There has been some diabetes news, but most have been shockers trying to get peoples attention to lure more grant monies for research. To me this is not news, but gamesmanship to attract grant funds.
I have seen so many of these lately, that I am jaded in my views and need to get away from some of them. I am not sure that some of them are even legitimate studies or even designed to obtain results other than what the companies want to be shown.
A lot of this started for me when I wrote and posted this blog. To have a government agency develop a 10-year plan and not even encourage finding a cure, but to concentrate on managing diabetes and preventing complications, leaves me wondering whom has paid off whom at the government level.
Yes, this is an undocumented accusation, but it bothers me that our government does not care about finding a cure. Letters to my congressional representatives have not yielded even an acknowledgment of receiving them. I was asking questions that normally should yield answers.
So for the time being, if I am not here with a blog, I may not have found something that deserves attention or I have more research to complete before posting.
Thank you for your patience.
Showing posts with label Diabetes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diabetes. Show all posts
14 March 2011
Diabetes Often Not Diagnosed or Treated Properly
At one time I believed that America had an excellent core of doctors. We may still have this, but the numbers have decreased dramatically if I am reading my research correctly. This is disturbing and even my current team of doctors is beginning to concern me as some are not paying attention to the list of medications I am currently taking when they prescribe a new medication. Even my pharmacist did not have the courtesy to check.
HealthDay News in an article published on March 4 talks about a study done in seven countries which included the United States. The article said that nearly 90 percent of U.S. adult diabetics 35 years of age and older are receiving ineffective treatment of blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol. This is disturbing for several reasons and when they say that people diagnosed with diabetes do not receive treatment for other cardiovascular risks that are just a dangerous as unmanaged blood sugar.
This study is published in the March edition of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. What bothers me is the statement that too many people are not being properly diagnosed with diabetes and related cardiovascular disease risk factors. Those who are diagnosed aren't being effectively treated.
That this is happening in this country is understandable when we have the American Diabetes Association (ADA) that is functioning for the interest of fund raising and the medical community and not for the interest of patients. They give lip service to the patients and do nothing to upset the medical community. Their mantra of carbs, carbs and more carbs does not work for many people with diabetes. Will they change this? They have tempered it slightly to allow for individual differences, but give no real guidance about this and continue to stress the value of carbohydrates.
With the continuing evidence coming out about the dangers of whole grains and that fat being not problem, the ADA is not working with the American Heart Association to correct the errors. They also are not working with the American Association of Diabetes Educators or the American Dietitian Association to set the records straight and get them off their mantra of carbs, whole grains, and low fat. It seems that these groups are pushing this mantra even more enthusiastically.
So it is easy to understand why 90 percent of the U.S. adults with diabetes are receiving poor treatments for blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol. With the medical community not being pushed to improve, this can only get worse. Then with studies like the ACCORD study warning the medical community to not use tight interventions for older patients with diabetes, no improvements are likely to be made.
Read this short article here, and a longer article here.
HealthDay News in an article published on March 4 talks about a study done in seven countries which included the United States. The article said that nearly 90 percent of U.S. adult diabetics 35 years of age and older are receiving ineffective treatment of blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol. This is disturbing for several reasons and when they say that people diagnosed with diabetes do not receive treatment for other cardiovascular risks that are just a dangerous as unmanaged blood sugar.
This study is published in the March edition of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. What bothers me is the statement that too many people are not being properly diagnosed with diabetes and related cardiovascular disease risk factors. Those who are diagnosed aren't being effectively treated.
That this is happening in this country is understandable when we have the American Diabetes Association (ADA) that is functioning for the interest of fund raising and the medical community and not for the interest of patients. They give lip service to the patients and do nothing to upset the medical community. Their mantra of carbs, carbs and more carbs does not work for many people with diabetes. Will they change this? They have tempered it slightly to allow for individual differences, but give no real guidance about this and continue to stress the value of carbohydrates.
With the continuing evidence coming out about the dangers of whole grains and that fat being not problem, the ADA is not working with the American Heart Association to correct the errors. They also are not working with the American Association of Diabetes Educators or the American Dietitian Association to set the records straight and get them off their mantra of carbs, whole grains, and low fat. It seems that these groups are pushing this mantra even more enthusiastically.
So it is easy to understand why 90 percent of the U.S. adults with diabetes are receiving poor treatments for blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol. With the medical community not being pushed to improve, this can only get worse. Then with studies like the ACCORD study warning the medical community to not use tight interventions for older patients with diabetes, no improvements are likely to be made.
Read this short article here, and a longer article here.
15 February 2011
Diabetics May Be Getting Second Rate Care
This article is very disturbing. It has to do with women with breast cancer and also diabetes. So I am asking you to think, can this apply to all cancers and diabetes. The findings were published in the January issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This suggests future research could focus on whether high levels of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes could play a role in promoting tumor growth.
The researchers who conducted the review also found that diabetics tend to be diagnosed with later-stage breast cancers and to receive altered, potentially less effective treatment regimens. This sends shivers up my spine. If this happens for women with breast cancer, who else with cancer and diabetes gets treated like this?
Kimberly S. Peairs, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine says "This research suggests we may need to proactively treat the diabetes as well as the cancer." She also suggests “that diabetics diagnosed with breast cancer may get less effective treatment because practitioners may be concerned about these patients suffering more side effects from chemotherapy or radiation treatments as a result of the metabolic condition.”
