I don't intend to create a revolt for treating Type 2 diabetes with analogues - but I do intend to raise a few questions to prevent unnecessary deaths like the loss of Tim Russert. The new trend Novo Nordisk is attempting to set in diabetes treatment for Type 2 is analogues first. The theory is scientifically unsound and the research was flawed, at best. A study recently published questioned the intensive treatment approach for Type 2 diabetes. Results of this study found tight blood glucose control offered no added protection against heart attack and stroke. Novo proceeded with their "catch it early" campaign despite another study published earlier this year that previously confirmed the same results from aggressive Type 2 treatment. Before entrusting your life to the promise of analogues - you deserve full disclosure.

First rule of proving the value of therapy is to have a fair "control group". In this particular study - the "control group" was TREATED with oral diabetes medications. If you're using a drug to "control" the situation - it is illogical to assume you have a control group. I'd settle for pseudo-control group for supporting the truth behind this research.

The other beef I have with this study is assuming the patient has diabetes. Was this a 1 time glucose check or was it a 3 month snapshot via HbA1c? For an explanation of why this matters - please watch the video. You'll also get a few though on the untimely and unnecessary death of Tim Russert.

Also - how did the physicians qualify the treatment for a participant? Was the patient was thoroughly evaluated (stimulated C-peptide, antibodies present, HbA1c, etc.)? If so - the choice of treatment would have a direct correlation to the outcome. If antibodies were present - it seems if you wanted to show a definite result of diabetes in 1 year - you would assign these patients to the oral med group. Although this is a legal violation of the Hippocratic Oath (prescribing a medication that would DO HARM) - I'm sure the payoff was worth it for Novo. After all - they are running that campaign to get all people in the whole wide worth on analogues.

My lay interpretation of this study is that 51% (possibly 92%) of the 381 patients were experiencing transient elevated glucose to begin with. This means that if they had remained "untreated" the approximate 4 to 7 days they spent on diabetes treatment would have produced the same outcome without treatment. The morning fasting blood glucose of 126 mg/dL is not a fair threshold to diagnose DIABETES.

Was there a true control group in this study? I.e.) no treatment whatsoever? I also wonder what the diagnosing HbA1c was - and what it was when the study ended.

This study without a control is nothing more than a RUSE to justify the new Novo Nordisk A/S campaign for analogue treatment for Type 2 - another diabetes marketing scheme. And by the way - the whole wide world needs to know this is NOT insulin. Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis sells ANALOGUES. It is NOT just like human insulin. It is a confusing foreign protein that lowers blood glucose. Well get back to this - but when the body perceives glucose levels are too low - it attacks any endogenous insulin (first) because it knows how to create the homegrown insulin - it knows how to create the antibodies to destroy it.

When the body no longer has the ability to destroy what no longer exists (aka analogue-dependent diabetes) it begins to create resistance at the insulin receptor cells. This is why Type 2 diabetics start increasing their dose to override the resistance to the analogues. Please forgive my redundant reference - mo' analogue, mo' money, mo' problems (Tim Russert).

The hook, line and stinker of this fishy research is the fact that a patient starting insulin therapy is not likely to see his or her doctor for at least a month. It is likely he/she will continue on the analogue for 30 days before visiting their doctor. By that time - the body will have begun creating insulin antibodies or islet cell antibodies to assist in destroying any endogenous insulin production - therefore REQUIRING the analogue dose to increase. This foreign analogue will also create the insulin receptors to shut-down to prevent HYPOGLYCEMIA . Believe me when I tell you - HYPOGLYCEMIA is far more traumatic to the body than hyperglycemia. Remember - those who still have functioning beta cells have C-PEPTIDE TO PROTECT FROM COMPLICATIONS OF DIABETES.

It is a common phenomenon for many Type 2s to begin on a dose that gradually doubles and even TRIPES. This could be evidence that endogenous insulin production is overridden by analogue therapy. A stimulated C-peptide test could confirm this hypothesis. The bottom line here is: less endogenous insulin production means less C-peptide and more vulnerability to the complications of diabetes.

[On any given Sunday - a person who does not have diabetes can have a blood glucose of 50 mg/DL or 500 mg/dL. The reason they do not experience complications of diabetes is because their beta cells function! Analogues override and prevent the healthy function of beta cells.]

I never said Big Pharma was stupid - in fact they're just brilliant at marketing studies to sell their products. I just hope this one doesn't dupe medical professionals the same way the "Humulin" insulin campaign did in 1983.

Increasing diagnosis, increasing complications, and higher costs -- who's benefiting here