Diabetes Camps

Diabetes camps are in many ways similar to the hundreds of other camps that will be hosting kids of all ages this summer. There are hikes, water activities, campfires, games, and all the other activities that make the camping experience unique. The one noticeable difference: every camper has diabetes. Learn why a diabetes camp might be right for your child. free glucose meter by mail free glucose meter and supplies free glucose meter and test strips no blood free glucose meter

The B.A.D. Blog

My name is George. I am a Type 1 diabetic. I have decided to change my ways and own this disease. I am a Born Again Diabetic.

Oh, and I am Ninja. :)free glucose meter diabetics free glucose meter by mail free glucose meter and supplies free glucose meter and test strips

Factors That Contribute To Diabetes

Factors such as unhealthy diet, unhealthy lifestyle, lack of exercise and pollution in the environment are the contributing factors to the development of several diseases. Among these diseases are cancer and diabetes which are nowadays very common. We would think that these diseases only affect adults but on the contrary, there is an increase in the number of younger individuals who have the disease. Even those in their early 20s or 30s have chances of developing the illness. This is because of the various factors mentioned.free glucose meter no cost free glucose meter mailed to you free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes

Sugar Alcohols and Diabetes

Sugar alcohols (also called polyols) are a staple in the diets of many people with diabetes without them knowing it. Sugar alcohols add sweetness to foods such as sugar-free candy, chewing gum or cookies and are commonly used in foods targeted to those with diabetes. Learn how sugar alcohol is used and how it might fit into your diabetes meal plan. free pain free glucose meter non invasive and pain free glucose meter free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips

Jul 8, Diabetic seizures: What is up there?

Get to know about Diabetic Seizures, the causes and precipitant risk factors; how to recognize the symptoms and signs; whats the best way of helping a diabetic who has just had seizure attack; etc.



free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips free glucose meter without medicare free glucose meter with no insurance

Jun 4, 40IU or 100IU

I am suffering from type-2 diabetes and am new to insulin. I am from India and would like to know if 40IU or 100 IU is better for dose and why? I would



free glucose meter samples free glucose meter supplies free glucose meter sample free glucose meter no insurance

Diabetes Advice - How Close Are We To The Cure?

You may have given up on your hope in finding the cure for your disease because everyone including the experts would tell you that there is no cure for your illness. What it I tell you there is a cure. Would you believe me?free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips free glucose meter without medicare free glucose meter with no insurance

May 16, Itchy rashes related to insulin allergy?

I'm having itchy rashes ( little boil-like rashes) on my forearm. Could it be an insulin related allergy or some other? I'm on gliclazide -30 + metformin



non invasive and pain free glucose meter free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips free glucose meter without medicare

New SUM Musings in this month's issue of diaTribe, with a focus on continuous glucose monitors and making mine part of the routine.free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter free pain free glucose meter

Dexcom gets a warning letter from the FDA about sensor wire fractures. I've never had this happen to me, but I'm keeping close tabs on this story.free glucose meter no cost free glucose meter mailed to you free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes

WTF

free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter free pain free glucose meter

ACCORD Redux: It's the High Blood Sugars, Stupid!

The ACCORD study has been used to justify the imbecilic idea that lowering blood sugar is dangerous to people with diabetes. ACCORD was a very large study in which one group of people with diabetes were given a strong cocktail of diabetes drugs with the aim of lowering their A1c below 6.0. Those drugs included sulfonylureas, Avandia and Actos, all drugs known to increase heart problems. The other group of study participants kept their A1cs in 7% or higher range recommended by the ADA. The result was that the group of people shooting for the lower A1cs had slightly more heart attacks than those maintaining mediocre control.For perspective, it is worth noting that another larger study, ADVANCE, pursued the same strategy with different drugs and found NO excess deaths in the tight control group. And in both studies, the group with tight control had less classic diabetes complications most notably neuropathy and kidney disease.But because of that small number of excess deaths in the tight control arm of ACCORD, many family doctors are now telling patients that lowering blood sugar is dangerous. Fortunately, a new study of the ACCORD data puts this into perspective. The study is: Epidemiologic Relationships Between A1C and All-Cause Mortality During a Median 3.4-Year Follow-up of Glycemic Treatment in the ACCORD Trial. Matthew C. Riddle et al. Diabetes CareMay 2010 vol. 33 no. 5 983-990. doi: 10.2337/dc09-1278 This study found, ...a higher average on-treatment A1C was a stronger predictor of mortality than the A1C for the last interval of follow-up or the decrease of A1C in the first year. Higher average A1C was associated with greater risk of death. [emphasis mine] These analyses implicate factors associated with persisting higher A1C levels, rather than low A1C per se, as likely contributors to the increased mortality risk associated with the intensive glycemic treatment strategy in ACCORD.It doesn't get any simpler than that. It doesn't matter how much you lower A1c if you keep blood sugar higher than the level at which complications and heart attack ensue. In addition, A1c is a poor indicator of post meal blood sugar, so it is possible to lower A1c without eliminating the blood sugar spikes over 160 mg/dl that we know are associated with a huge increase in cardiovascular risk. Details HERE.If your doctor tries to discourage you from lowering your blood sugar, find a new doctor. Careful, thoughtful analysis of the data from ACCORD and the Veterans Study which have been used to support the idea that lowering blood sugar is dangerous have really only proven the following: 1. Not lowering blood sugar enough to prevent organ damage kills people. You can read what peer reviewed research has learned about what blood sugar levels are associated with organ damage HERE. You can learn about what peer reviewed research has found about what blood sugar levels are associated with heart disease HERE.2. Lowering blood sugar using dangerous oral drugs may slightly increase mortality. Avandia and Actos both raise the risk of heart failure in people who did not have it to start with. Some sulfonylurea drugs are associated with elevated heart disease risk. Details HERE and HERE.3. Lowering blood sugar in elderly subjects only after they have gone through decades of terrible control and irretrievably damaged their hearts and other organs isn't very helpful but lowering blood sugar starting at diagnosis provides major long lasting health benefits. Details HERE.4. Lowering blood sugar using a low carb diet is safe and effective and eliminates the threat of hypo and the potentially fatal side effects of oral drugs that only emerge after people take them for a decade or more. Details HERE. Even the ultra-conservative ADA, funded mostly by drug and junk food companies who lose profits when people with diabetes eat a low carb diet has had to admit this. The problem with oral drugs is that they act on cell receptors that though they lower blood sugar also do OTHER things elsewhere in the body. Sulfonylureas stimulate receptors on the heart, not just the pancreas. TZDs convert bone stem cells into fat cells, leading to serious osteoporosis, long term. Januvia and Onglyza inhibit DPP-4 which is used elsewhere by the immune system to fight melanoma, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer and lung cancer.Lowering blood sugar by eliminating as much carbohydrate as possible and if that doesn't provide normal blood sugars supplementing diet with the safest drugs: Insulin and metformin will provide major health benefits and keep you alive and healthy. And the sooner you start normalizing blood sugar after diagnosis, the more benefit you'll reap.


