Re: Re: essential sugar mystery and excess glucose.

[Guest guest]

>

> It's also not smart to stop medicine unless your doctor told you so.

>

> JE

Assuming of course that the doctor's prescription is based on lab work,

as opposed to guesswork.

Unnecessary medicine is perhaps one of the worst kinds.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

> > All of the cell communication including that of immune system rely on

> > this process being intact. Insulin sensitivity also relies on this

> > process being intact.

>

> Fascinating, cvan you give some links or specifics to the studies that

> lead to this information ?

>

> Dale

Here's the link: http://glycoscience.com

Duncan

[Guest guest]

Duncan Crow wrote:

>>Fascinating, cvan you give some links or specifics to the studies that

>>lead to this information ?

>>

>>Dale

>>

>>

>

>Here's the link: http://glycoscience.com

>

>Duncan

>

With all due respect, Duncan, I'm sure you're a valuable

contributor to this forum, but I have come across Mannetech products

before, and in my opinion, they are little more than a multilevel

marketing scheme.

I lost a friendship with a woman who insisted on trying cure all the

world's diseases with these vitamins and, mineral supplements which she

sold. When you used the phrase " cell communication " in previous

posts, I thought that sounded familiar. That's what she said was the

cause of all disease, and if I would just improve the " cell

communication " within my body by purchasing her products, then I would

be cured. Specifically, she said I would be cured of my diabetes. She

told me I was going to die soon because my diabetes. And while I hate

to disappoint a woman, roughly a decade later I'm about as healthy as I

was then and I am not yet dead.

She went on to tell me that she had a cancer patient who had been

cured in a matter of weeks by taking her vitamins. She told me the

usual hype that his doctors had issued his death warrant, but then he

started using her vitamins And he is cured, not in remission but

cured. When she was having trouble making her mortgage payment, I let

her talk me in the buying some of her products. The listed ingredients

on the bottles showed little more than the vitamins and minerals you

would find on any shelf in any drugstore, only they were much more

expensive and you got fewer of them in each each tablet.

Over my protests that mainstream medicine didn't recognize any tours

for diabetes, she insisted that she had scientific evidence to prove

it. So I called her bluff. I asked her to give me those studies so I

could read them. And she gave me one. She gave it to me with a

straight face saying it proved Mannetech products would cure my diabetes.

And of course it did no such thing. It was written in a scientific

style I will grant. But it described an extremely badly constructed

experiment which only claimed minor improvements in glucose levels at

its most optimistic. I have to give his company credit for at least

being honest in the material that it handed out, but of course, most

people don't really read thing written in stiff medical lingo. The

handout described a study of seven or eight subjects, all of whom were

self identified satisfied customers of Mannetech. This means that

study started off with a biased group of subjects. The subjects were

not randomly selected from a diabetic population or found in any of the

usual ways a legitimate study identifies subjects. These were just the

happy customers who volunteered to be interviewed. The study didn't

even to lab tests to determine whether the subjects actually were

diabetic. There was no control group So we have no idea what would

happen to similar subjects who did not take Mannetech products. Further

the study was a retrospective study, meaning that these satisfied

customers only described what they thought they remembered. Normally

would expect a study to start with diabetic subjects and follow them

over the duration of the experiment to see how the products affected.

But we didn't even get that. All we got was what the subjects thought

they remembered.

The study made no attempt to verify any other claims about changes

in glucose levels. Everything in this study was constructed to put

Mannetech in the most positive light, and yet the best the study could

claim was only a modest improvement in glucose levels in only some of

their volunteers. This is hardly the " cure " that the salesperson

ex-friend of mine was pushing.

After reading the study I can only conclude that there was

virtually no evidence whatsoever that her vitamins and minerals had any

effect except on my wallet and her bank account. " Cell communication "

is a nice little term to bandy about. It sort of sounds scientific.

But it strikes me as basically meaningless. How do you " communicate "

with dead beta cells. In the end I told her she could either have me as

a customer or a friend, but not both. She chose to have me as a

customer. Wrong choice in my opiniyon, because I didn't buy the

products as a customer either and she lost someone who had been a loyal

friend.

