There are often diet and lifestyle similarities in groups or subgroups of individuals who develop disease. For example, researchers for some time of pointed out the correlation between the consumption of diet soda and obesity and have examined the link between the consumption of fatty foods and increased breast cancer risk. Blood sugar will rise in any case.
However, the correlations themselves do not provide evidence of causality and may or may not be a real contributor to the increased incidence of disease. Through time there have been myriads of investigations, often based upon a prospective analysis of an existing database, which identify a potential relationship between a particular factor and a specific condition or disease.
Although scientists are generally upfront regarding the limitations of their findings, media reports often fail to explain that a particular link is not necessarily indicative of a cause and effect relationship.
The many unobserved variables can lead investigators to identify fortuitous correlations between multiple factors and effects which are the product of something that is unknown or simply not considered. Despite considerable research, the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome remains unknown. However, correlations exist between the malady, viral infections, psychological stress and other immune disorders. Yet, no evidence exists which identifies any of these as causal.
The How To Reverse Diabetes Today program is based on conclusive scientific research that examines the real root cause of the disease. Most research about diabetes has focused on controlling symptoms of the disease and all medications available today are only focused on symptom control.
This natural system is based on a diet plan because it is a known fact that the food you eat has the largest impact on your diabetes. In fact, you can get diabetes simply by eating certain types of foods in large quantities.
One of the most important things you’ll learn in this program is that diabetes is not actually a disease like we’ve been made to believe for so long. Instead, Matt Traverso explains that diabetes is a condition that is a direct result of failure of certain systems in the body. It’s very important to understand the systems in question and what exactly happens that sets off the diabetes condition. All these processes are explained in detail but in a clear and straightforward manner that any average person can easily understand.
Just Humalog and semi long acting Lantus. Maker lies because it only works 12 hours at best. Normal dose of Humalog is not the lousy sliding scale doctors tell patients to use but one unit per Kg of body weight. Eli Lilly’s circular says so. I just took eighty units of Humalog to combat 420 carbs.
It is puzzling why an endocrinologist would not have immediately pursued the standard evaluation for fasting hypoglycemia, namely a 48-72 hour fast measuring insulin, c-peptide, proinsulin, cortisol, and a sulfonylurea screen when and only when she develops hypoglycemia.
She seems to meet the criteria of whipples triad (a low blood glucose level, symptoms of neuroglycopenia, and reversal of these symptoms after ingestion of carbohydrate). There should be no shock at finding a “normal” insulin or c-peptide level given that these were not drawn at the the correct time namely keeping the company of a blood glucose less than 50.
Likewise the “normal” abdominal CT scan is of limited value before an accurate biochemical diagnosis has been reached. Many insulinomas are too small to see on CT, and calcium stimulated selective venous sampling or intraoperative ultrasound is needed. However it is not appropriate to image prior to a properly conducted biochemical evaluation.
That should be the next step.
Did you know you as Diabetic (or your child) will make less money, drop out of school, and probably be unemployed compared to non-Diabetics? Lame, I know, but that’s what one study would like you to believe.
Today I ran across a story entitled “Study of the Day: Young Diabetics More Likely to Learn and Earn Less“. Reading through the article there is no mention of the type of diabetes they were including in the study. Well since we all know different types of diabetes are very different I went on a search for the answer. I found the email address for one of the researchers. I asked what type of diabetes they included in the study.
Here was his response “Our study was unable to determine whether the individuals were Type I or Type II–only that the individuals were told by a doctor or nurse that they have diabetes.”
A supposedly scientific study was done without bothering to separate or even understand who was being studied. Since they did not even bother to find out the type of diabetes the subject had I wonder how many gestational diabetics they included since they followed the subject sinto adulthood. This study is pseudoscience at best.