In Diabetes, Get Glucose Control 'Just Right'

when I talk to a new doctor other then my endo that handles my diabetes
issues..I have two..other handles my testosterone and vite d deficiency...he
knows little about bg management and insists I'm not really diabetic...he
insist that unless your bg is always around 200 that your just a worry wart.

when I tell say the doc that give me my flu shot I'm type two and tell them
my a1c that I use diet and exercise as my main control...they all react
one of three ways:

A. most common they thing I'm lying few of their patients have the same
numbers...so how could I?

B. they think I'm a nut job who will crash and burn..even though its been
years now and have been told a few times that I'm going to die anyway so why
fight it.(my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine told me I
had maybe 6 months to live...thanks doc!)

C. the most rare...they see my labs and results and are very encouraged and
thrilled and ask me what I'm doing so they can pass it onto their other
patients.

What astounds me most is how others who know how well one can control
through diet and exercise will fight against it.

Even if you are a type one or whatever your status is...eating healthy and
moving in whatever way one can should ever be a bad thing.

Yet if you say that your labeled a low carb nut or a zealot.

KROM


"Helen Back" <SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc8ed52d-4fa7-43df-9040-09f864826738@u26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> "........I maintain my under 6
>> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic problems.
>> this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study, I guess because
>> there are so few of us in the general diabetic population....."
>
>> Wendy
>
> I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
> at me. Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
> with numerous people who are also diabetic. 5 of which were or are
> close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
> diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
> chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
> pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
> consistently high blood glucose numbers.
>
> These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
> advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised, eat what they
> want, when they want (even after I have told them that starchy carbs,
> over-eating, not exercising are the bugger!) and seem to forget very
> easily seeing their own loved ones die slowly and miserably from
> complications.
>
> I am sure that pro-active diabetics who maintain control of their
> condition are naturally curious and have the will to *survive*.
>
> Those who are diabetic and have been given information that can
> potentially assist in controlling their condition but continue the
> downward spiral - what category are they put into?
>
> 1) Ignorant?
> 2) Indifferent?
> 3) Depressed and non-motivational?
> 4) Intellectually challenged?
>
> What is it that makes one newly diagnosed (a person who didnt have one
> iota of a clue about diabetes until they got online or started reading
> books) become proactive and bring their condition into a healthy
> balance, and another newly diagnosed continue their lifestyle habits
> and inevitably decline in health and spirit?
>
>
>
>
>

On Feb 1, 12:49�pm, "KROM" <k...@kromco.com> wrote:

>my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine

FFS Krom, if you're going to try to convince people doctors are
incompetent, at least make up a story that's believable. He said over
500 is perfectly fine? Yeah, right.

Kurt

KROM <krom@kromco.com> wrote:
> when I talk to a new doctor other then my endo that handles my diabetes
> issues..I have two..other handles my testosterone and vite d deficiency...he
> knows little about bg management and insists I'm not really diabetic...he
> insist that unless your bg is always around 200 that your just a worry wart.
>
> when I tell say the doc that give me my flu shot I'm type two and tell them
> my a1c that I use diet and exercise as my main control...they all react
> one of three ways:
>
> A. most common they thing I'm lying few of their patients have the same
> numbers...so how could I?
>
> B. they think I'm a nut job who will crash and burn..even though its been
> years now and have been told a few times that I'm going to die anyway so why
> fight it.(my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine told me I
> had maybe 6 months to live...thanks doc!)
>
> C. the most rare...they see my labs and results and are very encouraged and
> thrilled and ask me what I'm doing so they can pass it onto their other
> patients.
>
> What astounds me most is how others who know how well one can control
> through diet and exercise will fight against it.

Who are these "others"? Other doctors, other diabetics, people in this
group (ASD/MHD)?

If the latter, the a cite would be nice, because I haven't seen any.

> Even if you are a type one or whatever your status is...eating healthy and
> moving in whatever way one can should ever be a bad thing.

And who does say otherwise?

> Yet if you say that your labeled a low carb nut or a zealot.

Nope, (in these groups) you're labeled a nut or a zealot if you *are*
one.

In article <hk6maj$pd8$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
sometimers <sometimers@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:

> On 2/1/2010 5:21 AM, Helen Back wrote:
> > On 1 Feb, 04:30, Susan<su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >>
> >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> >>> You appear to be very hostile to these discussions and reports on the
> >>> grounds that ignorant and gullible people might mistake some of us
> >>> here for experts whose advice should be taken completely
> >>> uncritically.
> >>
> >>> Why would they do that? There are plenty of real professional doctors
> >>> out there for people who want to follow real experts uncritically.
> >>
> >> What's really and truly so terribly sad is how much rapid decline of
> >> health those insisting on proof keep reporting. Why insist on doggedly
> >> following advice that you have absolute proof does not work for you?
> >>
> >> No one ever lost a kidney, eyesight, nerve function or limbs by eating
> >> less starch and more vegetables, fat and protein.
> >>
> >> Folks keep mentioning the hostility from these posters, but when I seem
> >> them quoted, it strikes me more like panic, grief, sadness that lead to
> >> lashing out. I'd be feeling all of those, too, if I felt I couldn't
> >> stop the inexorable worsening of debilitating symptoms or control of my
> >> disease, too.
> >>
> >> There are other options; when something isn't working, you move on to
> >> something new that has no potential to harm you and that does have a
> >> chance to help.
> >>
> >> Susan
> >
> > Some of your posts should NOT be set to disappear after a week!!
> >
> > You totally summed it up, thank you )
>
> Susan's postings, as well as yours, last about 30 days on most
> news servers.

She reads through google, and since Susan's posts are no-archive, they
disappear after a bit.

PP
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patootie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <hk6maj$pd8$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sometimers <sometimers@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/1/2010 5:21 AM, Helen Back wrote:
> > > On 1 Feb, 04:30, Susan<su...@nothanks.org> wrote:
> > >> x-no-archive: yes
> > >>
> > >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > >>> You appear to be very hostile to these discussions and reports on the
> > >>> grounds that ignorant and gullible people might mistake some of us
> > >>> here for experts whose advice should be taken completely
> > >>> uncritically.
> > >>
> > >>> Why would they do that? There are plenty of real professional doctors
> > >>> out there for people who want to follow real experts uncritically.
> > >>
> > >> What's really and truly so terribly sad is how much rapid decline of
> > >> health those insisting on proof keep reporting. Why insist on doggedly
> > >> following advice that you have absolute proof does not work for you?
> > >>
> > >> No one ever lost a kidney, eyesight, nerve function or limbs by eating
> > >> less starch and more vegetables, fat and protein.
> > >>
> > >> Folks keep mentioning the hostility from these posters, but when I seem
> > >> them quoted, it strikes me more like panic, grief, sadness that lead to
> > >> lashing out. I'd be feeling all of those, too, if I felt I couldn't
> > >> stop the inexorable worsening of debilitating symptoms or control of my
> > >> disease, too.
> > >>
> > >> There are other options; when something isn't working, you move on to
> > >> something new that has no potential to harm you and that does have a
> > >> chance to help.
> > >>
> > >> Susan
> > >
> > > Some of your posts should NOT be set to disappear after a week!!
> > >
> > > You totally summed it up, thank you )
> >
> > Susan's postings, as well as yours, last about 30 days on most
> > news servers.
>
> She reads through google, and since Susan's posts are no-archive, they
> disappear after a bit.