That was a few years ago. If Mannetech has better studys, post

them. Let us read them. But I'm not optimistic that they would be any

better than would have already read.

Duncan, I don't mean this as a personal attack. I mean this simply

as an attack on Mannetech products. I hope we can keep any further

discussion, if any, at this level.

Edd

[Guest guest]

Very good letter, Edd and thank you for writing it!

Jo in Minnesota

Re: Re: Re: essential sugar mystery and excess

glucose.

> Duncan Crow wrote:

>

> >>Fascinating, cvan you give some links or specifics to the studies that

> >>lead to this information ?

> >>

> >>Dale

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Here's the link: http://glycoscience.com

> >

> >Duncan

> >

>

> With all due respect, Duncan, I'm sure you're a valuable

> contributor to this forum, but I have come across Mannetech products

> before, and in my opinion, they are little more than a multilevel

> marketing scheme.

>

>

> I lost a friendship with a woman who insisted on trying cure all the

> world's diseases with these vitamins and, mineral supplements which she

> sold. When you used the phrase " cell communication " in previous

> posts, I thought that sounded familiar. That's what she said was the

> cause of all disease, and if I would just improve the " cell

> communication " within my body by purchasing her products, then I would

> be cured. Specifically, she said I would be cured of my diabetes. She

> told me I was going to die soon because my diabetes. And while I hate

> to disappoint a woman, roughly a decade later I'm about as healthy as I

> was then and I am not yet dead.

>

>

> She went on to tell me that she had a cancer patient who had been

> cured in a matter of weeks by taking her vitamins. She told me the

> usual hype that his doctors had issued his death warrant, but then he

> started using her vitamins And he is cured, not in remission but

> cured. When she was having trouble making her mortgage payment, I let

> her talk me in the buying some of her products. The listed ingredients

> on the bottles showed little more than the vitamins and minerals you

> would find on any shelf in any drugstore, only they were much more

> expensive and you got fewer of them in each each tablet.

>

>

> Over my protests that mainstream medicine didn't recognize any tours

> for diabetes, she insisted that she had scientific evidence to prove

> it. So I called her bluff. I asked her to give me those studies so I

> could read them. And she gave me one. She gave it to me with a

> straight face saying it proved Mannetech products would cure my diabetes.

>

>

> And of course it did no such thing. It was written in a scientific

> style I will grant. But it described an extremely badly constructed

> experiment which only claimed minor improvements in glucose levels at

> its most optimistic. I have to give his company credit for at least

> being honest in the material that it handed out, but of course, most

> people don't really read thing written in stiff medical lingo. The

> handout described a study of seven or eight subjects, all of whom were

> self identified satisfied customers of Mannetech. This means that

> study started off with a biased group of subjects. The subjects were

> not randomly selected from a diabetic population or found in any of the

> usual ways a legitimate study identifies subjects. These were just the

> happy customers who volunteered to be interviewed. The study didn't

> even to lab tests to determine whether the subjects actually were

> diabetic. There was no control group So we have no idea what would

> happen to similar subjects who did not take Mannetech products. Further

> the study was a retrospective study, meaning that these satisfied

> customers only described what they thought they remembered. Normally

> would expect a study to start with diabetic subjects and follow them

> over the duration of the experiment to see how the products affected.

> But we didn't even get that. All we got was what the subjects thought

> they remembered.

>

>

> The study made no attempt to verify any other claims about changes

> in glucose levels. Everything in this study was constructed to put

> Mannetech in the most positive light, and yet the best the study could

> claim was only a modest improvement in glucose levels in only some of

> their volunteers. This is hardly the " cure " that the salesperson

> ex-friend of mine was pushing.

>

>

> After reading the study I can only conclude that there was

> virtually no evidence whatsoever that her vitamins and minerals had any

> effect except on my wallet and her bank account. " Cell communication "

> is a nice little term to bandy about. It sort of sounds scientific.

> But it strikes me as basically meaningless. How do you " communicate "

> with dead beta cells. In the end I told her she could either have me as

> a customer or a friend, but not both. She chose to have me as a

> customer. Wrong choice in my opiniyon, because I didn't buy the

> products as a customer either and she lost someone who had been a loyal

> friend.

