The Cure for Type 2 Diabetes

[xyzzy]

Calmed down al_leister :lol:

This thread does things to me....

We seem to be in agreement and I can go with ...

Drug companies exist and operate to make a profit not to supply drugs that cure illness.

but that does not make all of them corrupt in the same way as

Alternative Therapy people exist and operate for personal gain not to supply therapy's that cure illness.

does not make all of them all corrupt but just plain wrong :twisted:

...unless of course an alternative therapy has been rigorously tested and proved to be both safe and more efficacious that just a random background placebo effect. In that case it is of course no longer an alternative therapy though.

 

[Patch]

Drug companies can only sell/patent SYNTHESIZED products. Anything natural cannot be patented, and therefore, VAST (VULGAR) amounts of money cannot be made from any natural cures/remedies.

Natural stuff is cheap, and when it's effective, the drugs companies DO poo-poo the natural alternatives effectiveness.

They can afford to do that because of the VAST (VULGAR) amounts of money they make from their patented SYNTHESIZED product.

 

[noblehead]

I take it you don't take any of these ''SYNTHESIZED'' products Patch?

 

[Patch]

I never said that. I wouldn't if I had to pay for 'em myself, though.

God bless the NHS, eh?

 

[alaska]

I'm on analogue insulins but I totally get where Patch is coming from.

There is quite a lot of 'business' that gets in the way of potentially better solutions being developed.

You can't put a medical product to market these days without having made some attempt to demonstrate short/medium term safety.

(As a result, you get drugs like Avandia coming through as the new saviour of diabetes and then when the medium term consequences start to kick in, the drug gets pulled.)

Funding this research costs millions of pounds, to the extent whereby commonly only large pharmaceutical companies have the money to fund the research.

..and a pharma company will likely not invest its money in a project that will reduce its long term profits.

I wouldn't personally be totally gobsmacked if I found out that some pharma companies bought out smaller companies to ensure their drug/vaccine fails.

 

[carty]

What difference does it make if Patch is taking these drugs or not ? The drug companies are still making a fortune from them
CAROL

 

[noblehead]

I never said that.

No but your contributing to those ''VAST (VULGAR) amounts of money'' :wink:

I wouldn't if I had to pay for 'em myself, though.

I'm sure you would if it meant life or death.

God bless the NHS, eh?

Yes God bless the NHS.......and everyone who works for it :thumbup:

 

[xyzzy]

VAST (VULGAR) amounts of money

Agree but they make VAST (VULGAR) amounts of money out of SYNTHESIZED products that WORK and have been RIGOROUSLY tested.

I do accept drug companies make far too much money but that's not the point.

I even agree that sometimes that drug release process goes wrong in which case they should have their VAST (VULGAR) amounts of money taken away as well as their liberty if its found to have gone wrong through criminal behaviour or corruption.

But that's not the point either.

Natural stuff is cheap, and when it's effective

How do I know its effective and that you're not just telling me that?

All I'm asking is that natural or alternative therapy's should be as rigorously tested for safety and effectiveness as anything else. There is a very defensive attitude by the "Natural" lobby to do this.

For example all tests of Homoeopathy have shown that if you do a controlled test i.e give some people homoeopathic remedies and others plain water but tell them its a homoeopathic remedy then you get the same number of people cured in each group. This test has constantly been proven true time and again over decades.

In my mind knowing that fact means anyone who sells homoeopathic remedies is just a corrupt as a drug company that has falsified the effectiveness of a drug.

I have no issue whatsoever with any natural remedy that has been rigorously tested for safety and proven to be effective.

Anyway lets stir some things up some more.

Why are "NATURAL" atoms any different from "SYNTHESIZED" atoms do they glow green or something?

 

[Patch]

All I'm asking is that natural or alternative therapy's should be as rigorously tested for safety and effectiveness as anything else.

That would be great. But the cost of the testing is dis-proportionately high in relation to the amount of revenue the "success" of the test would generate for natural remedies.

The big pharma's know this and use it to their advantage.

Natural is at a dis-advantage to synthesized in that synthesized has complete repeatability. It will be the same every single time it is produced. You've got natural variation (clues in the name) in natural remedies. Th epotential for overdose is there (theoretically...), but it is extremely unlikely that the variation would be so great as to cause overdose.

 

[oludelayi]

Dear John,
I agree with your obsevations and thesis. I have been reacting to almost all the drugs. the high blood pressure drugs are getting to my kidney rather than the diabetes. Please can you get the Administrator send me the whole write-up he-she has through [mod edit]
I wish you more fruitful years of service to humanity in sound health.
ragards, :mrgreen:
oludelayi.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Big Pharma meds or natural remedies?

Patch, if I ever have a heart attack/stroke/an accident I will call an ambulance and hope I get a paramedic loaded with expensive drugs, who are you going to call, a homoeopath? :lol: :roll:

 

[xyzzy]

That would be great. But the cost of the testing is dis-proportionately high in relation to the amount of revenue the "success" of the test would generate for natural remedies.