Anybody know *why* she (Susan) posts with "x-no-archive: yes"?

I can't think of any valid/sensible reason. In many cases she will be
quoted, and even if she's not, her articles can be found, albeit with
more effort/annoyance. If there are *no* responses to her articles, they
cannot be found on Google Groups, but still will be on many/most News
servers and other (than GG) News archives. Seems rather pointless.

--
Frank Slootweg

"Ozlover" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:7sp6blFpqnU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> Anybody know *why* she (Susan) posts with "x-no-archive: yes"?

Yes, Susan knows. HTH

> I can't think of any valid/sensible reason. In many cases she will be
> quoted, and even if she's not, her articles can be found, albeit with
> more effort/annoyance. If there are *no* responses to her articles, they
> cannot be found on Google Groups, but still will be on many/most News
> servers and other (than GG) News archives. Seems rather pointless.

It doesn't have to make sense to you, only to Susan. :-)

Cheri

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 13:13:15 -0800 (PST), Kurt
<kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 1, 12:49?pm, "KROM" <k...@kromco.com> wrote:
>
>>my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine
>
>FFS Krom, if you're going to try to convince people doctors are
>incompetent, at least make up a story that's believable. He said over
>500 is perfectly fine? Yeah, right.
>
>Kurt

mind reading and fortune telling now kurt?

On 1 Feb 2010 23:27:50 GMT, Ozlover <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> Anybody know *why* she (Susan) posts with "x-no-archive: yes"?
>
> I can't think of any valid/sensible reason.

it's her choice. the real question is why does it bother you enough
to post about it?

control issues?

On 1 Feb, 23:05, Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patoo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In article <hk6maj$pd...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *sometimers <sometim...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
> > On 2/1/2010 5:21 AM, Helen Back wrote:
> > > On 1 Feb, 04:30, Susan<su...@nothanks.org> *wrote:
> > >> x-no-archive: yes
>
> > >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > >>> You appear to be very hostile to these discussions and reports on the
> > >>> grounds that ignorant and gullible people might mistake some of us
> > >>> here for experts whose advice should be taken completely
> > >>> uncritically.
>
> > >>> Why would they do that? There are plenty of real professional doctors
> > >>> out there for people who want to follow real experts uncritically.
>
> > >> What's really and truly so terribly sad is how much rapid decline of
> > >> health those insisting on proof keep reporting. *Why insist on doggedly
> > >> following advice that you have absolute proof does not work for you?
>
> > >> No one ever lost a kidney, eyesight, nerve function or limbs by eating
> > >> less starch and more vegetables, fat and protein.
>
> > >> Folks keep mentioning the hostility from these posters, but when I seem
> > >> them quoted, it strikes me more like panic, grief, sadness that leadto
> > >> lashing out. *I'd be feeling all of those, too, if I felt I couldn't
> > >> stop the inexorable worsening of debilitating symptoms or control ofmy
> > >> disease, too.
>
> > >> There are other options; when something isn't working, you move on to
> > >> something new that has no potential to harm you and that does have a
> > >> chance to help.
>
> > >> Susan
>
> > > Some of your posts should NOT be set to disappear after a week!!
>
> > > You totally summed it up, thank you )
>
> > Susan's postings, as well as yours, last about 30 days on most
> > news servers.
>
> She reads through google, and since Susan's posts are no-archive, they
> disappear after a bit.
>

That's correct... )))

On 1 Feb, 23:27, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <hk6maj$pd...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > *sometimers <sometim...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/1/2010 5:21 AM, Helen Back wrote:
> > > > On 1 Feb, 04:30, Susan<su...@nothanks.org> *wrote:
> > > >> x-no-archive: yes
>
> > > >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> > > >>> You appear to be very hostile to these discussions and reports onthe
> > > >>> grounds that ignorant and gullible people might mistake some of us
> > > >>> here for experts whose advice should be taken completely
> > > >>> uncritically.
>
> > > >>> Why would they do that? There are plenty of real professional doctors
> > > >>> out there for people who want to follow real experts uncritically..
>
> > > >> What's really and truly so terribly sad is how much rapid decline of
> > > >> health those insisting on proof keep reporting. *Why insist on doggedly
> > > >> following advice that you have absolute proof does not work for you?
>
> > > >> No one ever lost a kidney, eyesight, nerve function or limbs by eating
> > > >> less starch and more vegetables, fat and protein.
>
> > > >> Folks keep mentioning the hostility from these posters, but when Iseem
> > > >> them quoted, it strikes me more like panic, grief, sadness that lead to
> > > >> lashing out. *I'd be feeling all of those, too, if I felt I couldn't
> > > >> stop the inexorable worsening of debilitating symptoms or control of my
> > > >> disease, too.
>
> > > >> There are other options; when something isn't working, you move onto
> > > >> something new that has no potential to harm you and that does havea
> > > >> chance to help.
>
> > > >> Susan
>
> > > > Some of your posts should NOT be set to disappear after a week!!
>
> > > > You totally summed it up, thank you )
>
> > > Susan's postings, as well as yours, last about 30 days on most
> > > news servers.
>
> > She reads through google, and since Susan's posts are no-archive, they
> > disappear after a bit.
>
> * Anybody know *why* she (Susan) posts with "x-no-archive: yes"?
>
> * I can't think of any valid/sensible reason. In many cases she will be
> quoted, and even if she's not, her articles can be found, albeit with
> more effort/annoyance. If there are *no* responses to her articles, they
> cannot be found on Google Groups, but still will be on many/most News
> servers and other (than GG) News archives. Seems rather pointless.
>

Each to their own.. that's what I say! )

On 1 Feb, 19:13, sometimers <sometim...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 9:04 AM, Helen Back wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Feb, 13:57, sometimers<sometim...@sometime.invalid.net> *wrote:
> >> On 2/1/2010 5:36 AM, Helen Back wrote:
>
> >>> On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker"<wba...@panix.com> * *wrote:
>
> >>> <snipped for brevity>
>
> >>> "........I maintain my under 6
> >>>> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic problems.
> >>>> this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study, I guess because
> >>>> there are so few of us in the general diabetic population....."
>
> >>>> Wendy
>
> >>> I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
> >>> at me. *Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
> >>> with numerous people who are also diabetic. *5 of which were or are
> >>> close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
> >>> diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
> >>> chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
> >>> pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
> >>> consistently high blood glucose numbers.
>
> >>> These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
> >>> advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised,
>
> >> *What???????????????????????*
>
> > Is your exclamation:
>
> > 1) Confusion on a possible typo I may have made?
> > 2) Think I think that we should use our meters only 3 times a week?
> > 3) Aghast at professional diabetes advice?
>
> 3.
>
> Personal experience tells me that 3 a week would drive me right
> into complications and death much sooner than my time is up
> when I have more control. I was recently put on chlorthanlidone
> and that has added to the havoc that previously existed. I am
> happy with the blood pressure results, and most unhappy with the
> roughly doubling in the amount of insulin I must use maintain
> blood glucose at something remotely resembling reasonability.