>

>

> That was a few years ago. If Mannetech has better studys, post

> them. Let us read them. But I'm not optimistic that they would be any

> better than would have already read.

>

>

> Duncan, I don't mean this as a personal attack. I mean this simply

> as an attack on Mannetech products. I hope we can keep any further

> discussion, if any, at this level.

>

> Edd

[Guest guest]

> I lost a friendship with a woman who insisted on trying cure all the

>world's diseases with these vitamins and, mineral supplements which she

>sold.

Sounds a lot like the HerbalLife (and any other MLM product) spiel as well

and not far off the " flead mice and hedge sparrows " suggestion from the

1600's . . . probably won't kill you outright but won't cure anything either.

Sandy

[Guest guest]

> >Here's the link: http://glycoscience.com

> >

> >Duncan

> >

>

> With all due respect, Duncan, I'm sure you're a valuable

> contributor to this forum, but I have come across Mannetech products

> before, and in my opinion, they are little more than a multilevel

> marketing scheme.

I'm glad you said, " In my opinion " . There's a lot of science to back it

up that you are apparently unaware of. Glyconutrients have been

legitimized long ago and are now taught in the standard medical text,

Harper's Biochemistry.

When a description is given during a search in the link above, the

references on glyconutrients are in red and clickable into peer

reviewed literature.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

I too have horror stories about MLM. I do not participate in any way. My friend

and I swore off MLM just like a drunk off booze. No thank you. Although I did

get very good results with using gobs of Shaklee Products in the '70's. But I

resent the profit to the middleman. I think they changed their protein that was

very helpful and included sugar. They changed many of my fav products. G

[Guest guest]

Hi Ed,

It seems you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

I think the major point you're missing revolves around the well-known

role that the conditionally essential sugars play in the formation or

malformation of all cell receptor sites, and the role these properly

formed sites have in insulin sensitivity, which specifically is a

cell communication to allow glucose in.

Also I could mention that although the science site

http://glycoscience.com is maintained by Mannatech Industries, the

MLM product that you might hate is just a purified source of these

essential sugars, and the natural ingredients are available from

other food sources. Always have been, so that's a non-issue.

I think also that it does no good to fuss about the lack of a study

showing that any nutritional product might be involved in a specific

medical condition that arises from either malformed receptor sites or

immune system dysfunction, when the relationship has been proven to

the satisfaction of the medical profession and that it appears in

their text Harper's Biochemistry.

It's more productive in my view to rail about the crummy diet that

raises glucose levels for decades and ultimately results in diabetes.

At least if more people knew that we'd have fewer obese individuals,

fewer prediabetics, and fewer diabetics.

No medical claims are made for nutritional therapies, but none have

to be, as it is undisputed that health improves whether specific

medical claims are made for nutritional and dietary protocols or not.

This is similar to the mention (by top-drawer anti-aging specialists)

that increasing HGH with a food product, amino acids, may help to

regenerate islet cells. Well, a couple of other nutritional products

tend to do that too, but discussing their merits isn't what does the

job, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

DUncan Crow

[Guest guest]

duncancrow@... wrote:

>Hi Ed,

>

>It seems you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope...

>

>

>I think also that it does no good to fuss about the lack of a study

>showing that any nutritional product might be involved in a specific

>medical condition that arises from either malformed receptor sites or

>immune system dysfunction, when the relationship has been proven to

>the satisfaction of the medical profession and that it appears in

>their text Harper's Biochemistry.

>

Duncan,

Your post is well written. It is long and almost seems to say

something. But I've read it 3 times and can't find any meaning in it.

Your style of writing is that of obfuscation. Do you find that most of

your customers are really that stupid? The lack of medical studies that

show the effectiveness of your product is essentially the point here.

You said there was research backing up your products. In my last post,

I rather rudely lampooned the only Mannatech research there seems to be.

And your response is to reverse yourself and say studies aren't

important? You're not even going to attempt to defend your own

research? I'll give you credit. As a salesman, you're smooth, but you

don't seem to have anything useful to say. Your entire post reads like

the Mannatech web site, vague, pseudo-scientific terms that don't really

add up to anything. Do you write for the Mannatech web site? Are you

in their sales department? Are you paid to troll newsgroups and mailing

lists to puff your products?