Yes I am quite happy to agree with everything you say but only up to a very important limit.

That limit in my mind is where an alternative or natural remedy claims to have a significant curative effect and especially if those supposed curative effects have to be paid for by the person taking them or the people are expected to make any kind of life changing decisions based on untested and unproven claims.

At that point I would want anything I take whether "natural" or "synthetic" to have been rigorously tested for its effectiveness and safety.

On the synthetic drug / natural drug issue. Most synthetic drugs have their origins in a natural product anyway. Take for example a scientist who isolates a molecule (a specific pattern of differing atoms) in a leaf of a tree. Yes I can eat the leaf and consume the "natural" molecule and get an effect.

Alternatively hundred's of years of science has taught us how to mix other atoms together to create the same pattern of atoms and thus produce the same molecule. I can wrap those up in a pill and take that instead.

Those molecules must be the same and have the same effectiness because atoms are the same everywhere throughout the entire universe. The only difference is the delivery mechanism (eat pill or eat leaf). I agree that the delivery mechanism can alter the effect but the molecules are the same.

The issue in synthetic and natural insulins is that scientists aren't quite clever enough yet to get the exact recipe correct because insulin is a complex molecule but if at some point they did then the two types of insulin must by definition be identical.

The same argument holds if you go to the chemist and buy plain vanilla paracetamol. Buy the cheap unbranded kind cos the molecules of paracetamol they contain are no different to the molecules of paracetamol in the branded shiny boxes. No such thing as gold plated (or green glowing) atoms.

 

[Unbeliever]

I'm on analogue insulins but I totally get where Patch is coming from.

There is quite a lot of 'business' that gets in the way of potentially better solutions being developed.

You can't put a medical product to market these days without having made some attempt to demonstrate short/medium term safety.

(As a result, you get drugs like Avandia coming through as the new saviour of diabetes and then when the medium term consequences start to kick in, the drug gets pulled.)

Funding this research costs millions of pounds, to the extent whereby commonly only large pharmaceutical companies have the money to fund the research.

..and a pharma company will likely not invest its money in a project that will reduce its long term profits.

I wouldn't personally be totally gobsmacked if I found out that some pharma companies bought out smaller companies to ensure their drug/vaccine fails.

Totally agree Alasks. How many "cures" have beeen stopped in thir tracks and how many of us suffer side effects from drugs which are as bad or worse ha the disease itself because new solutions might mean less profit?

 

[al_leister]

So, I shall set out my stall in full view of everyone to avoid misunderstanding. “I do not sell oil, distribute oil, or promote the consumption of oil of any kind. I do not partake in the spooning of oil into my mouth or any other mouth. I have, however, been seen sipping (nay quaffing) a merlot, rioja or even a bush with ice on a regular basis.”


The facts remain unchanged; drug companies are in the business of making profit. Nothing else. Period. Final. The goal is not to make “people” well. The goal is to make profit. Of course people get well as a consequence. So another little sound-bite below. From the BMJ no less.


The anti- psychiatrist author, Robert Whitaker, (2) has argued for years that the clinical trials for anti- psychotics are warped. He seems now a true prophet, however much he is vilified by the psychiatric establishment.
The avarice and greed of drug corporations have usurped the proper clinical assessment of anti- psychotics. There is an element of sulphur and brimstone about these drugs. They are not miracle cures for schizophrenia, but dangerous chemicals with ghastly side effects- from movement disorders to diabetes. Marketing and mammon do not mix well with medicine.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2012/ ... ta-analyse

I'm off for a handfull of brazil/walnuts. spoil, coil, foil, boil, soil, toil.......

 

[xyzzy]

I'm sorry al_leister I'm not quite getting your argument. Even if we accept the "drug companies are in the business of making profit" are you suggesting all drugs (or all new drugs) are bad or what...

For example if I had the time I suspect for every "bad" link you have posted I could find a "Good" link that stated such and such a drug works really well even though the "drug companies are in the business of making profit"

Have you got some personal reason for hating drug companies? Is it just drug companies or all forms of capitalism? I think we should be told as the saying goes...

 

[alaska]

On the synthetic drug / natural drug issue. Most synthetic drugs have their origins in a natural product anyway.

One problem seems to be that people keep trying to find the elixir by trying to isolate the 'one magic ingredient' from nature -but- nature generally doesn't work in this way.

Take insulin. We refined it into pure insulin but, in doing so, missed out the smaller quantities of c-peptide and amylin (and presumably other small molecules) which I believe are needed to help the body know what's going on.

I have a feeling that it's the lack of molecules like c-peptide and amylin for the reason that type 1 diabetics can't naturally correct low blood sugars with their own glucagon until a very late stage when the body goes into a form of shock.

Researchers also keep looking for the singular flavonoids in food that can beat heart disease but I personally feel the reason why foods work for us is the fact that they bring a whole portfolio of beneficial ingredients, and importantly, in the correct, nature dictated proportions.