free glucose meters and test strips free glucose meters with no insurance free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters

No. I Am NOT Paranoid about Drug Company Evildoing

The drug companies will do whatever it takes to keep their blockbuster drugs selling, and often what it takes is deliberate hiding of research results that point to the dangers of the drug. I urge you to read this New York Times article published today in full:NYTimes: Diabetes Drug Maker Hid Test Data on Risks Files IndicateBut keep in mind that the media know Avandia is a dangerous drug because the company ran one study too many--one that demonstrated that it was killing people. They do not have a clue about the dangers of other drugs, even those that are already well documented (like the way that Actos causes heart failure and serious osteoporosis with long term use). Nor do the people who write about health in the media do any research beyond printing up press releases and interviewing a few high profile doctors who are inevitabley highly paid as "consultants" by the big drug companies. And, of course, the media know nothing at all about the many other drugs whose makers have been more successful than Glaxo at hiding the research that turned up serious problems connected with their drugs. Which is why you really DO have to be paranoid--very paranoid indeed--about any new drug. And if you have diabetes the drugs you really need to be paranoid about are the "gliptin" drugs that lower blood sugar by impeding the action of the gene that makes an enzyme, DPP4, that degrades GLP-1. Januvia (sitagliptin) and Onglyza (saxagliptin) are the two "gliptins" that have been approved for use. There are others in the pipeline. The problem with these drugs is this: while inhibiting DPP-4 does, in fact, boost GLP-1 levels and lower blood sugar, the body uses DPP-4 for many OTHER functions besides getting rid of GLP-1. The most important of these function is this: the immune system uses DDP-4 to kill cells that have become malignant--i.e. those first cells that left alive turn into dreaded cancers including melanoma, lung cancer, ovarian cancer and prostate cancer.All of us develop cancerous cells as we go through life. But our immune system recognizes them and kills them. It is only the rogue cells that escape this process that go on to kill us. DPP-4 is one of the tools the body uses to kill these cells before they can grow into tumors. And here is why you need to be paranoid about the gliptin drugs: Though the function of DPP-4 as a tumor suppressor is well known, the drug companies have never revealed that they have done a single research study to examine what happens to the body's ability to defend against these cancers when DPP-4 is inhibited. The tests that are required as part of the FDA drug approval process will not answer this question. The cancer-related testing is made up of only two kinds of tests. One is a test tube study, The Ames Test, that only can tell if the drug damages DNA. The DPP-4 inhibitors do not damage DNA. They don't cause cancer, either. They just turn off the enzyme that destroys cells that have become cancerous before they can do harm.The other required test that is part of the approval process is the rodent test. These tests check whether large doses of the drug give cancer to short lived rodents. This is not a useful test for a drug that promotes human cancers that may take years to develop. How many rodents live long enough to get prostate cancer? Nor is it helpful for melanoma, which is not a problem for fur covered animals. The acceptance trials for these drugs are very short--no longer than two years--and because they are so short they aren't likely to show the increased cancer risk in those taking them if the cancers take four or five years to become evident. Even so, the acceptance trials for Januvia did show a slight rise in cancers in the people taking Januvia--a fact that was obscured by the way that the company chose to report tumors--mixing together both benign and cancerous lesions. I have documented this issue extensively here: Januvia. I urge you to read it carefully. Keep in mind the same issues cited for Januvia also apply to Onglyza. It took a long term study (intended to find something else that would have sold much more of the drug) to reveal that Diovan raises the incidence of cancer. (Note that this story was carried almost entirely by the business press that worried that this finding would harm drug company profits!) It was a long term study intended to find something else that would have sold more Avandia that showed the world that Avandia was killing people. You can be sure that the drug companies have learned their lesson--and it isn't to test their drugs more carefully. These experiences have taught the drug companies this: Don't run long term studies of drugs that are earning you millions. The New York Times article points out that though the drug companies are now legally required to publish the results of all trials they run, they are doing so, in the words of the New York Times in postings that "are often little more than cryptic references." But rather than just obscure the results of studies, smart drug company executives will merely avoid running studies in the future that could kill their golden geese.I find it very unlikely that the makers of Januvia, Onglyza, and the not-yet-approved other "gliptin" drugs are unaware of the fact that their drugs turn off a cancer fighting gene. And that is why it is certain they've learned from the Avandia fiasco that the easy way to avoid exposure is to avoid conducting long term studies of a profitable drug. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people with diabetes will die of unnecessary cancers. Their doctors will tell them, "People with diabetes are known to have a higher risk of cancer"--which is true. But they'll ignore the fact that they gave these people with diabetes a drug that turns off a cancer fighting gene. Doctors are very ignorant about how the drugs they prescribe work. They know only what the drug companies tell them which is often highly oversimplified if not actually misleading. if you doubt this, ask your doctor what else DPP-4 does besides lower blood sugar. It is very unlikely he will know. In fact, if you ask him how DPP-4 lowers blood sugar, it is possible he won't know that either--it does it by slicing up the GLP-1 molecule. I have heard from many dozens of cancer survivors who, like me, were prescribed Januvia by doctors who had no clue what DPP-4 was or what its relationship was to cancer. When their patients asked them about it, the doctors' response indicated that they they trusted that these drugs had been tested to eliminate the possiblity that they caused cancer during acceptance testing.They weren't. And because of the Avandia lesson, they probably won't be the subject of the long term testing that could reveal this.Stick with drugs that have been around for more than fifteen years and you are much more likely to avoid unpleasant surprises. 


pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter free pain free glucose meter non invasive and pain free glucose meter

Diabetes Notes

Smart living with a dumb pancreasvirtually pain free glucose meter free pain free glucose meter non invasive and pain free glucose meter free glucose meter with no medicare

The Best Way to Prevent Diabetes

There are many ways that person can prevent the onset of diabetes. Scheduling when a person eats is one of the easiest ways to make sure that they do not develop sugar related issues.free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter free pain free glucose meter

Diabetes Real World

Helping people with diabetes live a full lifefree glucose meter with no insurance free glucose meter without insurance free glucose meter samples free glucose meter supplies

I Hate Food

free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes free glucose meter for diabetics free glucose meter diabetics

This week's ChronicBabe Carnival is up, talking about favorite self-care tools and techniques. A great read for fellow babes with chronic illness!free glucose meter samples free glucose meter supplies free glucose meter sample free glucose meter no insurance

Diagnosis Type 1

To make an accurate diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, health professionals need to conduct one of three commonly used tests to confirm the diagnosis. Learn what these tests are and how they are conducted. free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips free glucose meter without medicare free glucose meter with no insurance

One Touch Ultra Mini Blood Glucose Monitoring Unit - A Compact Blood Sugar Meter

Do you know about the One Touch Ultra Mini glucose meter, manufactured by Life Scan Company? I received this diabetes monitor by a Diabetes Education Team and it was a complimentary unit. Would you like to know more about it?free glucose meter without insurance free glucose meter samples free glucose meter supplies free glucose meter sample