It doesn't matter whether " conditionally essential sugars " sugars "

are a legitimate term or whether they are mentioned in some biochemistry

book. That's merely a distraction. (Congratulations, though, on doing

it well.) What matters is that you can show that they are a benefit

to the diabetic condition. Changing the subject won't bail you out.

Son, you're admitting your an MLM marketer who's on this list for the

sole purpose of selling your products, in violation of this group's

charter.

>No medical claims are made for nutritional therapies,..., the proof of the

pudding is in the eating.

>

>DUncan Crow

>

I need some pudding. I notice you evaded answering all of the

questions at the end of my last post. Humor me. Look through the

correct end of the telescope and prove to me that you're actually a

diabetic and qualify to be on this list. Do it today, so I can believe

you did it without having to find a real diabetic to answer the

questions for you.

Edd

[Guest guest]

duncancrow@... wrote:

>Hi Ed,

>

>It seems you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

>

Duncan,

I want to offer an apology. I allowed my personal pique to express

itself as personal invective toward you. I had promised to keep this

exchange on a higher level, and I failed. In future posts, I will

attempt to adopt a more objective tone.

Edd

[Guest guest]

It's too hard for most people to read, so I send them to the

http://glycoscience.com webite. This award-winning site has the

essential information in an easy-to-read style.

Some of us, diabetics, have enough brain power to read and understand most

scientific and doctor speak. Perhaps not sufficient interest. G

[Guest guest]

I agree Edd, to keep on topic. This is too important a subject to

either sully or ignore, as four of the last eight Nobel Prizes for

medicine have dealt with cellular communication and its importance to

our wellness.

Here's the Harper's Biochemistry chapter:

http://www.glycotrend.com/PDF/HarpersBiochemistry.pdf

It's too hard for most people to read, so I send them to the

http://glycoscience.com webite. This award-winning site has the

essential information in an easy-to-read style.

Here is a short monologue by the M.D. that put together the Harper's

chapter.

http://www.glycotrend.com/Audio/drmurray.ram ...The doctor mentions

Mannatech, the glyconutrients that are used to form glycoprotein cell

receptors are available also from other sources.

Note towards the end he mentions cancer. We know diabetics have a

high cancer risk, and cancer has as a marker, incorrectly formed

glycoproteins on the cell surface. Glycoproteins are just sugars and

proteins, with varying functions, that form the cell receptor sites

used in cell communication. Incorrectly formed glycoproteins also do

not allow for adhesion of insulin to the cell surface, which we know

of as insulin resistance. See the link? With a broad brush, it's

painted as a problem with the sugar content of the cell receptor

sites, which causes malformed receptors. And this is what the

glycoscience.com website says.

Now that we're on the same page with official validation of the

concepts, we can move forward to the adaptation of the science on the

street. There are several science magazines that covered it but

here's a medical one for doctors:

M.D. News, ~ June 2002. M.D. News, a national publication with

regionalized editions in 40 major medical markets in the U.S. This 3-

page article covers the science of sugars and reviews specific topics

such as successes with fibromyalgia, toxic shock and diabetes.

Reprints: http://www.mdnewsmagazine.com/mdnr.htm

Now, doing an internet search for even less scientific material, as

you can see there is more to this than meets the eye.

Lots of work has already been done and the big pharmaceutical

companies are currently spending more than on any other facet of

health to apply this technology to their products. In fact, they are

blending cancer drugs with glyconutrients to make them more

effective, because glyconutrient sugars have been proven to work EVEN

ON THEIR OWN. Do you think they'll publish much for us to read on

their rush to market? I suspect not.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

duncancrow@... wrote:

>I agree Edd, to keep on topic. This is too important a subject to

>either sully or ignore, as four of the last eight Nobel Prizes for

>medicine have dealt with cellular communication and its importance to

>our wellness.

