Monday, June 23, 2008

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!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Eric Edberg said...

I haven't read the actual study, but it seems obvious the "intensive therapy" must have included plenty of insulin. And one thing we low-carb folks have learned from the pathbreaking MDs and researchers is the damaging effects of too much insulin. Give a bunch of people too much insulin and their mortality increases? tragic, but no surprise. I imagine that at some point, people will be able to analyze the data in this study and use it to demonstrate the dangers of insulin therapy as opposed to a low-carb, healthy diet. I'm sure the increased mortality was a result of the insulin and drugs used to lower the blood sugar, not the blood sugar drop itself.

The more I study the relationship between nutrition, exercise, and health, the more convinced I am that the mainstream medical establishment is basically lost in a greed-fueled, drug-induced fog that obliterates common sense. The payment system leaves no time for patient education, and the drug companies will do anything to promote drug therapies over natural, nutrition-based approaches to health restoration.

Human beings are crazy.

6/24/2008 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Statistics is basically mathematical lying anyway, so I take any and all "studies" with huge grains of salt because one can manipulate data in myriad ways.

Lee in Nashivlle

6/24/2008 10:13 AM  
Blogger Jennifer said...

Wow! This is sad. It would seem that the last thing that is suggested to people with diabetes is that a low-carb diet and weight loss can often bring about normalized blood sugar levels without drug intervention. Multi-million dollar pharmaceutical companies, drug companies and related health-industries are indeed caught up in a situation where it is not in their best interests to illuminate people.

A person who has diabetes has an impaired carbohydrate metabolism and if carbs are the problem, then reduce them substantially and health should return. Makes sense!

Excellent points made by Jimmy and also Eric Edberg in the above comment. I can relate to their frustrations.

I have a girlfriend who has diabetes, who lost 90 lbs low-carbing and is now considered a latent diabetic. She is off all medications. I am so proud of her, especially since I was used to point her in the right direction.

6/24/2008 10:27 AM  
Blogger =^..^= Kitty =^..^= said...

I, too, take these studies with a grain of salt. I'm not attempting to be sinister, but with all the talk about forming a US equivalent of socialized medicine, it bears thought.

I'm sure the NIH would like to have more power...they'd get it with national health insurance. They would drive away the health movers and shakers so their own agenda could be served.

I can't remember where I read this, but I remember the article stating that if our country should have an emergency (can't remember the degree of emergency), only healthy, younger people would be treated. The "no treat" list included anyone over age 64, anyone (of any age) with a chronic illness or condition, etc.

I know I've sort of gotten off base, but "universal" healthcare would be the megavitiman(sp?) of the NIH. Talk about power!

I'm signing this petition in hopes that this bunch of bureaucrats wake up...and soon.

6/24/2008 10:47 AM  
Blogger Didirina said...

Yes, lots of insulin and drugs were used (aggressive treatment by medical dolts), and death rates increased. So, naturally the drugs didn't do that, the result is what killed them. Of course we know that the "how" to lower blood sugar is key. Sadly, this has only caused my diabetic mother to cling to her beliefs that eating sugar is really not so bad; in fact, when she was admitted to the hospital for her first high blood sugar episode (over 750), they fed her corn, potatoes, white rolls, and dessert, things that she had previously considered off limits (after years of Weight Watchers). Now she says, "EVERYTHING turns to sugar in your body" and frequently claims she's having low blood sugar attacks. I don't doubt this, as the insulin she takes drives her blood sugar down until she gets the shakes and then she eats something with sugar to bring it back up. The claims of this study, that trying to get the blood sugar within normal range is risky, is just bizarre. And if someone dies from an overdose of oxycontin, I supposed they died from too much pain relief? Duh.

6/24/2008 11:31 AM  
Blogger renegadediabetic said...

This is totally myoptic. You have to look at the big picture. The recent ADVANCE study showed no increased cardiac risk to intensive glucose lowering (although no cardiac benefit either). ADVANCE did show an improvement in kidney disease with instensive glocose lowering and lower overall death rate. Look at the big picture and you will see there is an advantage to lowering blood sugar.

It funny to me that they had to really work and take copious medications to lower A1C to 6.5%. As Jimmy said, they didn't try low carb. It was obviously done with the standard low fat, high carb diet.

I'm maintaining an A1C under 6% with low carb and 1000mg metoformin alone. It requires little effort with all the yummy high fat foods and I'm not hungry or craving food all the time.

You bet I'm signing that petition.

6/24/2008 1:30 PM  
Blogger Mike Turco said...

Hi Jimmy,

Internet petitions really don't mean anything. A better course of action would be for people to send a letter in the mail. Could suggest that to your readers?


6/25/2008 1:31 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Moore said...

You just did, Mike. :)

Actually, I HAVE suggested people write to their Congressmen, health leaders on Capitol Hill, and health organizations like the ADA, AHA, and the NIH in the past at my blog. They need to know people are being changed in the real world because of low-carb living and I've been on the front lines of trying to promote that.

6/25/2008 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Pocket Rocket said...

A new study shows that turmeric may help combat diabetes and obesity:

Here is an excellent chicken tagine recipe which uses turmeric, plus cinnamon, garlic & ginger. All excellent anti-inflammatories:

6/25/2008 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well I just added another Diabetic to my immediate Family,My Mother.
She has decided that the doctor and nutritionist are right and I am dead wrong. She is now on statins, some sort of diabetic pill and a 45 to 60 carb per meal diet plan. I did the best I could but have decided that I need to let go of this. Hopefully I can lead by example for the next generation of my Family.

6/28/2008 8:05 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home