When I first got diagnosed, my diabetes nurse told me, on showing me
how to use my shiny new meter, that all I need to do is check my blood
once or twice a day, every couple of days.

The 2 of the 3 friends I have (as mentioned previously) are being told
not to check too often as you get false readings and to check blood
midday 2-3 times a week!

Great innit?

On 1 Feb, 21:13, Kurt <kurtwheeling1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:49 pm, "KROM" <k...@kromco.com> wrote:
>
> >my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine
>
> FFS Krom, if you're going to try to convince people doctors are
> incompetent, at least make up a story that's believable. He said over
> 500 is perfectly fine? Yeah, right.
>
> Kurt

Here we go again!!

On 1 Feb, 20:49, "KROM" <k...@kromco.com> wrote:
> when I talk to a new doctor other then my endo that handles my diabetes
> issues..I have two..other handles my testosterone and vite d deficiency....he
> knows little about bg management and insists I'm not really diabetic...he
> insist that unless your bg is always around 200 that your just a worry wart.

Well, he's a doctor - he knows best!
>
> when I tell say the doc that give me my flu shot I'm type two and tell them
> my a1c * that I use diet and exercise as my main control...they all react
> one of three ways:
>
> A. most common they thing I'm lying few of their patients have the same
> numbers...so how could I?

You'd think the documentary evidence would be enough!
>
> B. they think I'm a nut job who will crash and burn..even though its been
> years now and have been told a few times that I'm going to die anyway so why
> fight it.(my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine told me I
> had maybe 6 months to live...thanks doc!)

Both my 2nd doctor (the one who spoke at 90 miles an hour and only had
an *interest* in diabetes, told me that I may be proactive now, but
tell him that in 10 years time!
And my last visit to the diabetes nurse, I was told "this is a
progressive disease, it will get you".
Encouragement doesnt seem to be their forte - due to seeing the large
amount of patients who do not know or simply do not want to know how
to obtain the information that can keep complications at bay.
>
> C. the most rare...they see my labs and results and are very encouraged and
> thrilled and ask me what I'm doing so they can pass it onto their other
> patients.

I dont think I am going to see that where I live...
>
> What astounds me most is how others who know how well one can control
> through diet and exercise will fight against it.

Apathy, fear, confusion - I went through it all before I kicked myself
up the butt (with some help from you guys, of course!)
>
> Even if you are a type one or whatever your status is...eating healthy and
> moving in whatever way one can should ever be a bad thing.
>
> Yet if you say that your labeled a low carb nut or a zealot.

Or "uncooperative"
>
> KROM
>

Thanks Krom

On 1 Feb, 23:02, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> KROM <k...@kromco.com> wrote:
> > when I talk to a new doctor other then my endo that handles my diabetes
> > issues..I have two..other handles my testosterone and vite d deficiency....he
> > knows little about bg management and insists I'm not really diabetic...he
> > insist that unless your bg is always around 200 that your just a worry wart.
>
> > when I tell say the doc that give me my flu shot I'm type two and tell them
> > my a1c * that I use diet and exercise as my main control...they all react
> > one of three ways:
>
> > A. most common they thing I'm lying few of their patients have the same
> > numbers...so how could I?
>
> > B. they think I'm a nut job who will crash and burn..even though its been
> > years now and have been told a few times that I'm going to die anyway so why
> > fight it.(my very first doc who said bg over 500 is perfectly fine toldme I
> > had maybe 6 months to live...thanks doc!)
>
> > C. the most rare...they see my labs and results and are very encouragedand
> > thrilled and ask me what I'm doing so they can pass it onto their other
> > patients.
>
> > What astounds me most is how others who know how well one can control
> > through diet and exercise will fight against it.
>
> * Who are these "others"? Other doctors, other diabetics, people in this
> group (ASD/MHD)?
>
> * If the latter, the a cite would be nice, because I haven't seen any.
>
> > Even if you are a type one or whatever your status is...eating healthy and
> > moving in whatever way one can should ever be a bad thing.
>
> * And who does say otherwise?
>
> > Yet if you say that your labeled a low carb nut or a zealot.
>
> * Nope, (in these groups) you're labeled a nut or a zealot if you *are*
> one.

Now, I read KROM's statements as generalisation - outsiders (others)
as the general public and our health professionals. Nothing to do
with anyone in this group.

The written word can certainly be interpreted many ways

On 1 Feb, 20:05, "Cheri" <cher...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "Helen Back" <SiriusC...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:cc8ed52d-4fa7-43df-9040-
>
> What is it that makes one newly diagnosed (a person who didnt have one
> iota of a clue about diabetes until they got online or started reading
> books) become proactive and bring their condition into a healthy
> balance, and another newly diagnosed continue their lifestyle habits
> and inevitably decline in health and spirit?
>
> ===========
>
> Human nature. :-)
>
> Cheri

I guess so! ))

On 1 Feb, 20:10, Michael <mico...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 5:36 AM, Helen Back wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker"<wba...@panix.com> *wrote:
>
> > <snipped for brevity>
>
> > "........I maintain my under 6
> >> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic problems.
> >> this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study, I guess because
> >> there are so few of us in the general diabetic population....."
>
> >> Wendy
>
> > I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
> > at me. *Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
> > with numerous people who are also diabetic. *5 of which were or are
> > close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
> > diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
> > chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
> > pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
> > consistently high blood glucose numbers.
>
> > These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
> > advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised, eat what they
> > want, when they want (even after I have told them that starchy carbs,
> > over-eating, not exercising are the bugger!) and seem to forget very
> > easily seeing their own loved ones die slowly and miserably from
> > complications.
>
> > I am sure that pro-active diabetics who maintain control of their
> > condition are naturally curious and have the will to *survive*.
>
> > Those who are diabetic and have been given information that can
> > potentially assist in controlling their condition but continue the
> > downward spiral - what category are they put into?
>
> > 1) Ignorant?
> > 2) Indifferent?
> > 3) Depressed and non-motivational?
> > 4) Intellectually challenged?
>
> > What is it that makes one newly diagnosed (a person who didnt have one
> > iota of a clue about diabetes until they got online or started reading
> > books) become proactive and bring their condition into a healthy
> > balance, and another newly diagnosed continue their lifestyle habits
> > and inevitably decline in health and spirit?
>
> Nice Post Helen!