>

Duncan,

You have again declined to answer my questions about your diabetic

history. There have been follow up posts from others asking you to

answer those questions as well. Why are you not responding? I am

asking for sufficient detail to be convincing. Others in this group

have contacted me and pointed out that your contributions to this list

never seem to include any personal experience. There seems to be doubt

here. Are you in fact diabetic or not? Please give more than a

yes/no answer.

Once you've established your credentials as a diabetic, then

perhaps we can continue our other discussion.

Edd

[Guest guest]

duncancrow@... wrote:

>1) I'm not diabetic

>

Then why are you on this list? What is your purpose?

Edd

[Guest guest]

What are you researching? I have never seen one post from you that asks

any questions of the diabetics here. Rather, you seem to answer general

inquiries to the list by referring people to your site or talking about

a product you're selling. Your credibility is pretty low here,

Duncan...and getting lower.

Vicki

Re: essential sugar mystery and excess glucose.

> >

> > Once you've established your credentials as a diabetic, then

> > perhaps we can continue our other discussion.

> >

>

> Does a researcher have to have diabetes " credentials " in order to

> research the subject?

>

> I suspect not.

>

> Duncan

[Guest guest]

As you suggested, I did a search on Goggle using " Duncan Crow " as the

search term. Very interesting results.

The URLs that Goggle returned included:

<http://members.shaw.ca/duncancrow/home.htm>

<http://www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=47 & i=263>

<http://www.royalrife.com/board/?topic=topic2 & msg=77>

<http://www.curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=288 & i=21>

<http://prices.duncans.ca/referencesystem.htm> which led to:

<http://asomaworld.net/duncancrow>

<http://discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000198.html>

<http://discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000293.html>

<http://www.graphicpizazz.com/board/?topic=topic2 & msg=360>

<http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/forums/lupus/messages/2868.htm>

These represent URLs listed on the first 3 out of 12 pages that Goggle

returned. I only listed the URLs that I thought that appeared to apply

to you, Duncan. I did not go past the third page as I felt that I had

seen enough.

> 4) If you want to find out more about me, please do an internet

> search.

>

Maurer

---------------------------------------

No such thing as spare time,

No such thing as free time,

No such thing as down time,

All you've got is lifetime.

- Rollins

[Guest guest]

>Okay, Duncan...but you STILL haven't answered Edd's questions, i.e.

>

>Tell us about your diabetes. When were you diagnosed? What was your

>first FBG reading? Your first A1c? Your last several A1cs? What was

>your FBG this morning? Last night? What diet are you following? Tell

>us about your bgs at other times of day. What kind of meter do you

>have? Why do you like that particular meter? When and where do you

>test? What readings have you gotten when you've tested your friends and

>relatives? What medications have you taken? Do you take? Doses?

>Specifically, what help have you found on this list. What tips have

>helped you the most?

While I agree with and support most of what Edd has written (and,

conversely, highly question the informational or medical/scientific content

of Duncan's MLM promotion), I find this intrusive and confrontational

demand for personal information highly offensive.

1) If the posting/sharing of all (or any) of those personal

facts/experiences are *required* for membership on this list, then so state

in the group's rules and drop members who do not comply. This list is of

value because we have many active and lurker members who post if/when/what

they are comfortable with sharing and glean, from others' posts, what may

apply to/help them. For the rest, there's the Delete-key. IMO, it is not

only unnecessary and inappropriate but unconscionable to attempt to

bully anyone on this list (or to allow such bullying) into sharing any

specific personal information unless there is a stated rule to that effect

that equally applies to all.

2) If HAVING diabetes is *required* for membership on this list, then so

state in the group's rules and do not allow any non-diabetics to join this

list; and drop them if/when it is discovered that they have falsified that

information. I think such a rule would be foolish and counterproductive but

if you are going to be heavy-handed in applying such a requirement to one

person, then apply it to all.

3) If active product sales or MLM promotion is disallowed on this list,

then so state in the group's rules; the Moderator should/can/will make the

judgement to drop a member who transgresses by applying the Duck Test

(i.e., if it Looks like a duck, Walks like a duck, and Sounds like a duck.

.. . it must BE a duck, or will at least be treated as such). If such is not

allowable on this list, it would seem to properly apply to all members, not

just to one who has posted information with which many do not agree or are

tired of reading.