Surgical Site Infections Rise Dramatically when Blood Sugar is over 140 mg/dl

Though doctors call them "diabetic" complications, many studies conducted in cell cultures, animals, and humans, which you can read HERE, point to the conclusion that organ damage due to high blood sugars starts at levels that doctors label "prediabetic."Now another study--one that looked at the factors causing post-operative infections has come up with the same finding. The study is:Postoperative Hyperglycemia and Surgical Site Infection in General Surgery Patients Ashar Ata et al. Arch Surg. 2010;145(9):858-864. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2010.179 You can read a good summary of this study, with more information than is found in the abstract here: Science Daily: Postoperative High Blood Sugar Appears to Be Associated With Surgical Site InfectionThe researchers examined the records of 2090 patients. For 1561 of these patients, blood sugar measurments were recorded and 803 of these blood sugar measurements were taken within 12 hours of surgery. The researchers found that in the group as a whole the following factors were predictive of surgical site infection (SSI): increasing age, emergency status, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classes P3 to P5, operative time, more than 2 U of red blood cells transfused, preoperative glucose level higher than 180 mg/dL... diabetes mellitus, and postoperative hyperglycemia. But here's where things get interesting. Because the researches found that, After adjustment for postoperative glucose level, all these variables ceased to be significant predictors of SSI; only incremental postoperative glucose level remained significant. And what was the postoperative glucose level at which bad things started to happen?Readers of this blog, don't all answer at once, but you're right! It was 140 mg/dl the very same blood sugar level we have long been telling people with diabetes should be the very highest they ever let their blood sugar reach if they can possibly avoid it. In the type of surgery studied in which post operative infection was by far the most common--colorectal surgery, where 14.11% of patients suffered infections, the researchers found that those with blood sugars higher than 140 mg/dl were over three times more likely to suffer infection as those without. Science Daily also quotes the full text article as saying, In conclusion, we found postoperative hyperglycemia to be the most important risk factor for surgical site infection in general and colorectal cancer surgery patients, and serum glucose levels higher than 110 milligrams per deciliter were associated with increasingly higher rates of post-surgical infection.WHEN YOU MUST HAVE SURGERYWhat makes this study so important is this: If you go in for a major procedure it is almost 100% certain that, despite your protests, the anesthetist will hook you up to a glucose drip before surgery. This guarantees that no matter how perfectly you have been eating, your blood sugar will be at least 140 during your surgery--a number that surgeons, trained to believe that 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/L) is "Diabetic" will tell you was a "nice normal blood sugar" as mine did. The only way to avoid this is to negotiate it with the surgeon before you commit to the surgery and get it in writing in a form that you can give to the hospital staff before the surgery. No matter what you have been told orally, the staff in the hospital will listen only to the surgeon and pay attention to you only if they see written instructions that look like they could lead to a law suit. Unfortunately, if my experience is anything to go by, getting such written instructions may be impossible, even with an otherwise excellent surgeon. Therefore, it would be a good idea to print out this study and keep it in your file of important medical papers so that you can take it with you when you have your preliminary meeting with the surgeon.Once your surgery is done, you are not out of the woods. The food you will be given in the hospital will be the "diabetic menu." This may be called a "Carb-controlled diet" (It was at the hospital I stayed in) but this is misleading. It is, in fact, the same old dangerously high carb/ low fat diet that nutritionists still defend to the death--the death of the patients with diabetes who eat it. For breakfast you'll be offered toast with jelly but no butter, cereal with skim milk, and sugary fruit, so that you face the choice of starving or raising your blood sugar well over that 140 mg/dl level. The rest of your meals will be thin slices of fat free mystery meat and starchy veg, with fruit--canned in corn syrup--for dessert. Again your only defense here is signed orders from your doctor, which may be very hard to attain. That is because most doctors do NOT understand that the carbs you eat are what raise your blood sugar. They really don't. And they remain convinced that blood sugars up to 200 mg/dl are not dangerous and that it is a mysterious disease called "diabetes" that harms people, not exposure to high blood sugars. Doctors also believe, without question, that high fat diets cause heart attacks and that it is much healthier for you to eat that toast and jelly than a fresh egg.So before you go into a hospital for elective surgery, if possible, get a letter, signed by your surgeon or another doctor who practices at the hospital where you are having your surgery ordering the nutrition staff to allow you to order at will from the regular menu and forbidding them to make you eat foods from the "diabetic" menu. If it isn't possible, arrange for friends or family members to bring you the foods you need to eat to keep your blood sugars normal. Arrange to go home where you have control over your food supply as soon as it is possible. If you are forced to go to a nursing home after surgery, make sure that your doctor orders the nursing home staff to allow you or a chosen family member who understands your dietary needs to control what you eat and, again, forbid the use of the "diabetic" diet. Otherwise, you will be forced to eat the high carb/low fat diet that will raise your blood sugar and make surgical infection more likely. 


free glucose meters and test strips free glucose meters with no insurance free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters

Dietary Fiber, An Addition for the Diabetic Menu

This article draws attention to the benefits offered by dietary fiber in the daily diet of all people but especially for a person with diabetes because of its beneficial affect on blood sugar levels, among other things. Since the typical American diet does not provide sufficient dietary fiber an increase in consumption would provide insurance against the possible development of such diseases as colon cancer, diverticulitis, and other digestive tract and bowel ailments.non invasive and pain free glucose meter free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips free glucose meter without medicare

Scott's Web Log

Critical, accurate and well-documented (including links to the actual scientific journals whenever possible) news and events related to type 1 diabetes. In addition to news, advocacy and other issues relevant to the community are also addressed.free glucose meters with no insurance free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter

Endocrinologist

An endocrinologist is a medical doctor that specializes in diagnosing and treating diabetes. If you have type 1 diabetes, this is one of the people you need on your healthcare team. non invasive and pain free glucose meter free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips free glucose meter without medicare

Aug 6, Verification

free pain free glucose meter non invasive and pain free glucose meter free glucose meter with no medicare free glucose meter with test strips

Qs and As on My Diabetes Life

Last week I offered to “open the kimono” by answering pretty much anything (within reason) that readers cared to ask. Looks like in response, I got a couple of “nuts & bolts” questions on day-to-day D-stuff, along with one call for my perspective on the Big Picture. That one will take some soul-searching, so let [...]no blood free glucose meter free glucose meters and supplies free glucose meters and test strips free glucose meters with no insurance

