Guest guest Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 This is why I refer to myself as a insulin dependent type2. I burned my beta cells out using glyciden or diabeta, a drug that stimulates the pancrease to produce insulin. So I did and it did until it completely burned out. This is also why I now advocate early use of insulin, the natural substance, as the primary treatment of diabetes. Research has shown that the beta cells can rejuvinate when given rest, and who knows when one will need them again in the future, when cloned beta cells will be possible to reimplant them into your own pancrease or else where in your own body, thus facing no bodily rejection. I know at this stage it is just a theory, but it might happen. Maybe I am just a dreamer caught up in the nightmare of diabetes, and to think it can get even worse. When should I be concerned? > > > > Someone wrote: > > > > " Your ultimate long-term goal and the thing to work on > is > > A1C. That is a > > test done in the doctor's office and sent to the lab > that > > measures your > > reading over the last 3 months. That is what you want > > down. Normal A1C I > > think is about 5.5 for a non-diabetic. Some say under 7 > > is good for a > > diabetic. It is the long time high blood sugar that > > causes problems, not > > one reading one day. Long term is probably years. " > > > > Me: > > > > The a1c is a reflection of the daily average of all > > glucose levels. One > > can have small post meal peaks and between meal dips > and > > get the same > > average with larger peaks and dips. It is the long term > > post meal peaks > > that can cause the harm over time. This has happened to > > people with the > > heart attacks and other complications to prove it. This > > is why keeping > > track of post meal peaks and changing diet and exercise > > accordingly to get > > it down is so important. > > > > For a non-diabetic a minority have an upper a1c of > about > > 5.2, that is the > > worst case number. Most never exceed 5. A 7 is asking > for > > complications. That used to be the worst case number > for > > the american diabetes association > > for a diabetic but they have lowered that to 6 and as > > close to the normal > > range above as possible for those not > > > > using insulin etc. with potential for lows. > > > > XB > > IC|XC > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 The type of diabetes refers to the cause rather than the treatment, which is why people get confused and think they have somehow turned into a type 1 diabetic if they are type 2 and start using insulin, which of course isn't true. It also makes questions like the pharmacist today who asked me if I used insulin, after I told her I had type 1 diabetes, a bit unnecessary (and it really makes me wonder about this particular pharmacist). Type 1s always take insulin and type 2s sometimes do and sometimes don't. I think many still find the old terms " juvenile diabetes " and " adult-onset diabetes " more familiar. They have actually done what you describe, or something similar: removing beta cells and implanting them from the same person, in new-onset type 1 diabetics. The problem for type 1s is that the autoimmune attack that killed them off originally is still active and kills them off again eventually. There is evidence that beta cells are always regenerating naturally but that in type 1 they are killed off as soon as they are regenerated, before they have a chance to start working. However a type 2 would not have this problem, so it might be possible some day, and even for type 1s if they could find a way to shut off that part of the immune system it could work. But then again, I've been told that a cure is around the corner since I was first diagnosed 16 years ago and I hear it has been going on long before that, so I'm not holding my breath ... but maybe someday. Jen Re: Type 1.5 To: blind-diabetics > This is why I refer to myself as a insulin dependent > type2. I burned my beta cells out using glyciden or > diabeta, a drug that stimulates the pancrease to produce > insulin. So I did and it did until it completely burned > out. This is also why I now advocate early use of insulin, > the natural substance, as the primary treatment of > diabetes. Research has shown that the beta cells can > rejuvinate when given rest, and who knows when one will need > them again in the future, when cloned beta cells will be > possible to reimplant them into your own pancrease or else where > in your own body, thus facing no bodily rejection. I know > at this stage it is just a theory, but it might happen. > Maybe I am just a dreamer caught up in the nightmare of > diabetes, and to think it can get even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 You are absolutely right, Jen! I’ve diabetic as long as there has been dirt-and still no cure! Re: Type 1.5 The type of diabetes refers to the cause rather than the treatment, which is why people get confused and think they have somehow turned into a type 1 diabetic if they are type 2 and start using insulin, which of course isn't true. It also makes questions like the pharmacist today who asked me if I used insulin, after I told her I had type 1 diabetes, a bit unnecessary (and it really makes me wonder about this particular pharmacist). Type 1s always take insulin and type 2s sometimes do and sometimes don't. I think many still find the old terms " juvenile diabetes " and " adult-onset diabetes " more familiar. They have actually done what you describe, or something similar: removing beta cells and implanting them from the same person, in new-onset type 1 diabetics. The problem for type 1s is that the autoimmune attack that killed them off originally is still active and kills them off again eventually. There is evidence that beta cells are always regenerating naturally but that in type 1 they are killed off as soon as they are regenerated, before they have a chance to start working. However a type 2 would not have this problem, so it might be possible some day, and even for type 1s if they could find a way to shut off that part of the immune system it could work. But then again, I've been told that a cure is around the corner since I was first diagnosed 16 years ago and I hear it has been going on long before that, so I'm not holding my breath ... but maybe someday. Jen Re: Type 1.5 To: blind-diabetics@ <mailto:blind-diabetics%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com > This is why I refer to myself as a insulin dependent > type2. I burned my beta cells out using glyciden or > diabeta, a drug that stimulates the pancrease to produce > insulin. So I did and it did until it completely burned > out. This is also why I now advocate early use of insulin, > the natural substance, as the primary treatment of > diabetes. Research has shown that the beta cells can > rejuvinate when given rest, and who knows when one will need > them again in the future, when cloned beta cells will be > possible to reimplant them into your own pancrease or else where > in your own body, thus facing no bodily rejection. I know > at this stage it is just a theory, but it might happen. > Maybe I am just a dreamer caught up in the nightmare of > diabetes, and to think it can get even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2007 Report Share Posted August 14, 2007 Great definition Jen. Sure shows how complicated diabetes is! Type 1.5 I believe type 1.5 is usually used to refer to slow-onset type 1 diabetes in adults, or LADA (Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of Adulthood). This is different from a type 2 diabetic who eventually ends up using insulin. There is also " double diabetes " which refers to a type 1 who becomes insulin resistent, or a type 2 who is insulin resistent but also has some autoantibodies against beta cells. I believe this, too, is different from a type 2 who uses insulin after years of " burning out " their pancreas. Once you have one type of diabetes you usually never " become " another type unless you were misdiagnosed originally. Jen When should I be concerned? > > > > Someone wrote: > > > > " Your ultimate long-term goal and the thing to work on > is > > A1C. That is a > > test done in the doctor's office and sent to the lab > that > > measures your > > reading over the last 3 months. That is what you want > > down. Normal A1C I > > think is about 5.5 for a non-diabetic. Some say under 7 > > is good for a > > diabetic. It is the long time high blood sugar that > > causes problems, not > > one reading one day. Long term is probably years. " > > > > Me: > > > > The a1c is a reflection of the daily average of all > > glucose levels. One > > can have small post meal peaks and between meal dips > and > > get the same > > average with larger peaks and dips. It is the long term > > post meal peaks > > that can cause the harm over time. This has happened to > > people with the > > heart attacks and other complications to prove it. This > > is why keeping > > track of post meal peaks and changing diet and exercise > > accordingly to get > > it down is so important. > > > > For a non-diabetic a minority have an upper a1c of > about > > 5.2, that is the > > worst case number. Most never exceed 5. A 7 is asking > for > > complications. That used to be the worst case number > for > > the american diabetes association > > for a diabetic but they have lowered that to 6 and as > > close to the normal > > range above as possible for those not > > > > using insulin etc. with potential for lows. > > > > XB > > IC|XC > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.