Petition: Tell NIH Lowering Blood Sugar In Diabetics Does NOT Increase Death Risk

If you care about diabetes health, then sign this petition!

We all know how incompetent many of the government and leading health organizations are in the United States as it relates to providing information to the public about taking care of themselves to protect against disease and death. We've seen it with the failed low-fat, low-calorie diets they've been pushing on the American people for decades with no positive impact whatsoever and yet they continue to promote it as the only way to control obesity and health. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then I do believe we can officially describe those in charge of health policy in America as INSANE!

But that adjective doesn't even begin to describe something so utterly despicable that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has done in response to the results of the ACCORD study published in the June 12, 2008 issue of New England Journal of Medicine. Have you seen this so-called "study" that concludes there is a HIGHER death risk among those diabetics who attempt to control their blood sugar levels? This is NOT a joke--that's exactly what they're saying and this just goes beyond the pale.

Check out this ridiculous statement from the abstract of the ACCORD study:

"As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events," the authors conclude. "These findings identify a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes."

Okay, let's think about this logically for a moment. A diabetic who is attempting to control their disease through an "intensive therapy" (we'll assume this doesn't mean carbohydrate restriction, although it should) of controlling their blood sugars over a 3 1/2 year period of time had an INCREASED risk of death and NO REDUCTION in the risk of a heart attack? Is that what they're saying? So are we to believe through deductive reasoning that a diabetic who allows their blood sugar to stay out of whack indefinitely without any treatment is better off than those who do try to normalize glucose levels?

Am I missing something here? There is absolutely NO rationality in this conclusion by the NIH and this borderlines on criminal behavior on their part by perpetuating this notion that controlling blood sugars is somehow bringing harm to diabetes patients. This kind of fear tactics serves no good purpose and spreads misinformation to scared diabetics who become confused and dazed by what they hear from an official government health source.

That's why I am urging everyone who reads this to SIGN THIS PETITION telling the NIH to acknowledge the existing science behind why controlling blood sugar levels in diabetics is ESSENTIAL. This isn't something to be played around with--there are bigger health consequences involved with uncontrolled blood glucose levels in diabetics than with those who are controlling them. It doesn't appear that the NIH cares about these facts because they are instead seeking to put out their own twist on this ACCORD study to baffle Type 2 diabetics.

Oh, but they're saying otherwise on their Q&A web site about the ACCORD study. Check out message to Type 2 diabetics about how they shouldn't be worried at all about what they are saying.

"Patients with type 2 diabetes should not be alarmed by these findings of the ACCORD trial...This goal of less than 6 percent A1C is very hard to reach for most patients who have had diabetes for several years, often requiring multiple medications. Even the achieved level of A1C of about 6.4% is often difficult to achieve in such patients."

All I can say is WHAT?! First you tell diabetics that they "should not be alarmed," but then you follow that right up with the pessimistic view that getting A1C levels down below 6 percent is "very hard" and can only be accomplished through "multiple medications." It is too "difficult" to make this happen in patients, the NIH claims, so just throw your hands up in the air and give up. Is that what you're telling diabetic patients, NIH?!

Plus, keep in mind the definition of "intensive therapy" as noted in this study is never described, so we have NO IDEA what they're talking about. From that answer above, we can assume it includes lots of prescription drugs which may have been the culprit in the increased death risk rather than the "intensive therapy" as they stated. Instead of trying to figure out WHAT the cause was, they just ASSUMED (and you know what that means!) that lowering A1c levels were what created the jump in mortality rates.

This is like stating a firefighter has an increased mortality rate because he breathes oxygen since that's what he was doing when he died. It's not that he puts his life at risk trying to douse a raging ball of fire, oh that can't be it! It's must be that oxygen he's sucking in, so that's our story and we're sticking to it. Sound absurd? Well, it is! And so is this conclusion by the NIH. They should really be ashamed of themselves.

Their argument is not based on any kind of rational scientific reasoning or thought process at all. But who's gonna call the NIH's bluff? Doctors and medical researchers don't want to stick their neck out against this powerful government group in the fear that some much-needed research dollars are withheld from their future studies. It's a sickening place to be in at the mercy of such a group that can make or break your career.

But I and the thousands more who come to my blog each day are NOT tied to the NIH in any way. We are public citizens who care about the issue of diabetes and helping our mom, dad, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, son, daughter, and friend with this terrible condition find the hope they need to beat this disease once and for all.

And most of us realize that it is livin' la vida low-carb that has helped to bring the ill effects of diabetes under control, especially for those with Type 2 diabetes. This ACCORD study gave absolutely ZERO consideration for carbohydrate restriction which has been shown time and time again to be the most safe and effective method of improving glycemic control. Why is the NIH so silent about low-carb diets for diabetics? That's what this petition is all about and I hope you and your entire family will SIGN THIS PETITION to share what the healthy low-carb lifestyle has done for you.

Notable signatures appearing on this petition so far include Dr. Richard Feinman, Regina Wilshire, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Jackie Eberstein, Dr. Keith Berkowitz, Uffe Ravnskov, Fred Hahn, and many others! Christine and I have done our part to SIGN THIS PETITION and we invite you to do the same for the sake of providing accurate information for diabetics dealing with this terrible disease. Let's not make the problem worse by discouraging the goal of normalizing blood sugars.

I love what Dr. Bernstein, the most famous Type 1 diabetic in the world who has been using a low-carb dietary approach to control his disease since 1946, had to say in the comments beneath his signature on this petition.

"I've had type 1 diabetes for 64 years and have an HgbA1c of 4.6% thanks to a low carb diet. I have a coronary artery calcium score of '1' at age 74. My patients with similar A1c's enjoy similar cardiac health."

You tell 'em, Dr. Bernstein! The low-carb diet is indeed an effective "intensive therapy" that is helping CONTROL blood sugar levels without the use of the risky drug therapies. How about the NIH taking a closer look at the REAL studies that have come out in favor of using something like the Atkins diet to benefit diabetics? There PLENTY of evidence out there and I'm all too happy to share it anytime.

Make your voice heard and SIGN THIS PETITION!