To Mr Duncan:

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to

say it. "

[so long as it is not in violation of any rules that apply to all - SB]

-- Friends of Voltaire (and often misattributed to Voltaire himself)

To the rest of this list:

" Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too. "

-- from Voltaire's " Essay on Tolerance "

Sandy

T1 - 1979

[Guest guest]

My fasting glucose is almost always under 100 and it took about a month or two

weeks of changing diet--lower carb---and exercise. I try to avoid any major

stress. G

[Guest guest]

>

>As you suggested, I did a search on Goggle using " Duncan Crow " as the

>search term. Very interesting results.

>The URLs that Goggle returned included:

I think this posting is approprite to the site members. I find it informative.

My thought is that this site is for individual postings and helpful findings and

questions by the diabetics themselves. That is my opinion. I also think we are

giving this guy too much attention. We should concentrate on our normal diabetic

postings. G

[Guest guest]

Sandy Burdsall wrote:

>3) If active product sales or MLM promotion is disallowed on this list,

>then so state in the group's rules; the Moderator should/can/will make the

>judgement to drop a member who transgresses by applying the Duck Test

>(i.e., if it Looks like a duck, Walks like a duck, and Sounds like a duck.

>. . it must BE a duck, or will at least be treated as such). If such is not

>allowable on this list, it would seem to properly apply to all members, not

>just to one who has posted information with which many do not agree or are

>tired of reading.

>

Here are the rules of the list, posted at Yahoo's website for this group:

A moderated mailing list for people interested in, or suffering

from, Diabetes. People who seek support or answers to their questions,

and who wish to participate in a positive, supporting and uplifting

debate on this disease, the problems related to it, and different ways

to get and keep Diabetes under control.

Commercial posts are prohibited. Surveys or other posts for research

purposes may not be posted without prior permission

[Guest guest]

Commercial posts are prohibited. Surveys or other posts for research

purposes may not be posted without prior permission

I think this says it all. G

[Guest guest]

>

> What are you researching? I have never seen one post from you that asks

> any questions of the diabetics here. Rather, you seem to answer general

> inquiries to the list by referring people to your site or talking about

> a product you're selling. Your credibility is pretty low here,

> Duncan...and getting lower. Vicki

Vicki,

I DO have a question -- given that y'all have been managing this

disease fo awhile, and know what you're doing, has anyone on this list

brought down their fasting glucose to 100 or less, a figure that the

American Diabetes Association has suggested to avoid glycation and

diabetic complications, even in non-diabetics? What was the before, the

after, and how long did it take?

I admit I have different interests, mainly relating to anti-aging and

general health.You might only know of 10% of what my interests are in

health applications unless you've been reading my newspaper columns.

Many of these columns are not on my own website, but someone else's.

Me, I have little interest in " managing " an disease; I'm accustomed to

removing the reason for a disease symptom showing up by changing

biological terrain. This concept is radically different from disease

management. So what kind of information could a person who is

" managing " their disease give me that I could use? I'm not sure, and I

wouldn't know what to ask for but I could hope to pick up a few

pointers by reading.

That's why I also enjoy other groups including the longevity group. I

AM learning something I can use from these people. Like some of them,

though I'm not (yet) diabetic, I might be called prediabetic; my

fasting AM glucose readings average around 104 to a little over 108,

and because a reading that high will result in diabetic complications

and reduced life span I'm trying to get them down to around 84 if I

can. Some others are trying for just over 70. Here's a good page on the

glucose theory of aging. I think you'll see that it makes some sense:

http://www.rajeun.net/glucose.html

With regard to my own website, it is a source of further information

that took many weeks to compile, but certainly anyone who chooses to

can find their own data. I point to my web site so people can just

click the references, as some prefer to do that or don't search PubMed

so well. Also, one of the long references, " Inulin: A Comprehensive

Scientific Review " , which contains over 200 references, is not

available anywhere else online.

