So I eat Greek yogurt just about every morning (5 days out of 7) for breakfast, and about 4 days out of 7 for lunch. It's quick, it's easy, it tastes pretty fabulous, is 0% fat and it's super easy to bolus for.
This morning I had my coffee and Blueberry Greek yogurt, followed by a strawberry Greek yogurt and fuji apple for lunch. Then I decided to run out and do a few quick errands before I went back to do the ever so dreaded paperwork my job requires.
Any who, as I was about to walk into the CVS I began to feel low, like really low. Like can't feel my lips because their so freaking numb & I'm afraid to speak low.
I made a beeline for a place those of us in the Tri-State area know as Wa-Wa. A convenience store whose coffee is the stuff that legends are made of and whose sandwiches are pretty darn tasty if I do say so myself.
I needed to eat and was annoyed because I'd just ate 25 minutes earlier. Did I mention that the OCD part of my brain that's been obsessed with reading labels was like - NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP!
So in my low blood sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup Police haze, I went to the freezer section of Wa-Wa, grabbed a Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream bar that was coated in milk chocolate, jam packed with 21 grams of carbohydrates and 22 grams of fat (which of course totally negated the two no fat yogurts) and ingredients that were all recognizable, mostly one syllable and all easy to pronounce, and proceeded to pay $2 and some change to treat my low.
Did I mention it had no HFCS?
Current BG an hour later is 120 and I'm still feeling shaky.
What's the point of this post? I don't really remember. DAMN LOWS!
But thanks for listening anyway!!
Diabetes Weirdness: It's Just An Empty Bottle of ALL ~
My Diabetes weirdness Continue To Evolve ~
Like most of you reading, I live a diabetes life 24 X7 - And I’m OK with that, for the most part.
Yes, I want a cure sooner rather than later and yes diabetes is a pain in the ass both literally and figuratively, but diabetes is a part of life and we do what we must in order to make a go of this life - diabetes nor not.
Still, Diabetes weirdness always comes into play.
For instance, I save my used test strips & diabetes supplies and put them in an empty detergent bottle instead of a Sharpie's container.
I used to fill up empty 1 liter seltzer bottles with used test strips & lancets and jokingly call them my Test Strip Bottle Art.
And you should have seen my pharmacists face when I dropped them off to be disposed!
But a few months back, I decided to switched it up and challenge myself to filling up a 50 fl ounces instead of a measly 33
and started adding used pump supplies in the mix - just for shits and giggles ~
Yes, I’m damn near obsessive when it comes to putting my used test strips, pump supplies, lancets, etc. in that ALL bottle!
And as that bottle continues to get heavier and darn near filled to the tip top, I have this really weird sense of pride & accomplishment.
It’s like filling that ALL bottle reminds me that I’m accomplishing my job as my own artificial pancreas.
It’s stupid really, it’s just an empty bottle of ALL, after all. Nobody’s grading me on if or when it gets filled, or how long it takes me to complete that task. But when it’s finally filled to the top and I drop it off at my pharmacy for proper disposal, I want shout out loud from the roof tops: I DID THAT, BITCHES!!!
Total diabetes weirdness? Yes, of course it is. But it makes proud (and psychologically, it might even make me test more, but I doubt it) and filling that bottle of ALL makes me smile :)
Maybe the next container I fill with used diabetes supplies should be an empty 2 -liter bottle of Diet Coke.
But since I don’t drink soda, I’ll leave that task for Mr. Scott K. Johnson to consider!
What's your "diabetes weirdness?"
Mammograms and Breast Cancer: the failure of ConMed Testing
The usual focus of this blog are Big Pharma drugs - mostly dangerous for patients, often ineffective, and usually extraordinarily expensive.
So what about the various medical tests that ConMed uses routinely to discover what is wrong with us? Are they safe? Are they effective? And are there better alternatives available?
ConMed has been subjecting women routinely to mammograms (to check for breast cancer) for many years now, particularly women over 50 years. Listening to NHS doctors we believe them to be safe, effective, and life-saving. The mainstream media (of course) do not tell us differently. So by regularly subjecting women to these tests, what do they get, and how do they benefit?
As usual, it is the WWW that paints quite another picture, a picture that most women know nothing about.
This Natural Health article outlines most of the dangers of mammography, the main one's being:
* exposure to harmful levels of radiation
* inaccuracy (including many 'false positives')
* expense
The exposure to large levels of radiation means that mammograms have been found to cause the very problem they are intended to prevent - breast cancer! We have noticed this in other blogs previously, when talking about Big Pharma drugs. This Dr Mercola article outlines research that has demonstrated this danger, and also provides some detail about how this dangerous screening technique was originally approved by ConMed regulatory authorities.
Yet it is the large number of 'false positives' produced by mammography that is probably equally as concerning, not least because women who are falsely diagnosed with breast cancer then receive treatment they do not need, and which may well be detrimental to their health. That is, they receive more ConMed treatment!
False positives, over the years, has also increased both the estimates of the problem, and the concerns generated about breast cancer. Nowhere is this more so than with the diagnosis of 'ductal carcinoma in situ' or DCIS.
"Because DCIS is almost invariably asymptomatic and has no palpable lesions, it would not be known as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the use of x-ray diagnostic technology".
In other words, DCIS was once unknown prior to the introduction of mammography. The article goes on to explain why the condition is not serious, and certainly does not require the drastic medical interventions it now receives. Instead, it recommends 'watchful waiting', and does so on the basis of research that has shown untreated tumours usually regress when left untreated.