Lastest Study Touts Benefits of Once a Week Injected Byetta

In one of those studies beloved by drug companies, three different drug regimens were compared against each other for a very brief period (six months) in a relatively small number of people (about 170 per regimen.) One of these drugs was long acting Byetta (LAR) which will be marketed as Bydureon if it ever gets approved by the FDA. That hasn't happened yet. While this study is being reported as showing long acting Byetta as superior to the other regimens, what it really showed was that none of them is particularly helpful to people with Type 2 diabetes.Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): a randomised trial Dr Richard M Bergenstal et al. The Lancet The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9739, Pages 431 - 439, 7 August 2010 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60590-9As usual, the participants in the study started out with an average A1c of 8.5% which is quite high and suggests that many people in the study had A1cs far higher than 8.5%. Drug companies always use people with the highest possible A1cs in their studies because it is a lot easier to drop anyone's A1c from 10% to 8.5% than it is to drop an A1c from 7% to 5.5%--though the latter A1c is the only one that would ensure excellent health.The regimens all included metformin, to which was added Januvia (sitagliptin), Actos (pioglitazone) or the long acting slow release 2 mg dose of Byetta (Exenatide.)The only end point (i.e. thing that would be reported) was change in A1c. As we all know, this can be a misleading statistic because the identical A1c may represent very different patterns of blood sugar performance--and these different patterns have very different outcomes in terms of causing the classic diabetes complications. In particular, drugs that lower A1c by causing reactive lows in response to high blood sugar peaks will result in higher complication profiles than those that achieve lower A1cs by flattening blood sugar curves.But to get back to this study, the finding after 6 months was that the group taking metformin and once a week Byetta saw an average drop in A1c of 1.5% compared to .9% for Januvia and 1.2% for Actos. As the group average A1c started out at 8.5%, these average drops in A1c still left everyone involved with blood sugars high enough to guarantee the classic diabetic complications and heart disease. You can learn what peer reviewed research has learned about what blood sugar levels cause complications HERE and what A1c predicts heart attack HERE.This suggests that none of these regimens meets the only endpoint anyone with diabetes really cares about: preventing blindness, neuropathy, amputation, kidney failure and heart attack, all of which become much more likely as soon as A1c goes over 6%. Participants in this study lost more weight--on average 5 lbs lost with Byetta, compared to less than 2 lbs with Januvia and a weight gain of 6 pounds with Actos. This finding needs to be put into context. These are averages, and we know that the way Byetta works, one third of those who use it see dramatic weight loss and improvement in their blood sugar levels. The rest experience little or none. So that average--and the A1c average--is probably meaningless, there were most likely 1/3 of the participants reporting much bigger losses and the rest reporting none, a fact that is lost when the data is averaged. One reason for that impressive weight loss is made clear in the reporting of the side effects. One out of 4 taking Byetta experienced nausea and one out of five diarrhea. The study was too short in duration and too small in the number of participants to tell us anything useful about long term side effects for any of these drugs. When it comes to side effects, after reading every study published about these drugs, I personally like Byetta better than Januvia or Actos. Januvia worries me because it turns off the gene that produces the DPP-4 enzyme the immune system uses to kill melanocytes that have become cancerous and which also is involved in fighting ovarian, lung and prostate cancers. (Details HERE.) I also like Byetta a lot better than Actos, which long term causes what may be irreversible osteoporosis in the arms and legs as well as edema which may lead to heart failure, even in people who had no sign of heart failure at the beginning of the study. (Details HERE.)But Byetta is still relatively new, so we can't be entirely sure that over a long time it will be harmless, and these diabetes drugs are intended to be used for a lifetime. The bulk of research we have suggests strongly that Byetta does not in ANY way affect the underlying causes of Type 2 diabetes, though it may, for about 1/3 of those who take it provide significant weight loss and effective blood sugar control. (Details HERE.) It is because the people for whom it does work experience such dramatic improvements, that I have come to think it might be one of the drugs worth trying. But because it isn't effective for 2/3 of those who take it, if you don't see dramatic results within a month, there is no reason to keep on taking it. If you are considering Byetta, once the long acting version is approved always start Byetta with the short acting twice a day version.. Try the daily version to see if you are one of the 1/3 of people who respond to Byetta. The side effects of Byetta can be miserable and you really don't want to put a drug into your body that lasts a week and can cause nonstop vomiting and diarrhea. With the twice daily injections, if the side effects are intolerable, you can just stop using it and they'll stop almost immediately. Many people who do respond to Byetta find that they get over the side effects after starting with the low dose and working up. That said, before you spring for any of these drugs, remember that most people with Type 2 can drop their A1cs considerably more than 1.5% simply by cutting way down on their carbohydrate intake. You can find instructions on the easiest way to do this HERE. I hear continually from readers of this blog and of my web site who have dropped A1cs from as high as 13% down to the 5% range simply by cutting way down on their carbohydrate intake. Some have had diabetes for a decade or longer and only learned after reading the Blood Sugar 101 site that it is the carbohydrates we eat at meal times that raise our blood sugars. As we now have a long term study of the low carb diet that finds zero negative health outcomes in people using it over two years and yet more proof that people on low carb diets end up with better cholesterol profiles than people on low fat diets, there's no reason not to cut as far down on your carbohydrate intake as you can manage comfortably.Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet: A Randomized Trial Gary D. Foster et al. Annals of Internal Medicinevol. 153 no. 3 147-157 Aug 3, 2010. (Discussed HERE.)Anecdotal experience suggests that most people with Type 2 diabetes can achieve significant drops in A1c by cutting down their carbohydrate intake to 70-110 grams a day, which is much higher than the level used in low carb weight loss diets. This is especially true when they combine metformin with the low carb diet a synergistic combination that often results in the best outcomes. Lower intakes work even better, but may be harder to sustain by people who have to interact on a daily basis with others in situations where food is an important part of the social behavior. I have great respect for everyone who can maintain on lower carbohydrate intakes, but my goal is to help people find ways to control their blood sugar that does not require heroic self control and which can be sustained for decades without diet meltdown. We know for a fact that the low carb diet has no side effects except weight loss of approximately 20% of starting weight for most people, dramatically lowered blood sugar, and improved lipids. None of the pharmaceuticals can make that claim.  


free glucose meter by mail free glucose meter and supplies free glucose meter and test strips no blood free glucose meter