I am a consultant and ozone therapist and sure, I use a couple of

nutritional products that we can't find at the store. There are three

on my web site that I don't make anything on but I feel are important

enough to mention anyway. Note that the few things there are good for a

majority of ailments, and I've taken the trouble to post the science. I

send my clients to the store with a shopping list for nearly all the

stuff they buy, stuff I could certainly be providing.

Perhaps the real problem here is one of perception; I focus on

therapies, nutritional and otherwise, that might make some people

uneasy and suspicious because they've never heard of them. What's

worse, some might believe that the science should be somehow invalid

because they don't like how a product is sold commercially. That's

fine, but both instances are examples of prejudice, which has no place

in a discussion although it sometimes creeps in, and I believe

prejudice is not a trait that the majority entertain.

If you are interested in glyconutrients, there's a website here that

tells you how to make your own glyconutrient jam:

http://www.askdrbird.com/cfs/glyconutrients.htm or you can type the

word into a google search bar and find a commercial copy that is sold

the way tou like it.

If you are interested in reducing glucose levels, VLDL and LDL

cholesterol and high blood pressure using sugar free inulin, the ORAFTI

wholesaler is Quadra Chemicals. might be

your contact (ext 326)

I think I pointed out earlier on that Noni extract and arginine

increases circulation and can be a useful stopgap for arterial

occlusion (PAD) and angina. Also, that the patented 'cure for heart

disease' is posted on Dr. Matthias Rath's website. All it is is amino

acids and antioxidants, and I think b-vitamins. I'm sure the value of

antioxidants, chromium, stevia, gymnema sylvestris, general nutrition,

and that addressing mineral deficiencies curbs carb and salt cravings,

has been covered. I guess everyone is well aware of the low carb and

'no-grain' diets others, even non-diabetics, are undertaking, seeing

how it's pretty conclusive now that carb dinners and snacks should be

only a very small part of the diet.

Duncan Crow

[Guest guest]

>

>As you suggested, I did a search on Goggle using " Duncan Crow " as the

>search term. Very interesting results.

>The URLs that Goggle returned included:

I find this kind of posting every bit as offensive as active promotion of

MLM or questionable products. While these URLs and the info they contain

are obviously publicly available on the Internet, such searching is for

individuals to do privately if they wish and not suitable for posting to a

list. In my opinion, URLs re: information (including, but not limited to,

such things as MLM or other products) are non-personal but URLs specific to

an individual are inappropriate for list messages.

BTW, Google returns 10 pages of references to " Maurer " (without

knowing, of course, if they all properly apply to the same person -- and

that's part of the point). Shall we start digging in that info as well (to

what purpose, I can't imagine)? I thought our purpose was to discuss

diabetes and related topics rather than to focus on discussing or

attempting to discredit (and even that's a subjective judgment) anyone

personally.

Sandy

T1 - 1979

[Guest guest]

Duncan Crow wrote:

>>What are you researching? I have never seen one post from you that asks

>>any questions of the diabetics here. Rather, you seem to answer general

>>inquiries to the list by referring people to your site or talking about

>>a product you're selling. Your credibility is pretty low here,

>>Duncan...and getting lower. Vicki

>>

>>

>

>Vicki,

>

>I DO have a question -- given that y'all have been managing this

>disease fo awhile, and know what you're doing, has anyone on this list

>brought down their fasting glucose to 100 or less, a figure that the

>American Diabetes Association has suggested to avoid glycation and

>diabetic complications, even in non-diabetics? What was the before, the

>after, and how long did it take?

>

You said y'all.

My fasting BG runs between 72-95 on average. My Ultrasmart meter is

telling me that I have a 103 average for the past 30 days. My last HbA1c

was 5.5%, as I had relaxed my control a bit because I thought the the

previous HbA1c at 4.9% was more control than I wanted.

I started out in 1998 with an 8.8% HbA1c, and was down to " the 5's "

within 3 months of effort with diet and exercise. I am now using

insulin, by choice. I do not have any problems with lows because I know

where my basal should be set, and what I need for bolus insulin.

No, I have not gained weight on insulin. I have actually lost.