The ConMed Establishment, supported by the silence of the mainstream media, wants us to believe that Mammograms save lives, through early detection and treatment, regarding the condition as 'life-threatening'. But what is becoming clear, at least in non-ConMed circles, is despite what we have been told for many years, is that mammograms do not save lives - or not many anyway.
The question arises, then - are there better, safer alternatives to Mammograms available? Watchful waiting is one strategy, but Thermography is another, outlined here as a safer alternative to Mammography. Yet if this is a safer technique, why is it not being offered to women by ConMed doctors, and the NHS? Why is there no choice?
So how long have we known about the dangers of mammography? I made the following notes from an article written in 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'.
"Growing evidence from the US suggests that half of all diagnoses of breast cancer might not be cancer at all. DCIS ... is commonly picked up by mammograms, and yet the plain fact is that most DCIS does not become cancerous and if left alone will cause no problem at all. So if mannography is responsible for over-diagnosing breast cancer, is there a safer, more reliable way to screen for breast cancer? Thermography - which measures skin temperature - has not only been shown to pick up cancers eight to ten years earlier than mammography, but also does not expose the patient to harmful radiation".
This was written in July 2005! Seven years ago!
One recurring theme about the practice of conventional medicine is that the dangers of treatments are often known for many years before any action is taken. And this seems to be so quite regardless of whether there are safer, more effective and cheaper alternatives. During these years, when dangers are known, but patients are not informed, treatments are accepted based on the assurances they are given. Too often, as in the case of Mammograms, these assurances are untrue, and not based upon good science, or good clinical practice.
So what about the various medical tests that ConMed uses routinely to discover what is wrong with us? Are they safe? Are they effective? And are there better alternatives available?
ConMed has been subjecting women routinely to mammograms (to check for breast cancer) for many years now, particularly women over 50 years. Listening to NHS doctors we believe them to be safe, effective, and life-saving. The mainstream media (of course) do not tell us differently. So by regularly subjecting women to these tests, what do they get, and how do they benefit?
As usual, it is the WWW that paints quite another picture, a picture that most women know nothing about.
This Natural Health article outlines most of the dangers of mammography, the main one's being:
* exposure to harmful levels of radiation
* inaccuracy (including many 'false positives')
* expense
The exposure to large levels of radiation means that mammograms have been found to cause the very problem they are intended to prevent - breast cancer! We have noticed this in other blogs previously, when talking about Big Pharma drugs. This Dr Mercola article outlines research that has demonstrated this danger, and also provides some detail about how this dangerous screening technique was originally approved by ConMed regulatory authorities.
Yet it is the large number of 'false positives' produced by mammography that is probably equally as concerning, not least because women who are falsely diagnosed with breast cancer then receive treatment they do not need, and which may well be detrimental to their health. That is, they receive more ConMed treatment!
False positives, over the years, has also increased both the estimates of the problem, and the concerns generated about breast cancer. Nowhere is this more so than with the diagnosis of 'ductal carcinoma in situ' or DCIS.
"Because DCIS is almost invariably asymptomatic and has no palpable lesions, it would not be known as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the use of x-ray diagnostic technology".
In other words, DCIS was once unknown prior to the introduction of mammography. The article goes on to explain why the condition is not serious, and certainly does not require the drastic medical interventions it now receives. Instead, it recommends 'watchful waiting', and does so on the basis of research that has shown untreated tumours usually regress when left untreated.
The ConMed Establishment, supported by the silence of the mainstream media, wants us to believe that Mammograms save lives, through early detection and treatment, regarding the condition as 'life-threatening'. But what is becoming clear, at least in non-ConMed circles, is despite what we have been told for many years, is that mammograms do not save lives - or not many anyway.
The question arises, then - are there better, safer alternatives to Mammograms available? Watchful waiting is one strategy, but Thermography is another, outlined here as a safer alternative to Mammography. Yet if this is a safer technique, why is it not being offered to women by ConMed doctors, and the NHS? Why is there no choice?
So how long have we known about the dangers of mammography? I made the following notes from an article written in 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'.
"Growing evidence from the US suggests that half of all diagnoses of breast cancer might not be cancer at all. DCIS ... is commonly picked up by mammograms, and yet the plain fact is that most DCIS does not become cancerous and if left alone will cause no problem at all. So if mannography is responsible for over-diagnosing breast cancer, is there a safer, more reliable way to screen for breast cancer? Thermography - which measures skin temperature - has not only been shown to pick up cancers eight to ten years earlier than mammography, but also does not expose the patient to harmful radiation".
This was written in July 2005! Seven years ago!
One recurring theme about the practice of conventional medicine is that the dangers of treatments are often known for many years before any action is taken. And this seems to be so quite regardless of whether there are safer, more effective and cheaper alternatives. During these years, when dangers are known, but patients are not informed, treatments are accepted based on the assurances they are given. Too often, as in the case of Mammograms, these assurances are untrue, and not based upon good science, or good clinical practice.
Homeopathy. The growing scientific base
Robert Medhurst has done a brilliant job in bringing together an impressive number of scientific studies that have been made into homeopathy. As he says, however, it is not exhaustive.
Have a look here for his list
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/
Hitherto, homeopaths have always relied on more direct evidence for its effectiveness - sick people getting well after treatment. ConMed has never accepted the evidence. And predictably it is unlikely to accept any amount of scientific evidence. But for anyone with an open mind, the amount of research that has been conducted, and the results, are impressive.
Have a look here for his list
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/research-in-homoeopathy/
Hitherto, homeopaths have always relied on more direct evidence for its effectiveness - sick people getting well after treatment. ConMed has never accepted the evidence. And predictably it is unlikely to accept any amount of scientific evidence. But for anyone with an open mind, the amount of research that has been conducted, and the results, are impressive.