The Latest Avandia Outrage: A Shockingly Bad Study Promotes It for Prediabetes

The slimy weasels who profit from selling the dangerous drug Avandia don't give up easily. Though there is incontrovertible evidence that their drug causes heart failure in people who did not have it before starting the drug, as well as ostoporosis and an increased risk of heart attack, they keep sending the health media carefully doctored press releases touting new and marvelous features of their drug.The latest is the claim that Avandia does a humdinger of a job at preventing diabetes, reducing it by two thirds. The study is a triumph of sleazy research technique, but because the drug reps will be hard at work "teaching" your doctor of this wonderful new feature of their dreadful drug, you need to understand what the study actually did and what it learned.The study abstract can be found here: Low-dose combination therapy with rosiglitazone and metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus (CANOE trial): a double-blind randomised controlled study. Prof Bernard Zinman. The Lancet. June 3, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60746-5As you can see by looking at the title, this study combined Avandia with Metformin. Because we know that Metformin delays the diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes (by lowering blood sugar, not by correcting underlying flaws) you'd assume that any trial of metformin with another added drug would compare the combination with metformin alone. But since the point of this study was to breath life into the decaying corpse of Avandia, that comparison was omitted. There are only two groups in this study, those on the Avandia metformin combo and those on a placebo. Beyond that, the study involved only about 200 people, divided into two groups. This means that if one out of every two hundred people taking Avandia developed a severe or even fatal complication, the study group is too small to detect it. Since the problem with Avandia is that it has been shown in large studies to cause severe and sometimes fatal complications the study design used here is worthless and very clearly designed only to squeeze more profit out of GlaxoSmithKline's dangerous drug. The next problem with the study is that it lasted only a median of 3.4 years. Why is this a problem? Because even if the study size had been big enough to make the severe side effects evident, the most serious of the Avandia side effects may take up to a decade to become evident. That is because Avandia works by transforming bone stem cells into baby fat cells into which glucose gets pushed. (That is why Avandia causes permanent weight gain.) This means that over time bones are weakened because they don't get new bone cells coming in to reinforce them. Eventually they start to crack and by then it is too late to fix the problem. But you won't see this effect over 4 years. So again, this study was designed to avoid highlighting a known damaging side effect of Avandia. But setting aside the fact that it is impossible to know from this study whether Avandia is safe in this context, the actual finding of the study was another blow to Avandia's claims, and makes it crystal clear why there was no "metformin only" group included in the study--though you wouldn't know this from the press coverage.The study claims, 70 (80%) patients in the treatment group regressed to normal glucose tolerance compared with 52 (53%) in the placebo group (p=0�0002). Note that the study is reported as claiming that two thirds of those who took Avandia (with metformin, though the headlines miss that) did not progress to diabetes. But at the same time, more than one half of those who did not take any drug also reverted to normal blood sugar status. So in fact, the drug combo only kept an additional 27% of participants from being diagnosed with diabetic blood sugars. Note that DPPT--a far more robust study of 3234 people with pre-diabetes found that Metformin alone decreased the progression to diabetes by 31% over an average of 2.8 years. Reduction in the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes with Lifestyle Intervention or Metformin:Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group NEJMVolume 346:393-403, February 7, 2002, Number 6So there is basically no significant difference in effect between the use of metformin alone and metformin combined with dangerous drug Avandia even allowing for the extra couple months in the Avandia study. All this seems to have eluded the peer reviewers who approved this study for publication. Okay, that's bad enough, but there's one last point. The makers of Avandia promote it to doctors with the claim--unsupported by evidence--that members of the TZD drug class to which it belongs rejuvenate beta function. This study, like every other study of the subject finds that isn't true. The Lancet study states, The change in ?-cell function, as measured by the insulin secretion-sensitivity index-2, did not differ between groups (placebo ?252�3, ?382�2 to ?58�0 vs rosiglitazone and metformin ?221�8, ?330�4 to ?87�8; p=0�28) So the improvement achieved in the drug group (most likely from taking the metformin) did not occur because the beta cells were functioning better, but only because blood sugar was lowered. Whether this was because the metformin blocked liver dumps, or because it promoted glucose uptake at the muscles by revving up AMP-Kinase, or because Avandia pushed excess glucose into brand new baby fat cells is unknown. So that's the story that the folks at The Lancet somehow missed. And because they missed it, you can be sure some percentage of boneheaded doctors will read this new study and put patients who don't have diabetes on Avandia. After all, why prescribe an effective, safe, generic drug that can be bought for $4 a month--Metformin--when you can prescribe one that does nothing but harm and costs up to $100 a month? The answer has a lot to do with the subtle incentives drug companies still provide doctors, but that's the subject for another blog post.Unfortunately, even doctors who are gun shy about Avandia still believe that its evil twin Actos is safe. It isn't. Actos also causes heart failure and works by changing bone baby cells into baby fat cells causing permanent weight gain and, long term, damaged and broken bones. Actos may not cause heart attack, but that information won't mean much if you develop heart failure, which over time is just as fatal. It's also worth noting both drugs raise the risk of retinal edema which means that if you are particularly unlucky, both Avandia and Actos can seriously damage your vision. Bottom line: If you have pre-diabetes can't get your blood sugar back to normal by cutting carbs (which has been proven far more effective than any drug) stick with metformin. It's safe, it works, and its side effects include things like weight loss and a lower incidence of cancer.


free glucose meter sample free glucose meter no insurance free glucose meter no cost free glucose meter mailed to you