The research also shows breast cancer patients are nearly 50 percent more likely to die of any cause if they also have diabetes. Dr Peairs is less than complementary about the reasons women with diabetes get possible poor care. She says more research is needed to reveal whether increased insulin production in people with Type 2 diabetes contributes to worse outcomes among breast cancer patients.
There are some studies that do suggest poor outcomes with some diabetes drugs for cancer patients and that other medications may actually improve survival. Metformin is one such drug which makes diabetes patients more insulin-sensitive and thereby lowering the amount of unused insulin in the body.
Read the article here and from the second one here.
The researchers who conducted the review also found that diabetics tend to be diagnosed with later-stage breast cancers and to receive altered, potentially less effective treatment regimens. This sends shivers up my spine. If this happens for women with breast cancer, who else with cancer and diabetes gets treated like this?
Kimberly S. Peairs, M.D., an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine says "This research suggests we may need to proactively treat the diabetes as well as the cancer." She also suggests “that diabetics diagnosed with breast cancer may get less effective treatment because practitioners may be concerned about these patients suffering more side effects from chemotherapy or radiation treatments as a result of the metabolic condition.”
The research also shows breast cancer patients are nearly 50 percent more likely to die of any cause if they also have diabetes. Dr Peairs is less than complementary about the reasons women with diabetes get possible poor care. She says more research is needed to reveal whether increased insulin production in people with Type 2 diabetes contributes to worse outcomes among breast cancer patients.
There are some studies that do suggest poor outcomes with some diabetes drugs for cancer patients and that other medications may actually improve survival. Metformin is one such drug which makes diabetes patients more insulin-sensitive and thereby lowering the amount of unused insulin in the body.
Read the article here and from the second one here.
26 January 2011
Update on U of MN Clinical Trials
Now I have a better understanding of what is happening at the U of MN Schulze Diabetes Institute. I am now not surprised about not hearing anything from them. I just appreciate that Scott Johnson wrote his blog January 24, 2011 here. He covered his conversation with a participant of the clinical trials. Read his blog for information on that.
I appreciate his links to the Schulze Diabetes Institute web site which gives me insight into what is happening. From Scott's blog, it is clear that the clinical trials are much different from what happened in Russia and are being done in New Zealand. Here they are using immunosuppressants or anti-rejection drugs. This makes the procedure much more dangerous.
Scott has several links to further information so take time to follow them and do some reading. My blog from yesterday is the reason for this when I came across this information. The U of MN site is here and then read about the clinical trials here. Kathy White's blog has lots of related links and is here.
A lot of information, but I think it is worth reading if you are interested.
I appreciate his links to the Schulze Diabetes Institute web site which gives me insight into what is happening. From Scott's blog, it is clear that the clinical trials are much different from what happened in Russia and are being done in New Zealand. Here they are using immunosuppressants or anti-rejection drugs. This makes the procedure much more dangerous.
Scott has several links to further information so take time to follow them and do some reading. My blog from yesterday is the reason for this when I came across this information. The U of MN site is here and then read about the clinical trials here. Kathy White's blog has lots of related links and is here.
A lot of information, but I think it is worth reading if you are interested.
08 July 2010
More on pig islets
More keeps showing up about about this study and that study using pig islets and not needing rejection drugs. Except for the studies in Russia and New Zealand, I am wondering where the US researchers are obtaining their pigs. Are they using disease free like Russia and New Zealand, or just pigs from isolated populations. Since most studies stop short of stating the source, I will need to wait until I can get to the actual study for analysis.
Read the article here and the abstract here. I am linking to my previous post also.
Read the article here and the abstract here. I am linking to my previous post also.
16 May 2010
Pig Islets Producing Insulin in Human
This in one of the more interesting topics for me. While this is presently about and for people with type 1 diabetes, studies are near the end or concluded in New Zealand. More and more information is finding its way to the news.
Pancreatic cells taken from pigs have been encapsulated and successfully transplanted into humans. The positive thing is that these cells do not trigger an immune system attack on the transplanted cells and they quickly get down to the business of producing insulin for the host.
Among the people to write about this in July 2007 was David Mendosa. This article gives a lot of the background on what is happening today in New Zealand.
Three articles (or more) are now in existence.
Article 1 dated April 1, 2010.
Article 2 dated May 6, 2010.
Article 3 dated May 13, 2010.
As I find or become aware of more articles, I will be adding them to the above list. Added 5/19/10. There are lots of articles from 1997 through 2009, so I will keep this to the recent (2010) articles.
Article 4 dated April 27, 2010.
Article 5 dated May 3, 2010.
Article 6 dated April 12, 2010.
Pancreatic cells taken from pigs have been encapsulated and successfully transplanted into humans. The positive thing is that these cells do not trigger an immune system attack on the transplanted cells and they quickly get down to the business of producing insulin for the host.
Among the people to write about this in July 2007 was David Mendosa. This article gives a lot of the background on what is happening today in New Zealand.
Three articles (or more) are now in existence.
Article 1 dated April 1, 2010.
Article 2 dated May 6, 2010.
Article 3 dated May 13, 2010.
As I find or become aware of more articles, I will be adding them to the above list. Added 5/19/10. There are lots of articles from 1997 through 2009, so I will keep this to the recent (2010) articles.
Article 4 dated April 27, 2010.
Article 5 dated May 3, 2010.
Article 6 dated April 12, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)