- Messages
- 23
One year. A yearly test, and I had been low carbing during that year, but only very low carbing for about 6 months.Ian, how long did it take for your HDl to increase?
Well, my only reason for pondering the T2-autoimmune potential link (or as i said possibly a pro-inflammatory cellular destruction) is because many who have other autoimmune diagnoses can have higher levels of insulin resistance, dietary allergies, leaky gut etc.) - I know this isn't heavily researched or even scientifically accepted but it bears my consideration- as I have another autoimmune disease, have type 1.5 vs. 2 diabetes and my family is heavy in many different autoimmune diagnoses. And my son seems to have been born with type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia (I was gestationally diabetic). I have always been thin, active and healthy diet- every doctor says- "I don't understand this with you", you don't fit the profile etc., etc. Same thing with my bro. I think that we don't always medically know EXACTLY what is happening, and any doctor that say he/she does is not being forthright with how many assumptions or presumptions are made from previous research or even treatment protocols. Of course they still are constantly looking to unravel the mystery! The body is such a complex cellular machine- and we all have different genes etc. so... I am always just trying to "crack that nut" so I can get better control of my health. I guess i wonder about sudden autoimmunity (like a virus resulting in T1 versus a less rapid attack, and if any doctor is ever really looking BEFORE pathologic changes start to show up). Heck, I cannot get them to look deeper into issues that actually are happening!@christi99 some good thoughts there. Though I think Prof Taylor has shown the existence of a non autoimmune mechanism for most, if not all, T2s.
In my experience many GPs including the two diabetes ones who have treated me are just not aware of Late onset T1 hence only know of people born with T1 or if older have T2. They have an extremely symplistic view of the world hence any desire to question further (even if they had the time) isn't there. DUK have a similar Black/White view of diabetes types. The result is that all the NHS statistics are probably worthless and there is a poor base to work from. DUK and others pour lots of money into research some of which is no doubt valuable but I wonder how many start from surveying people like us. Many of your points may be valid but until GPs and so on listen to their patients and research is based on what is actually happening out there I don't see knowledge changing fast. BTW I'm recorded by the NHS as a T2 despite always being thin but neither of my GPs took any notice that I was thin let alone recorded it as statistic. I supect my LADA was a virus or some other non-autoimmune inflammation as my white cell count was high 1 year before diagnosis This was discovered when I offered myself to a drug company as a non-diabetic 'victim'. One of the many bits of data lost on the NHS.Well, my only reason for pondering the T2-autoimmune potential link (or as i said possibly a pro-inflammatory cellular destruction) is because many who have other autoimmune diagnoses can have higher levels of insulin resistance, dietary allergies, leaky gut etc.) - I know this isn't heavily researched or even scientifically accepted but it bears my consideration- as I have another autoimmune disease, have type 1.5 vs. 2 diabetes and my family is heavy in many different autoimmune diagnoses. And my son seems to have been born with type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia (I was gestationally diabetic). I have always been thin, active and healthy diet- every doctor says- "I don't understand this with you", you don't fit the profile etc., etc. Same thing with my bro. I think that we don't always medically know EXACTLY what is happening, and any doctor that say he/she does is not being forthright with how many assumptions or presumptions are made from previous research or even treatment protocols. Of course they still are constantly looking to unravel the mystery! The body is such a complex cellular machine- and we all have different genes etc. so... I am always just trying to "crack that nut" so I can get better control of my health. I guess i wonder about sudden autoimmunity (like a virus resulting in T1 versus a less rapid attack, and if any doctor is ever really looking BEFORE pathologic changes start to show up). Heck, I cannot get them to look deeper into issues that actually are happening!
I just think that no matter the type of DM, the management may be have different regimens for different people but always the same end goal- move glucose into cell, leave little glucose or insulin hanging around to wreak havoc in your system and try to minimize the damage that can occur from different metabolic states (i.e. renal, cardiovascular, vision, infection etc.) The same end damage is seen if you are T2, T1, T1.5 if not controlled well, as I have witnessed over the years.