How To Maintain A Normal Blood Sugar Level

It is not that hard as you think of how you can have and maintain a normal blood sugar level. All you need to do is to have a healthy lifestyle, right choice and amount of food and a well-monitored height and weight proportion. The more you reduce the fats and calories in your body, the more you reduce the risk of diabetes.free glucose meter for people with diabetes free glucose meter for diabetics free glucose meter diabetics free glucose meter by mail

The Nefariouspoo of Sarah (diabetic musings)

I am a 28 y.o. type 1 diabetic of 15 years on a pump (Paradigm). I have a three year old type 1 diabetic daughter diagnosed in October of 2006. I have a six year old son with PDD-NOS (a disorder on the autism spectrum). We are all frightfully normal despite our diagnoses, and we are all learning to live in this life with the challenges unique to our special needs. I never expected to be a single mum of two kids with special needs, but I also never expected my kids to be exactly what this "special needs mom" needs as well. We are navigating despite our diagnoses, and we are trying to show the world what diabetes and autism truly represent: Fabulous, Independent, Quirky Individuals (FIQI?) free glucose meter no cost free glucose meter mailed to you free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes

Curing Diabetes Through A Natural Diet

For people who suffer from diabetes or have a family member suffering from the disease, it can be such a relief to know that there is a cure for it. For the longest time, we have the idea that this disorder is in curable but with the latest discovery you will be amazed at how easy it is to treat diabetes. Diabetes is a disorder wherein a person has high sugar either because the body does not produce adequate insulin or can be because the cells do not respond to the insulin.free glucose meters with no insurance free glucose meters and strips pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter

Needle fear - Helping Children

Fear of needles would be a concern to any parent of a child with type 1 diabetes. You know that blood sugar checks and insulin shots are not negotiable. So, how do you cope with your child's fear and also practice ongoing management. Learn five sound tips to help with these fears. pain free glucose meters virtually pain free glucose meter free pain free glucose meter non invasive and pain free glucose meter

Diabetes and Heart Disease Nuggets

There is a strong link between diabetes and heart disease. At the same time patients can tap into key into information that can make a difference.free glucose meter no cost free glucose meter mailed to you free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes

A New Variable and Mixed Feelings

free glucose meter and supplies free glucose meter and test strips no blood free glucose meter free glucose meters and supplies

Insulin Pump Therapy - FAQ

Insulin Pump Therapy is not a decision you should enter into lightly. There are many factors to consider. This article offers an overview of insulin pump therapy to help you understand some of the common questions and concerns.free glucose meter and supplies free glucose meter and test strips no blood free glucose meter free glucose meters and supplies