Thank you, Michael )
>
> I suppose that the will to live is stronger in some than others. This
> will to live seems to be a determining factor in people who are
> critically ill. It also may be the determining factor in diabetes. Will
> we allow ourselves to become victims of the collateral damage from this
> disease or will we make very serious changes in our lifestyle?

Not everyone is told what the collateral damage is. Unless you have
an excellently communicative and wised-up doctor, they wont tell you
the full facts. My doctor seems to be of the ilk, if you know too
much, it will cause a depressive state - best to let nature take its
course!
>
> Probably self esteem comes into play here. Of course there is also the
> situation of medical professionals giving very bad advice.

My one friend has resigned himself to the misery of complications. He
saw his own brother deteriorate rapidly over a year (tons of mini
strokes over that period and a complete change in character) but it
hasnt given him the motivation to keep well - it seems to have done
the opposite. I think he lives in constant fear, just waiting for the
first stroke to come. He has retinopathy in one eye already.
>
> The study about maintaining tight BG control via drugs has certainly
> been sobering. This tight control via drugs seems, from the study to
> still allow the collateral damage. I don't understand this, but I accept
> it. It appears that there is no easy path to recovery. We must make very
> serious changes in our lifestyle. At the moment there seems to be no
> magic pills. Science may change that situation someday, but not for now.
>
> Michael

I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
condition.

Thanks Michael )

Helen Back wrote:

> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
> condition.

But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology or
kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is it
that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes? Is
it because we all here have diabetes and therefore expect our GP's to know
more about diabetes because it is the disease we have? Or are we minimising
the importance of our disease?

A GP doesn't do the training a specialist does so why should we expect them
to give us specialist treatment when it comes to our diabetes. Would be like
expecting a podiatrist to monitor our pregnancies and deliver our babies.
Some people here have other problems besides diabetes and they see the
appropriate specialists for those problems. I find it hard to see why some
refuse to even consider an endo for a disease that has the potential to
cause severe damage to so many parts of our bodies as well as premature
death.

IMO a GP should be accorded the status they deserve, a medical person with a
bit of knowledge about a lot of things.

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7smvs3F2plU9@mid.individual.net...


> Why do you keep going on about the absence of proof in a situation
> where proof is impossible?

someone draw an impossible conclusion from ACCORD. I asked for a proof for
her conclusion. If she finds the proof impossible then her conclusion is
just an unproven opinion. That's all.

this thread started with two new articles on the emerging notion that there
is an optimum HbA1c which is different for different people.

Then someone said "oh ACCORD" without reading it of course, because I posted
two recent and new articles.

Then someone said "oh that is because the lower HbA1c was established by
medicin and not by e&d and THAT IS the reason why the LOWEST HbA1c was not
the BEST HbA1c"

That critic is wrong because there are no patient groups in all these
articles who lowered their HbA1c by e&d. So I asked those people for the
peer reviewed literature which proves that the LOWEST HbA1c is the BEST
HbA1c for everybody.

I agree with :
1) be active
2) keep your bg close to normal
3) experiments should be done to see if the lowest HbA1c is the best HbA1c
using lifestyle factors only

my questions :
1) if my HbA1c is 5 , should I try to lower it to 4 by eating salad and
never eat fruit ?
2) should a T1 patient with a HbA1c of 7 try to lower it to 5 with the risk
of more hypo's ?
3) a T2 patient with HbA1c=7
a lot of pain in his back
still doing some exercise
having a healthy, low glycemic, moderate carb, diet

should he ruin his back ? add more medicine ? or accept his current HbA1c as
the optimal for his situation ?

> Science works slowly, especially when assessing long term things like
> lifespan. While you are waiting for the evidence

?????
I just POSTED the new evidence at the start of this thread, so I'm seeing if
I have to change my mind.
maybe it is not the evidence you like ...

Here is more :
For critical ill patients the priority is the infection, not their
bloodglucose. From the shere number of comments it can be seen that the
situation is a lot more complcated than : get the lowest HbA1c possible ...


Below is also a study of the subgroups in ACCORD where they conclude that
for patients with neuropathy the goal may be different

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Citation
N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1283-97.

Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients.
NICE-SUGAR Study

N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1346-9.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):90; author reply 91-2.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):90-1; author reply 91-2.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):89-90; author reply 91-2.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):90; author reply 91-2.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):91; author reply 91-2.
J Fam Pract. 2009 Aug;58(8):424-6.
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):JC2-5.
Curr Hypertens Rep. 2009 Dec;11(6):383-4.
Can J Anaesth. 2010 Feb;57(2):172-5.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 2;361(1):89; author reply 91-2.

BACKGROUND: The optimal target range for blood glucose in critically ill
patients remains unclear. METHODS: Within 24 hours after admission to an
intensive care unit (ICU), adults who were expected to require treatment in
the ICU on 3 or more consecutive days were randomly assigned to undergo
either intensive glucose control, with a target blood glucose range of 81 to
108 mg per deciliter (4.5 to 6.0 mmol per liter), or conventional glucose
control, with a target of 180 mg or less per deciliter (10.0 mmol or less
per liter). We defined the primary end point as death from any cause within
90 days after randomization. RESULTS: Of the 6104 patients who underwent
randomization, 3054 were assigned to undergo intensive control and 3050 to
undergo conventional control; data with regard to the primary outcome at day
90 were available for 3010 and 3012 patients, respectively. The two groups
had similar characteristics at baseline. A total of 829 patients (27.5%) in
the intensive-control group and 751 (24.9%) in the conventional-control
group died (odds ratio for intensive control, 1.14; 95% confidence interval,
1.02 to 1.28; P=0.02). The treatment effect did not differ significantly
between operative (surgical) patients and nonoperative (medical) patients
(odds ratio for death in the intensive-control group, 1.31 and 1.07,
respectively; P=0.10). Severe hypoglycemia (blood glucose level, < or = 40
mg per deciliter [2.2 mmol per liter]) was reported in 206 of 3016 patients
(6.8%) in the intensive-control group and 15 of 3014 (0.5%) in the
conventional-control group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference
between the two treatment groups in the median number of days in the ICU
(P=0.84) or hospital (P=0.86) or the median number of days of mechanical
ventilation (P=0.56) or renal-replacement therapy (P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: In
this large, international, randomized trial, we found that intensive glucose
control increased mortality among adults in the ICU: a blood glucose target
of 180 mg or less per deciliter resulted in lower mortality than did a
target of 81 to 108 mg per deciliter. (ClinicalTrials.gov number,
NCT00220987.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

PMID: 19318384


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...?dopt=Citation
Diabetes Care. 2010 Jan 26.
Effect of intensive compared with standard glycemia treatment strategies on
mortality by baseline subgroup characteristics: The ACCORD trial.