Ya exactly- great points. Even though I know docs are usually extremely smart people, they often really are pretty restricted in their thinking outside the accepted research- UNTIL something comes along to challenge what they thought they knew!!. Kind of funny story- about 30 years ago, I wrote a research paper linking folate deficiency and neural tube defects- My professor said my sources were not quality, that it was an erroneous and baseless premise etc. etc. (agreeably, I did use research that was a bit outside the box, but hardly witch doctor stuff!). Anyway, maybe 10 -15 years later= it is totally proven and a basis for treatment to supplement all pregnant and to be pregnant women with folic acid to help prevent neural tube defects!! SO...huh, who knew?In my experience many GPs including the two diabetes ones who have treated me are just not aware of Late onset T1 hence only know of people born with T1 or if older have T2. They have an extremely symplistic view of the world hence any desire to question further (even if they had the time) isn't there. DUK have a similar Black/White view of diabetes types. The result is that all the NHS statistics are probably worthless and there is a poor base to work from. DUK and others pour lots of money into research some of which is no doubt valuable but I wonder how many start from surveying people like us. Many of your points may be valid but until GPs and so on listen to their patients and research is based on what is actually happening out there I don't see knowledge changing fast. BTW I'm recorded by the NHS as a T2 despite always being thin but neither of my GPs took any notice that I was thin let alone recorded it as statistic. I supect my LADA was a virus or some other non-autoimmune inflammation as my white cell count was high 1 year before diagnosis This was discovered when I offered myself to a drug company as a non-diabetic 'victim'. One of the many bits of data lost on the NHS.
Ya - unfortunately where research monies are concerned or distributed, numbers matter, because there is more money to be made on pharmaceuticals- and unfortunately A LOT of the money used in research is received from private Pharma. i.e. new med, new findings, new target etc.- if it can be Rx'd to 10 million people versus help 1 million- they must always be competing to profit. Doctors are approached to do the studies in my country, and they do so as academic faculty etc.and it is expected of them to publish, but many studies are from medical equipment co's or big Pharma. Public grants just aren't going to be spent trying to help a few. Sadly many orphan diseases or drugs are not being used or developed for use because there just isn' t enough Pt base to make it profitable. Really it is just so ...wrong- on every level.Very good point that DUK would be well advised to do a grass roots survey of what is actually happening on the ground and use that to steer their research priorities. Their top down approach to research risks becoming increasingly out of touch.
DUK is not a pharma company, it is a registered charity for diabetes support and research. Diabetes UK.Ya - unfortunately where research monies are concerned or distributed, numbers matter, because there is more money
Oh I know- I am just saying that most medical research is financed by big Pharma. NGO's and government funded research often follow where most promising stuff is being generated. I guess I am just saying medical research is lacking where it is not driven by potential economic gain.DUK is not a pharma company, it is a registered charity for diabetes support and research. Diabetes UK.
Yes, that's why I was not talking about Big Pharma (in the quote you replied to) but talking about DUK.Oh I know- I am just saying that most medical research is financed by big Pharma.
Actually it's the other way around. There's no point non profits chasing after something commercial pharma is already having success with. And if they did there would be anti-competition arguments. Instead the non profits tend to blaze the theoretical trail and it's the commercial firms that move in on the action if it looks promising. Which is fine for the non-profits - that gives a multiplier effect to the value of their research. So it works reasonably when the non profits do the more unconventional stuff. If they turn up something that is exploitable, the commercial firms will allocate their resources. That's largely how DUK's research funding works - doing the riskier proof-of-principle stuff so that if it works, pharma will take notice and commercialise it.NGO's and government funded research often follow where most promising stuff is being generated.
Well, I wish it was that way here but having worked for a teaching hospital, collecting data or working on research team, I have found that soooo much research being done in academic centers are still largely being funded by private companies and the docs just have to disclose the funding at time of publication. I think there is probably so many nontraditional treatments (herbal, or say other alternative approaches) that simply do not get researched and thus, will never be able to be prescribed in evidenced-based medicine. But as Archie Cochrane stated- lack of evidence does not necessarily mean lack of efficacy. I do understand the point your making- it just seems unlikely they (clinicians,researchers etc) will be very concerned with the outliers- whatever the reason.Yes, that's why I was not talking about Big Pharma (in the quote you replied to) but talking about DUK.
Actually it's the other way around. There's no point non profits chasing after something commercial pharma is already having success with. And if they did there would be anti-competition arguments. Instead the non profits tend to blaze the theoretical trail and it's the commercial firms that move in on the action if it looks promising. Which is fine for the non-profits - that gives a multiplier effect to the value of their research. So it works reasonably when the non profits do the more unconventional stuff. If they turn up something that is exploitable, the commercial firms will allocate their resources. That's largely how DUK's research funding works - doing the riskier proof-of-principle stuff so that if it works, pharma will take notice and commercialise it.