Why try and develop a pale imitation of courgette or broccoli in a pill when you can just aim to include plenty of the real deal in your diet? Quite a lot of modern research ends up reading like a literate form of madness I find.

 

[alaska]

Bending things back round slightly more towards the thread's initial post.

The ideal way to treat diabetes is to work back to the cause rather than just treating the symptoms. Not always the easiest thing of course.

Treating the symptoms can be useful as well in that the symptoms of an illness can in turn be a cause of further complications. Eg high blood sugar promoting damage leading to diabetic complications.

I believe that the damage that causes diabetes is by ingestion, inhalation or injection of something that disagrees with the body's immune system.

I believe complications also result from repetitive digestion of, and therefore exposure to, harmful substances.

For this reason, I try to limit my exposure to processed foods as best I can and try to include plenty of nature's own medicine, such as fruit and vegetables, each day.

I like fruits and vegetables, in particular, in which you can scrape or peel off the outer skins as this gives me more reassurance that exposure to any chemicals, that may have been applied to the food, is also limited.

Raw carrots, kiwi fruits and avocados being good examples.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Marketing and mammon do not mix well with medicine.

...

At the end of the day al I would not be alive today if it weren't for the 'Big pharmas' and neither would millions of other people, OK they do get it wrong occasionally but credit were its due medicine is very very clever indeed :thumbup:

One of the side effects of Prednisolone is diabetes and I developed it after taking pred for 3 years + but without it I wouldnt be here so I'm not going to complain, I believe that diabetes is the better option, dont you?

 

[xyzzy]

On the synthetic drug / natural drug issue. Most synthetic drugs have their origins in a natural product anyway.

One problem seems to be that people keep trying to find the elixir by trying to isolate the 'one magic ingredient' from nature -but- nature generally doesn't work in this way.

Take insulin. We refined it into pure insulin but, in doing so, missed out the smaller quantities of c-peptide and amylin (and presumably other small molecules) which I believe are needed to help the body know what's going on.

I have a feeling that it's the lack of molecules like c-peptide and amylin for the reason that type 1 diabetics can't naturally correct low blood sugars with their own glucagon until a very late stage when the body goes into a form of shock.

Researchers also keep looking for the singular flavonoids in food that can beat heart disease but I personally feel the reason why foods work for us is the fact that they bring a whole portfolio of beneficial ingredients, and importantly, in the correct, nature dictated proportions.

alaska I covered that by saying scientists weren't clever enough yet to exactly synthesise natural insulin. What you say might be true but that's not the point.

The universe is a beautiful thing and the stuff in it be it man made or natural is made of atoms. For example there is no such thing a "natural" iron atom or a "synthetic" iron atom, both are atoms of iron and are identical. Unless of course you want to start to invoke some mystical, invisible "energy of nature" thing.

people keep trying to find the elixir by trying to isolate the 'one magic ingredient' from nature

Yes maybe people do but science and scientists certainly don't and that is one of the great misunderstandings that many people have of science. Many scientists including myself believe that nature and the laws that govern this wonderful universe we live in are one and the same thing.

From our perspective we would say "nature is atoms" as the way atoms behave IS a law a nature. All science has added to the mix is an increasing understanding of those laws of nature and that understanding grows year by year which is what we call progress.

Why try and mimic a courgette or broccoli in a pill when you can just aim to include plenty of the real deal in your diet? Quite a lot of modern research ends up reading like a literate form of madness I find.

Sid and I had a debate about this last week. I agree in many cases you are right that you can eat say broccoli to get some or other vitamin but in some cases you have to eat the pill equivelent or have an injection etc. Vitimin B12 is an example. If you suffer a B12 deficiency and just say eat a steak to compensate then it won't work because your body will break down far too much of the B12 in the steak for it to begin to have a noticeable effect even if you ate steak each day.

You can however take B12 in oral form at a very high strength that will have an effect because after your body has broken it down there's still some left. The normal treatment for B12 deficiency is a course of high strength B12 injections done by your gp for those reasons.

 

[al_leister]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I'm sorry al_leister I'm not quite getting your argument. Even if we accept the "drug companies are in the business of making profit" are you suggesting all drugs (or all new drugs) are bad or what...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


I did not suggest that all drugs or all new drugs are bad. This is clearly not the case. Nobody could intelligently argue that.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
For example if I had the time I suspect for every "bad" link you have posted I could find a "Good" link that stated such and such a drug works really well even though the "drug companies are in the business of making profit"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Of course lots of drugs work really well. This has always been the case and always will be. Just a simple informative link. Information is knowledge and knowledge is power


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Have you got some personal reason for hating drug companies? Is it just drug companies or all forms of capitalism? I think we should be told as the saying goes...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


I do not hate drugs companies and have never stated that I do. My argument?
Simply that………. drugs companies exist and operate to make a profit not to supply drugs that cure illness.

That’s it. Simple.

Definitely Rioja tonight after the office with French Brie, Danish Blue and a handful of biscuits.

Have a good evening XYZZY