Objective: To determine if baseline subgroups in the ACCORD trial can be
identified for whom intensive compared with standard glycemia treatment had
different effects on all-cause mortality. Research Design and Methods:
Exploratory post-hoc intention-to-treat comparisons between intensive and
standard glycemia groups on all-cause mortality by subgroups defined by
baseline characteristics. Results: There were few significant interactions
between baseline characteristics and effects of intensive vs standard
glycemia treatment on mortality: self-reported history of neuropathy
(HR=1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.69 versus no history of neuropathy (HR 0.99, 95% CI
0.79 - 1.26; p-value for interaction 0.0008), higher A1c (A1c > 8.5%:
HR=1.64, 95% CI 1.22-2.22; A1c 7.5-8.4%, HR=1.00, 95% CI 0.75-1.34; A1c <
7.5%: HR=1.00, 95% CI 0.67-1.50; p-value for interaction 0.04), and aspirin
use (HR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.13-1.85, compared to HR=0.96 (0.72-1.27) in
non-users; p-value for interaction 0.03). Conclusions: We found a remarkable
similarity of effect from intensive compared with standard glycemia
treatment on mortality across most baseline subgroups. No differential
effect was found in subgroups defined by variables anticipated to have an
interaction: age, duration of diabetes, previous history of cardiovascular
disease. The 3 baseline characteristics that defined subgroups for which
there was a differential effect on mortality may help identify patients with
type 2 diabetes at higher risk of mortality from very intensive regimens for
glycemia control. Further research is warranted.

PMID: 20103550

"Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message
news:7sq9i8FojuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Helen Back wrote:
>
>> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
>> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
>> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
>> condition.
>
> But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology
> or kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
> practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
> diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
> oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is
> it that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes?
> Is it because we all here have diabetes and therefore expect our GP's to
> know more about diabetes because it is the disease we have? Or are we
> minimising the importance of our disease?
>
> A GP doesn't do the training a specialist does so why should we expect
> them to give us specialist treatment when it comes to our diabetes. Would
> be like expecting a podiatrist to monitor our pregnancies and deliver our
> babies. Some people here have other problems besides diabetes and they see
> the appropriate specialists for those problems. I find it hard to see why
> some refuse to even consider an endo for a disease that has the potential
> to cause severe damage to so many parts of our bodies as well as premature
> death.
>
> IMO a GP should be accorded the status they deserve, a medical person with
> a bit of knowledge about a lot of things.

Agreed. None of my GPs have treated diabetes. They all send you to an
Endo.

On 2 Feb, 09:27, "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote:
> Helen Back wrote:
> > I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
> > better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
> > magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
> > condition.
>
> But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology or
> kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
> practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
> diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
> oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is it
> that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes? Is
> it because we all here have diabetes and therefore expect our GP's to know
> more about diabetes because it is the disease we have? Or are we minimising
> the importance of our disease?
>
> A GP doesn't do the training a specialist does so why should we expect them
> to give us specialist treatment when it comes to our diabetes. Would be like
> expecting a podiatrist to monitor our pregnancies and deliver our babies.
> Some people here have other problems besides diabetes and they see the
> appropriate specialists for those problems. I find it hard to see why some
> refuse to even consider an endo for a disease that has the potential to
> cause severe damage to so many parts of our bodies as well as premature
> death.
>
> IMO a GP should be accorded the status they deserve, a medical person with a
> bit of knowledge about a lot of things.

I agree with what your saying - but as I have reiterated to the likes
of Kurt on and off for a while now - not all of us are given the
opportunity for referral and interaction with a endocrinologist. I
asked if and when I would be referred and was told that the only time
that would occur is if I progress to Type 1!

I'm assuming that lack of resources is the reason for reluctance on my
health clinic's part - or simply ignorance - I dont know!

I simply have to rely on my own GP and the diabetes nurse.

On 2 Feb, 09:53, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Ozgirl" <are_we_there_...@maccas.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7sq9i8FojuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Helen Back wrote:
>
> >> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
> >> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
> >> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
> >> condition.
>
> > But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology
> > or kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
> > practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
> > diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
> > oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is
> > it that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes?
> > Is it because we all here have diabetes and therefore expect our GP's to
> > know more about diabetes because it is the disease we have? Or are we
> > minimising the importance of our disease?
>
> > A GP doesn't do the training a specialist does so why should we expect
> > them to give us specialist treatment when it comes to our diabetes. Would
> > be like expecting a podiatrist to monitor our pregnancies and deliver our
> > babies. Some people here have other problems besides diabetes and they see
> > the appropriate specialists for those problems. I find it hard to see why
> > some refuse to even consider an endo for a disease that has the potential
> > to cause severe damage to so many parts of our bodies as well as premature
> > death.
>
> > IMO a GP should be accorded the status they deserve, a medical person with
> > a bit of knowledge about a lot of things.
>
> Agreed. *None of my GPs have treated diabetes. *They all send you to an
> Endo.

Lucky you!! :P

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:27:21 +1000, "Ozgirl"
<are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:

>Helen Back wrote:
>
>> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
>> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
>> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
>> condition.
>
>But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology or
>kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
>practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
>diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
>oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is it
>that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes? Is
>it because we all here have diabetes and therefore expect our GP's to know
>more about diabetes because it is the disease we have? Or are we minimising
>the importance of our disease?

It may have something do with how many pay for our care. Those of us
who use insurance are (not me at the present time) required to see a
GP as their primary care provider who see you for everything. The
insurance requires the GP to write the referral to the specialist.
That doesn't mean they always do when it's needed.

Thankfully I do not need to go through a GP for any referrals.


>
>A GP doesn't do the training a specialist does so why should we expect them
>to give us specialist treatment when it comes to our diabetes. Would be like
>expecting a podiatrist to monitor our pregnancies and deliver our babies.
>Some people here have other problems besides diabetes and they see the
>appropriate specialists for those problems. I find it hard to see why some
>refuse to even consider an endo for a disease that has the potential to
>cause severe damage to so many parts of our bodies as well as premature
>death.

It's not always a case of refusing to see an endo, on the patient's
part. Sometimes it's lack of access to one, either through distance,
not enough in an area - too many patients, lack of funds, every endo
I have seen charges 250 or more for an office visit, labs are
separate, dietician and education classes are separate etc.

>
>IMO a GP should be accorded the status they deserve, a medical person with a
>bit of knowledge about a lot of things.

--
Måck©®
Pumper / Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/
http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 03:06:57 -0800 (PST), Helen Back
<SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>I simply have to rely on my own GP and the diabetes nurse.

How is your medical care paid for? Insurance, private, company or
state managed/funded, or out of pocket? If you have medical coverage
depending on the rules of the plan you may not have to wait for a
referral. Sometimes you can call the plan provider and get pre
approval on your own to see a specialist.

But without the referral or the pre approval you could end paying a
higher out of pocket portion of the bill if not all of it.

--
Måck©®
Pumper / Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/
http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

Helen Back <SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:

> <snipped for brevity>

> "........I maintain my under 6
>> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic problems. ?
>> this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study, I guess because
>> there are so few of us in the general diabetic population....." ?