>Me, I have little interest in " managing " an disease; I'm accustomed to

>removing the reason for a disease symptom showing up by changing

>biological terrain. This concept is radically different from disease

>management. So what kind of information could a person who is

> " managing " their disease give me that I could use? I'm not sure, and I

>wouldn't know what to ask for but I could hope to pick up a few

>pointers by reading.

>

If you stick around, you'll find many pointers that will be alien to the

way you may purport to " manage " a disease, but you will also find that

most here attain good control by attention to detail and proven methods.

(and I do NOT mean by blindly following the ADA).

I have read your writings, and find that you are quite efficient in

using language that is ambiguous, but remains

tremulous to those that would take the time to investigate your use of

terms.

>I think I pointed out earlier on that Noni extract and arginine

>increases circulation and can be a useful stopgap for arterial

>occlusion (PAD) and angina.

-10 credibility points!

>I'm sure the value of

>antioxidants, chromium, stevia, gymnema sylvestris, general nutrition,

>and that addressing mineral deficiencies curbs carb and salt cravings,

>has been covered.

Oh yes, you can be sure they have been covered here on this list..

Speaking of antioxidents, you're aware of this, right?

*******************************************************

Study Finds Antioxidant Vitamins Useless

Vitamin E and beta-carotene pills are useless for warding off major

heart problems, and beta-carotene, a source of vitamin A, may be

harmful, an analysis of key studies has concluded.

Many experts say the finding, published this week in The Lancet medical

journal, settles the issue of antioxidant vitamins for heart health.

But others argue that the pills might still prove useful if started

earlier and that while they do not seem to prevent heart attacks and

premature death, further studies may show they help to delay the onset

or progression of heart disease or other blood vessel problems.

Antioxidant nutrients, especially vitamin E, were widely recommended a

few years ago as a way of keeping the heart healthy. However, several

recent large studies failed to show any benefit, and a few raised the

possibility that the pills might be harmful for some.

The latest research, conducted by scientists at the Cleveland Clinic

Foundation, analyzed the pooled results from 15 key studies involving

nearly 220,000 people.

Article continues:

http://www.stopgettingsick.com/templates/news_template.cfm/6792

--

Dave - 3:06:24 PM

T2 - 5/98 Glucophage, Lantus & H

A 4th generation Diabetic

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

Brain cells come and brain cells go, but fat cells seem to live forever.

--

[Guest guest]

Duncan Crow wrote:

>Vicki,

>

>I DO have a question -- given that y'all have been managing this

>disease fo awhile, and know what you're doing, has anyone on this list

>brought down their fasting glucose to 100 or less...

>

Your best writing skill seems to be changing the subject so you

can promote your products.

>Me, I have little interest in " managing " an disease; I'm accustomed to

>removing the reason for a disease symptom showing up by changing

>biological terrain. This concept is radically different from disease

>management. So what kind of information could a person who is

> " managing " their disease give me that I could use?

>

One of the major functions of this forum is exchanging

information on managing diabetes. If you have no interest in

management, then we must return to my earlier question which you

continue to avoid answering. Why are you a member of this forum? Is

your chief purpose to promote your commercial products? This forum is

not intended as a broadcast medium for you to advertise your products.

>... my

>fasting AM glucose readings average around 104 to a little over 108,

>and because a reading that high will result in diabetic complications

>and reduced life span I'm trying to get them down to around 84 if I

>can. Some others are trying for just over 70. Here's a good page on the

>glucose theory of aging. I think you'll see that it makes some sense:

>http://www.rajeun.net/glucose.html

>

With your knowledge as a health consultant, and your access to

your products, can we safely assume are unable to cure yourself? If

you are unable to cure yourself with these products, then there's no

reason for you to sell them here.

>I am a consultant and ozone therapist and sure, I use a couple of

>nutritional products that we can't find at the store. There are three

>on my web site that I don't make anything on but I feel are important

>enough to mention anyway. Note that the few things there are good for a

>majority of ailments, and I've taken the trouble to post the science. I

>send my clients to the store with a shopping list for nearly all the

>stuff they buy, stuff I could certainly be providing. ...I focus on

>therapies, nutritional and otherwise, that might make some people

>uneasy and suspicious ........

>Duncan Crow

>

and the rest of your post was blatant advertising of products.

Edd