resource, but I would call attention to my November 2006 blog post on how the ADA has selectively chosen to ignore research that did not fit with the leadership's idea of what it should be doing. See http://sstrumello.blogspot.com/2006/11/irony-from-ada-american-diabetes.html for details on that!

Posted at 7:44PM on Apr 12th 2007 by Scott

20.
http://www.thediabetesblog.com/2007/04/20/new-diabetes-treatment-safe-for-nondiabetics/#comments

post #2

Posted at 4:45PM on Apr 20th 2007 by Nicholas Dynes Gracey