>> Wendy

> I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
> at me. Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
> with numerous people who are also diabetic. 5 of which were or are
> close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
> diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
> chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
> pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
> consistently high blood glucose numbers.

> These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
> advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised, eat what they
> want, when they want (even after I have told them that starchy carbs,
> over-eating, not exercising are the bugger!) and seem to forget very
> easily seeing their own loved ones die slowly and miserably from
> complications.

> I am sure that pro-active diabetics who maintain control of their
> condition are naturally curious and have the will to *survive*.

> Those who are diabetic and have been given information that can
> potentially assist in controlling their condition but continue the
> downward spiral - what category are they put into?

> 1) Ignorant?
> 2) Indifferent?
> 3) Depressed and non-motivational?
> 4) Intellectually challenged?

> What is it that makes one newly diagnosed (a person who didnt have one
> iota of a clue about diabetes until they got online or started reading
> books) become proactive and bring their condition into a healthy
> balance, and another newly diagnosed continue their lifestyle habits
> and inevitably decline in health and spirit?

It's not necessarily any of those reasons you mention. A friend of
mine is an intelligent well educated classics graduate who before
retiring earned his living as a writer. He is now going blind, and has
lost all feeling in his feet which have sores which need regular
treatment. His opthalmologist has written to his doctor saying the
damage to his eyes is so typically diabetic that he really should be
checked out for diabetes. His podiatrist has done the same thing. His
doc does the checks and says "No, he's not diabetic". His
opthalmologist and podiatrist have raised their eyes and written again
in stronger terms recommending more careful checking for diabetes. His
doc does the checks again to humour them and says "No, he's not
diabetic!".

But my friend is one of those skinny active types who often fail to be
diagnosed with the usual fasting and "random" BG tests and the A1C. So
my friend simply laughs and says "I've got diabetic eyes and feet, but
I'm not diabetic! Medicine is weird!"

I've tried to instil in him some scepticism about his doc's diagnosis
of "not diabetic", suggesting that he mention a GTT or try another doc
in the practice for a second opinion. I've told him how my own doc
failed to diagnose me, another skinny active type who didn't register
on the usual tests. But I did on the GTT, and my doc apologised to me
for having previously relied too much on the standard diagnosis
guidelines. But my friend likes and trusts his doctor, and won't even
consider doubting him.

I've offered to do a blood test on him of my own after we've had a
meal together (at which he eats all the mashed potatoes which I
refuse), but he thinks it an endearing silliness of mine that I, with
no medical training, imagine I could possibly find out anything which
his doctor doesn't already know.

The thing is that his excellent education is entirely in the Arts. He
knows nothing about science or anything technical, and doesn't want
to. He's spent his whole life hiring technical experts when necessary,
and his attitude is that where technical matters are concerned you
pick an expert you trust and then back his judgment without
question. He dismisses the very serious concerns of his opthalmologist
and podiatrist on the grounds that they're not general practice
experts and do not understand his body and health in the comprehensive
way his own doc does. They're right to raise their worries with his
doc, and if his doc says they're wrong that's the end of the matter.

He's not ignorant, indifferent, depressed, or intellectually
challenged. Far from it. Until vascular dementia started confusing him
he was among the most intelligent and well educated people I know.

He simply believes in trusting experts.

That's one of the reasons I think that the national education
curriculum shouldn't allow people to become well educated while
knowing so little of how science works. It's a crucial component of
the scientific method that expert authority is always open to question
and challenge.

--
Chris Malcolm

Ozgirl <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
> Helen Back wrote:

>> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
>> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
>> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
>> condition.

> But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology or
> kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
> practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
> diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
> oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is it
> that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes?

Because as you point out the GP refers patients on to specialists when
necessary. The GP's expertise is in knowing when to refer to a
specialist. So if the GP doesn't refer you on to an endo or
diabetologist that's because in his expert opinion you don't need to
be referred on. Who are you as a non-specialist with no medical
training to doubt the medical expertise of your doctor?

--
Chris Malcolm

In
news:cc8ed52d-4fa7-43df-9040-09f864826738@u26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com,
Helen Back typed on Mon, 1 Feb 2010 03:36:57 -0800 (PST):
> On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> "........I maintain my under 6
>> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic
>> problems. this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study,
>> I guess because there are so few of us in the general diabetic
>> population....."
>
>> Wendy
>
> I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
> at me. Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
> with numerous people who are also diabetic. 5 of which were or are
> close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
> diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
> chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
> pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
> consistently high blood glucose numbers.
>
> These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
> advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised, eat what they
> want, when they want (even after I have told them that starchy carbs,
> over-eating, not exercising are the bugger!) and seem to forget very
> easily seeing their own loved ones die slowly and miserably from
> complications.
>
> I am sure that pro-active diabetics who maintain control of their
> condition are naturally curious and have the will to *survive*.
>
> Those who are diabetic and have been given information that can
> potentially assist in controlling their condition but continue the
> downward spiral - what category are they put into?
>
> 1) Ignorant?
> 2) Indifferent?
> 3) Depressed and non-motivational?
> 4) Intellectually challenged?
>
> What is it that makes one newly diagnosed (a person who didnt have one
> iota of a clue about diabetes until they got online or started reading
> books) become proactive and bring their condition into a healthy
> balance, and another newly diagnosed continue their lifestyle habits
> and inevitably decline in health and spirit?

Really Helen? Than how do you explain to me those of us who maintain
tight control over our diabetes are dying off first? This is true in my
family and those at my local VA hospital (of which 15,000 are diabetic).
The ones with sloppy glucose control never seems to have any problems.

That UK study of 50,000 over 20 years shows the same thing as I already
have learned on my own. And that is tight control is just as bad as
doing nothing at all. And the ones living the longest are the ones
maintaining a sloppy A1c of 7.5.

--
Bill
DX 2002 (ignored till 4/2007)
A1c 4/2007 10.5
A1c 11/2008 6.1

Michael <micoder@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
: On 2/1/2010 5:36 AM, Helen Back wrote:
: > On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker"<wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: >
: > <snipped for brevity>
: >
: > "........I maintain my under 6
: >> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic problems.
: >> this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study, I guess because
: >> there are so few of us in the general diabetic population....."
: >
: >> Wendy
: >
: > I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
: > at me. Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
: > with numerous people who are also diabetic. 5 of which were or are
: > close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
: > diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
: > chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
: > pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
: > consistently high blood glucose numbers.
: >
: > These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
: > advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised, eat what they
: > want, when they want (even after I have told them that starchy carbs,
: > over-eating, not exercising are the bugger!) and seem to forget very
: > easily seeing their own loved ones die slowly and miserably from
: > complications.
: >
: > I am sure that pro-active diabetics who maintain control of their
: > condition are naturally curious and have the will to *survive*.
: >
: > Those who are diabetic and have been given information that can
: > potentially assist in controlling their condition but continue the
: > downward spiral - what category are they put into?
: >
: > 1) Ignorant?
: > 2) Indifferent?
: > 3) Depressed and non-motivational?
: > 4) Intellectually challenged?
: >
: > What is it that makes one newly diagnosed (a person who didnt have one
: > iota of a clue about diabetes until they got online or started reading
: > books) become proactive and bring their condition into a healthy
: > balance, and another newly diagnosed continue their lifestyle habits
: > and inevitably decline in health and spirit?
: >
: >
: >
: Nice Post Helen!

