What if blood sugar levels are a big lie?

Dark Horse said:

As the saying goes, the answer to 'bad science' is not 'no science' but 'better science'. Fortunately there are people who are expert at interpreting published studies and can see where some of the biases lie. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to do this. One problem in medicine is that pharmaceutical companies may choose not to publish 'negative' results - this gives the impression that a drug is more effective than it really is. Another is to measure large numbers of parameters during the study so that, by chance, one of the parameters seems to improve with the drug - by omitting the list of all the parameters measured it makes it difficult to see that this was likely to be just due to chance.

One way round these problems is to insist that only the results from registered trials can be published and that all the parameters being measured also have to be registered in advance. In this way, results of all trials are seen, not just the ones that show the drug in a positive light.

If you're interested in improving the quality of the information available from clinical trials, you might like to sign this international AllTrials petition to get all clinical trials published http://www.alltrials.net/petition/

Click to expand...

There have been attempts to re-validate trials reports especially those published pre 2006 since the statistical methods used by the health profession was shown to be seriously flawed, However, the drugs companies and the food industry regard their raw data as confidential to them , and refuse to release any original results data, This makes independent review next to impossible. The Cholesterol trials and the Low fat trials are prime examples of these practices,

I believe the internet is helping to improve transparency of information. There is more discussion taking place and more eyes open to scrutinise the reporting, This makes it harder for corruption to hide, and we are now seeing many original studies that were regarded as Gold Standard now being called into question and being challenged.

However, just as Big Pharma has an agenda to protect, we must also be aware that there are many who oppose them who also have an agenda that is often followed with zeal and fervour. Misleading info exists on both sides of the arguments. I am mindful of some of the recent discusions we have had on this site on WFPB diets, for example. Some level the same criticism against supporters of LCHF diet. I too have been guilty of this from time to time.

@grant12888 - I think my only comment on this would be the DCCT and EDIC studies that were undertaken. The first was a trial of intensive diabetes care (MDI) versus traditional twice daily injections and the second was an observational study rather than clinical trial, observing what happened to those participants of DCCT.

The unequivocal data showed that as Hba1C was lowered, risk of complications was reduced, and as you approached 6.5% they became similar to those of the non-diabetic population. 6.5% equates to an average blood glucose level of around 7.7mmol/l and has since been shown to be the level at which you start to see damage to the kidneys, vascular system and nervous system. This doesn't seem to change from person to person, indeed, there is very little evidence of anyone who maintains an average level of more than 7.5% and has a lot of fluctuations not experiencing complications.

An average of 120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) I think is still worth classing as diabetic, as it signifies a fair number of pretty high levels, that one shouldn't normally see if fully healthy.