Why The New Drugs Cause Such Terrible Side Effects

Yet another piece of bad news showed up--without mainstream coverage--in the health news this week. A long term study of Actos discovered that there is a clear dose and time-related increase in bladder cancer among those who take it. As MedPage Today reports:An interim analysis of data from the study, which includes more than 193,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, revealed no statistically significant increase in bladder cancer among pioglitazone users compared with nonusers (hazard ratio 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.5), but "the risk of bladder cancer increased with increasing dose and duration of [pioglitazone] use, reaching statistical significance after 24 months of exposure.Of concern to all of us should be the way that the company that makes the drug attempts to wave off this latest of many findings that show how their drug ruins lives. Takeda's spokesweasel claims, "the data did not reach statistical significance for the primary endpoint of increased risk of bladder cancer." What this means is that even though the data shows a very strong relationship between bladder cancer and their drug when a larger dose is taken for 2 years, the relationship disappears when you add into your statistical pool all the people who took it for a shorter time period or at low doses.If you can't see the problem with this argument, I worry about you. Apparently the renegade doctors who earn huge salaries hyping drug company products have decided a drug is only dangerous if it kills large numbers of those who take it, not just a measurable number of those who take it at commonly prescribed dosage levels for several years. But that's not what I'm blogging about here. What I'm blogging about is why so many of the new drugs have such terrible side effects and why we only learn about them ten to fifteen years after the drug is on the market.The reason is this. Today's newer generation of drugs target specific genes and cell receptors. The TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia, target the PPAR-gamma transcription factor which regulates genes that affect how lipids are stored. No one questions that they do this, or that in a significant number of patients (but by no means all who take them) they lower blood sugar.The problem is that PPAR-gamma regulates genes involved in a bunch of other processes in the body, too--processes that have nothing to do with blood sugar control. PPAR-gamma, for example, transforms the bone stem cells that should turn into new bone into new fat cells. This is why after a decade on the drug many people start experiencing broken bones in their arms and legs (the areas where PPAR-gamma is most active) and why once bones begin to break there is no cure. A decade of rebuilding has been subverted and the weakened structure of the bone cannot be fixed.And this points to the huge problem with the drug regulation process. There is no requirement--none, zilch--that a company applying for permission to market a new drug investigate what OTHER physiological processes are affected by the drugs's mechanism. All the drug company has to show is that it achieves what they are selling it to do. In the case of Actos and Avandia, that means causing a very modest drop in A1c--about .5%. If course, if a drug undergoing the approval process does something that is severely damaging right away, the problem will show up during the approval testing. If lots of people's skin peels off, or lots of people have strokes, a drug won't usually get approved. But most of the unintended consequences of the way new drugs work are more subtle and don't cause dramatic events during the first year or two that a person takes them. Many of these life-ruining side effects happen so slowly they don't show up for five to ten years--and then it takes a lot of work to link the side effect to the drug. Many of these side effects are never linked. Doctors expect to see people with cancer in their practices and don't connect the cancers with a drug the person has taken for a decade. They expect to see heart attacks in people with diabetes and don't know that more people are having heart attacks than expected and that this is because of some drug they prescribed four years before.It is only when the side effect is odd that anyone notices at all. If young people with no sign of heart disease suddenly develop heart failure as happens with both Avandia and Actos, a few doctors notice and report this to the FDA. (Many of course, don't.) If people start breaking arms and legs--an odd pattern for osteoporosis--as happens with both Avandia and Actos, a few more doctors notice. But the fact that a few doctors notice and report doesn't mean that other doctors hear about these side effects since they get all their "drug education" from drug company sales reps, those pretty young ladies who used to be college cheerleaders who show up at the office bringing such welcome take out lunches. And the FDA will not pull a drug from the market when evidence of these more subtle side effects emerges either. It takes years to kill a dangerous drug--years during which the company that sells it continues to rake in its billions. Cancer is a particularly troubling side effect of newer drugs, because the public believes, erroneously, that the drug approval process keeps cancer producing drugs off the market.This turns out not to be true. Though drug testing eliminates drugs that cause cells to become cancerous in a test tube over a few weeks or which cause malignancies over the short life spans of rodents, it cannot identify drugs that change how the body fights cancers in ways that allow slow developing human cancers to gain traction.That is why evidence a that a drug is raising the incidence of cancer rarely appears until a drug is almost at the end of its 14 year patent period. It has taken more than 12 years to notice the link between bladder cancer and Actos. It took nine years after its approval for anyone to notice the signal suggesting that Diovan raises cancer incidence by about 8%.And that's why it won't be until another nine years or more that the public will learn that any drug that inhibits DPP-4 is turning off an immune system mechanism essential to fighting melanoma, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and lung cancer. Details HERE.)Even when the link between a drug and a serious, even fatal, side effect finally made clear by large population studies don't expect the drug to be taken off the market. There will be panels and hearings and FDA deliberations, but if the history of Avandia is anything to go by, the drug will still be selling at your local pharmacy five years after its clear what its real dangers are. Because these secondary effects don't kill everyone who takes the drug, or 50% of them or even 10%, the drug company spokesweasels will argue, as the Takeda one does above that unless it is damaging everyone who takes it, it's still a good drug. They will also claim--though there is not a scintilla of evidence to support this claim, that the drug is saving many other lives which balance out the ones we know it is taking. The only oral diabetes drug for which there is conclusive evidence that that it prevents deaths is Metformin, which has been on the market (in Europe) since the 1950s. And not so incidentally, Metformin is the only oral diabetes drug that has not been linked conclusively with causing a fatal side effect. Though it was long thought that it might, rarely, cause lactic acidosis, that has been disproved. We now now that the incidence of lactic acidosis in those taking metformin is identical to its incidence among those not taking it.But there is no evidence that the expensive newer diabetes drugs do anything but lower blood sugar very slightly--much less than dietary changes and exercise can do. There is no evidence any of these newer drugs are saving lives. And because when the drug companies go looking for this evidence, they keep finding the opposite--it was that kind of study that stopped the profits rolling in from Avandia--don't expect to see such studies funded in the future. Is there any way to detect these life-ruining side effects before several million people have taken the drug? A very good place to start would be to require that drug companies investigate the effect of a new drug on all the known expressions of the gene, transcription factor, protease or other physiological component it is known to impact. This information is widely available. There are databases online that link to all the research about every gene for example. A reasonable person should be able to read through these studies and determine which impacts might cause harm. Then those effects could be investigated as part of the approval process. Doing this would have given us the answer we need about whether inhibiting DPP-4, a protease known to fight cancers, raises the incidence of the DPP-4 sensitive cancers--research that researchers say should be done, but that has not been done. Drug companies will tell you this is too expensive and that such regulations would mean no more wonder drugs. But when wonder drugs are clearly killing tens of thousands of people who would otherwise have lived, you have to ask yourself how wonderful they really are. We went to war over an attack that killed less than 3,000 people. But we let drug companies sell products that may be killing tens of thousands unnecessarily. Even though there is good evidence that the drug companies know their products are causing unnecessary deaths and hiding this evidence so they can continue to rake in their billions. Isn't it time this changed?


free glucose meter mailed to you free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes free glucose meter for diabetics

Feb 20, What complications may arise from type 1 diabetes?

I am recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (hereditary) and worried about the risk for any complication in my body? If I keep blood sugar under control



free glucose meter sample free glucose meter no insurance free glucose meter no cost free glucose meter mailed to you

Mr. Dawn Phenomenon

A journal about what I'm doing to control my diabetesfree glucose meter mailed to you free glucose meter for people with no insurance free glucose meter for people with diabetes free glucose meter for diabetics

Low Blood Sugar Emergency

Hypoglycemia can be a medical emergency if you don't act quickly. Low blood sugar brings on a number of symptoms that must be accurately recognized and treated to avoid potential danger. Learn the symptoms and what to do if this emergency strikes. free glucose meter supplies free glucose meter sample free glucose meter no insurance free glucose meter no cost

Wii to Help Pregnant Women

In normal times, women have a hard time making time for exercise because of their way of life. This becomes all the more apparent for pregnant women whose activity slows down because of their condition. This condition is all the more apparent in countries with cold climates such as Canada. The long winter season and [...]free glucose meter for diabetics free glucose meter diabetics free glucose meter by mail free glucose meter and supplies