: I suppose that the will to live is stronger in some than others. This
: will to live seems to be a determining factor in people who are
: critically ill. It also may be the determining factor in diabetes. Will
: we allow ourselves to become victims of the collateral damage from this
: disease or will we make very serious changes in our lifestyle?

: Probably self esteem comes into play here. Of course there is also the
: situation of medical professionals giving very bad advice.

: The study about maintaining tight BG control via drugs has certainly
: been sobering. This tight control via drugs seems, from the study to
: still allow the collateral damage. I don't understand this, but I accept
: it. It appears that there is no easy path to recovery. We must make very
: serious changes in our lifestyle. At the moment there seems to be no
: magic pills. Science may change that situation someday, but not for now.

: Michael

Are we talking about collateral damage or "death form all causes" which,
in the ACCORD study increased slightly in the most tightly and medicated
group over the group ust a bit less intensively treated, but it was still
very much lower tthan the higher A1groups.

Wendy

M?ck?? <WeWillBe@onewiththegoddesss.org> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2010 23:27:50 GMT, Ozlover <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Anybody know *why* she (Susan) posts with "x-no-archive: yes"?
> >
> > I can't think of any valid/sensible reason.
>
> it's her choice.

Of course it's her choice. Did I say otherwise?

> the real question is why does it bother you enough to post about it?

No, the real question is why you - again - silenty snipped the rest of
my comments? A - vain - attempt to make me look 'bad'?

> control issues?

Nah, my control is excellent! :-)

--
Frank Slootweg

Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patootie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <hk6maj$pd8$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> sometimers <sometimers@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/1/2010 5:21 AM, Helen Back wrote:

[...]

> > > Some of your posts should NOT be set to disappear after a week!!
> > >
> > > You totally summed it up, thank you )
> >
> > Susan's postings, as well as yours, last about 30 days on most
> > news servers.
>
> She reads through google, and since Susan's posts are no-archive, they
> disappear after a bit.

Addendum:

Minor nit:

They don't *really* "disappear". They are just flagged as not to be
shown during normal reading, but do still show up in certain searches
(which ones, only Google (hopefully) knows). I.e. the no-archive request
isn't really honored, because they *are* archived.

--
Frank Slootweg

Cheri <cherig3@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "Ozlover" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7sp6blFpqnU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Anybody know *why* she (Susan) posts with "x-no-archive: yes"?
>
> Yes, Susan knows. HTH

I know, and no, it doesn't.

AFAICT, I'm in Susan's s00per-s3cr3t killfile. I have already asked
her, but she didn't reply. Hence my question.

> > I can't think of any valid/sensible reason. In many cases she will be
> > quoted, and even if she's not, her articles can be found, albeit with
> > more effort/annoyance. If there are *no* responses to her articles, they
> > cannot be found on Google Groups, but still will be on many/most News
> > servers and other (than GG) News archives. Seems rather pointless.
>
> It doesn't have to make sense to you, only to Susan. :-)

Perhaps I had a momentary lapse of attention, but this group isn't
really known for minding it's own business, is it? So why can everyone
ask stupid, insulting, patronizing, <whatever> questions, but I can't
ask a (IMO) perfectly reasonable one?

--
Frank Slootweg

On 2/2/2010 2:19 AM, Helen Back wrote:
> On 1 Feb, 19:13, sometimers<sometim...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
>> On 2/1/2010 9:04 AM, Helen Back wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Feb, 13:57, sometimers<sometim...@sometime.invalid.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2010 5:36 AM, Helen Back wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 31 Jan, 20:20, "W. Baker"<wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>>>>> "........I maintain my under 6
>>>>>> A1c and soffer, so far in my 24 years of diabetes, no diabetic problems.
>>>>>> this is the kind of control that the study DID NOT study, I guess because
>>>>>> there are so few of us in the general diabetic population....."
>>
>>>>>> Wendy
>>
>>>>> I've highlighted this paragraph of yours Wendy as it really jumped out
>>>>> at me. Since being diagnosed in August 2007, I have come into contact
>>>>> with numerous people who are also diabetic. 5 of which were or are
>>>>> close to me (2 have died within 6 years of their dx, with chronic
>>>>> diabetic complications) and the other 3 are having typical symptoms:
>>>>> chronic fatigue, depression, eyesight depletion, maintaining
>>>>> pronounced midriffs from the constant eating of starchy carbs and
>>>>> consistently high blood glucose numbers.
>>
>>>>> These 3 people attend diabetic clinic regularly - take medication as
>>>>> advised, use their meters 3 times a week as advised,
>>
>>>> *What???????????????????????*
>>
>>> Is your exclamation:
>>
>>> 1) Confusion on a possible typo I may have made?
>>> 2) Think I think that we should use our meters only 3 times a week?
>>> 3) Aghast at professional diabetes advice?
>>
>> 3.
>>
>> Personal experience tells me that 3 a week would drive me right
>> into complications and death much sooner than my time is up
>> when I have more control. I was recently put on chlorthanlidone
>> and that has added to the havoc that previously existed. I am
>> happy with the blood pressure results, and most unhappy with the
>> roughly doubling in the amount of insulin I must use maintain
>> blood glucose at something remotely resembling reasonability.
>
> When I first got diagnosed, my diabetes nurse told me, on showing me
> how to use my shiny new meter, that all I need to do is check my blood
> once or twice a day, every couple of days.
>
> The 2 of the 3 friends I have (as mentioned previously) are being told
> not to check too often as you get false readings and to check blood
> midday 2-3 times a week!
>
> Great innit?

I have a standard breakfast, the only meal of the day that is so
in my case. I have a standard amount of insulin I give myself for
that breakfast. Most days I land with a BG of around 110 3 hours
later. Today it was 80 and felt like it was still headed downwards.
I start getting symptoms at 80 and the shakes at 70, so I took my
reading that disclosed the 80 and had a small spoonful of regular
jelly to counteract the hypo that was coming. I had no exercise
last night (my usual treadmill and bike time) and I was very lazy
this morning.

False readings if we test "too often"? Nobody sees through that?

It would cost me ~54US$ to buy 200 strips a month using the least
expensive equipment from Walmart. That's not a sacrifice I want to
make but I would if it becomes necessary under the Obamakill program
that's been in the works here.

When something seems too good to be true,(testing 3 times a week
deemed adequate by the people footing the bill) it usually is.

In article
<2713c0ff-3362-47cf-9dfa-07b7962e6f8a@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Helen Back <SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> I agree with what your saying - but as I have reiterated to the likes
> of Kurt on and off for a while now - not all of us are given the
> opportunity for referral and interaction with a endocrinologist. I
> asked if and when I would be referred and was told that the only time
> that would occur is if I progress to Type 1!
>
> I'm assuming that lack of resources is the reason for reluctance on my
> health clinic's part - or simply ignorance - I dont know!

I vote for ignorance, since a Type 2 does not "progress" to Type 1.
That's basic knowledge that even a GP should possess!

PP, T2
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

In article
<656cc327-38be-4b3e-b6b1-1f71e50e2b50@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Helen Back <SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> When I first got diagnosed, my diabetes nurse told me, on showing me
> how to use my shiny new meter, that all I need to do is check my blood
> once or twice a day, every couple of days.
>
> The 2 of the 3 friends I have (as mentioned previously) are being told
> not to check too often as you get false readings and to check blood
> midday 2-3 times a week!
>
> Great innit?

I'll repeat my quote of what a nurse at Joslin told me: You don't want
to test before two hours post-prandial because the blood glucose level
won't have come down before then.

Great, yeah. Just peachy. NOT.

PP,T2
--
"What you fail to understand is that criticising established authority by means
of argument and evidence is a crucial aspect of how science works."
- Chris Malcolm

Peppermint Patootie <peppermint_patootie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2713c0ff-3362-47cf-9dfa-07b7962e6f8a@r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Helen Back <SiriusC-63@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I agree with what your saying - but as I have reiterated to the likes
> > of Kurt on and off for a while now - not all of us are given the
> > opportunity for referral and interaction with a endocrinologist. I
> > asked if and when I would be referred and was told that the only time
> > that would occur is if I progress to Type 1!
> >
> > I'm assuming that lack of resources is the reason for reluctance on my
> > health clinic's part - or simply ignorance - I dont know!
>
> I vote for ignorance, since a Type 2 does not "progress" to Type 1.
> That's basic knowledge that even a GP should possess!

I can think of a much more plausible explanation for what happened,
but will keep that to myself.

As to your comment: T2 normally indeed *does* not "progress" to T1,
but with a little creativity, one can think of a scenario where a T2
*can* become a T1. Such a scenario is where *after the fact*, someone
who was diagnosed as T2 'happened' to be a late-onset T1, which was
still in hir honeymoon period.

"T2" (nor "T1") isn't some concept which is cast in stone, but for all
practical matters is a result of a diagnosing procedure. *After* the
fact, that diagnosis might be wrong, but that doesn't mean it was wrong
at the time of diagnosis. (Need: I say "WMD"? Oops! :-))

IIRC, we had such a diabetic in MHD, Old Al, IIRC.

Because of my skinnyness, I kept in my mind that I might be a
late-onset T1 as well and prepared for that. Now, it looks like I'm not,
unless I'm one with a bloody long honeymoon. :-)

--
Frank Slootweg,
T2? :-), 59+4y, Diag 4/2000, weightloss (81->7X kg), diet, 2 * 500mg tolbutamide

"Ozgirl" <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote in message
news:7sq9i8FojuU1@mid.individual.net...
> Helen Back wrote:
>
>> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
>> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
>> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
>> condition.
>
> But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology
> or kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
> practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
> diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
> oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is
> it that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes?
> Is it because we all here have diabetes and therefore expect our GP's to
> know more about diabetes because it is the disease we have? Or are we
> minimising the importance of our disease?
>
> A GP doesn't do the training a specialist does so why should we expect
> them to give us specialist treatment when it comes to our diabetes. Would
> be like expecting a podiatrist to monitor our pregnancies and deliver our
> babies. Some people here have other problems besides diabetes and they see
> the appropriate specialists for those problems. I find it hard to see why
> some refuse to even consider an endo for a disease that has the potential
> to cause severe damage to so many parts of our bodies as well as premature
> death.
>
> IMO a GP should be accorded the status they deserve, a medical person with
> a bit of knowledge about a lot of things.


That's all well and good, but the GP should know his/her limitations and NOT
try to treat diabetics at all if that's the case, instead of giving bad
advice as so many of them do.

Cheri

"Julie Bove" <juliebove@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hk8snf$5a7$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Agreed. None of my GPs have treated diabetes. They all send you to an
> Endo.

I've never had one yet that sent me to an Endo, not one.

Cheri

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7sqjdtFn1rU2@mid.individual.net...
> Ozgirl <are_we_there_yet@maccas.com> wrote:
>> Helen Back wrote:
>
>>> I wish they had magic pills to help GP's learn and understand diabetes
>>> better (not everyone is offered endo professionalism); I wish they had
>>> magic pills to help diabetics who wont take control of their
>>> condition.
>
>> But just how much more should a GP learn about diabetes. Or ophthalmology
>> or
>> kidney disease or heart disease... Get my drift? A GP is a "general"
>> practitioner. They should know something about the common illnesses and
>> diseases etc. If a patient presents with cancer they are referred to an
>> oncologist, a brain tumour and they get referred to a neurologist. Why is
>> it
>> that everyone expects their GP to be able to adequately treat diabetes?
>
> Because as you point out the GP refers patients on to specialists when
> necessary. The GP's expertise is in knowing when to refer to a
> specialist. So if the GP doesn't refer you on to an endo or
> diabetologist that's because in his expert opinion you don't need to
> be referred on. Who are you as a non-specialist with no medical
> training to doubt the medical expertise of your doctor?


+1

Cheri <cherig3@newsguy.com> wrote:
: "Julie Bove" <juliebove@verizon.net> wrote in message
: news:hk8snf$5a7$1@news.eternal-september.org...

: > Agreed. None of my GPs have treated diabetes. They all send you to an
: > Endo.

: I've never had one yet that sent me to an Endo, not one.

: Cheri

Julie seems to have quite a complicated case of diabees combined with
other issues, so I would imagine that a GP would be happy to have her see
an endo to try to put it all togeher.

Wendy

"W. Baker" <wbaker@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hka05r$8qp$1@reader2.panix.com...
> Cheri <cherig3@newsguy.com> wrote:
> : "Julie Bove" <juliebove@verizon.net> wrote in message
> : news:hk8snf$5a7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> : > Agreed. None of my GPs have treated diabetes. They all send you to
> an
> : > Endo.
>
> : I've never had one yet that sent me to an Endo, not one.
>
> : Cheri
>
> Julie seems to have quite a complicated case of diabees combined with
> other issues, so I would imagine that a GP would be happy to have her see
> an endo to try to put it all togeher.
>
> Wendy

Yes, that's true.

x-no-archive: yes

W. Baker wrote:

> Julie seems to have quite a complicated case of diabees combined with
> other issues, so I would imagine that a GP would be happy to have her see
> an endo to try to put it all togeher.


Julie has a disease that doesn't appear to respond to diabetes treatment
very well or predictably, so hardly a case to set the standard for
typical type 2 DM. It's definitely a case that requires highly
specialized expertise.

Susan