I'm tired, but damn if I didn't love Diabetes Blog Week, BIG TIME!
I *met* so many wonderful new Bloggers that I'm now lucky enough to call friends.
And I'm inspired. Incredibly Inspired by the words of every single member of the D-O-C (old friends and new) to complete each days writing assignments.
Yes, I still have insane amount of posts to read and comment on (dBlogville has become quite the bustling Hamlet,) but I'm looking forward to each and every post.
I've learned something amazing and unique about each of you, and am a better person for having had the pleasure to read what you had to say.
Big SHOUTOUT & PROPS to Karen over at Bittersweet Diabetes and her fantastical brain for thinking of, and making Diabetes Blog Week happen - Way to wave your D-Flag loud and proud Chicka!
The popularity of homeopathy
Homeopaths are expecting more attacks from conventional medicine in the coming weeks and months. In particular, we suspect that the forces of ConMed, in the interest of the Big Pharma companies, will start a campaign to stop homeopathy being available to patients through the NHS (however limited this availability is currently). The campaign has already started, not least in the attacks on the Homeopathy hospitals.
Yet the subject was debated by Jeremy Vine today on BBC Radio 2. I only listened to the end of the debate, but what I heard, and certainly from his concluding comments, the popularity of homeopathy came through strongly from the majority of people who phoned and wrote into the programme. I was surprised and heartened by the number of people who gave evidence for homeopathy, denying that it was 'merely placebo', and outlined the way it has helped them, their families, their pets, and indeed farm animals. Many said they tried everything that ConMed gave to them, but nothing worked until they tried homeopathy - and homeopathy worked for them within a few weeks in many cases.
I should not have been surprised. Perhaps I listen too much to the denialists who write in, ad-infinitum, to this blog with their denials, their arrogant (usually implicit) support of ConMed treatment, their dismissal of all the personal testimony of homeopathy's effective, and the growing science that supports it.
Indeed, it was refreshing to hear from patients who have benefitted from homeopathy. Like homeopaths themselves, they are sometimes too quiet and their voice is unheard. I am confident that if the denialists, and ConMed supporters, launch their expected attack the availability of homeopathy on the NHS, it will serve mainly to raise the profile of homeopathy, and increase patient demand for it.
Yet the subject was debated by Jeremy Vine today on BBC Radio 2. I only listened to the end of the debate, but what I heard, and certainly from his concluding comments, the popularity of homeopathy came through strongly from the majority of people who phoned and wrote into the programme. I was surprised and heartened by the number of people who gave evidence for homeopathy, denying that it was 'merely placebo', and outlined the way it has helped them, their families, their pets, and indeed farm animals. Many said they tried everything that ConMed gave to them, but nothing worked until they tried homeopathy - and homeopathy worked for them within a few weeks in many cases.
I should not have been surprised. Perhaps I listen too much to the denialists who write in, ad-infinitum, to this blog with their denials, their arrogant (usually implicit) support of ConMed treatment, their dismissal of all the personal testimony of homeopathy's effective, and the growing science that supports it.
Indeed, it was refreshing to hear from patients who have benefitted from homeopathy. Like homeopaths themselves, they are sometimes too quiet and their voice is unheard. I am confident that if the denialists, and ConMed supporters, launch their expected attack the availability of homeopathy on the NHS, it will serve mainly to raise the profile of homeopathy, and increase patient demand for it.
File Under Awesome: #DBlogWeek,#DSMA/#Wegowebinar, Fresh Lancets, Fresh Batteries, Walking & Sweet Potato Fries
FILE UNDER AWESOME -
2. There's a hell of a lot of new diabetes blogs out there, people!
It's filled with lots of loves and laughs! And Hallie from the Princess & The Pump has an extensive video containing all the participants logos & d-love, HERE.
Cherise Shockley , founder & creator of Diabetes Social Media Advocacy (#dsma) chat on twitter ever Wednesday night. Cherise was the special guest of last night's #WEGOwebinar: Expanding Your Health Advocacy: Twitter Chats & Beyond.
I logged into the webinar late, but I can say in all honesty that Cherise rep'd the DOC but good! If you missed all, or part of the chat, the recap and link to the recorded webinar can be found HERE.
SHOCKING DISCOVERY: Recently I've come to the realization that if I keep a bag of lancets next to the meter in my bedroom that I use for middle of the night and first thing in the morning checks, I'm more likely to actually change the lancet first thing in the morning.
Who knew?
DIABETES FASHION FILE: Now that spring is here, and this Diazon is all about embracing my spring skirts and dresses, I've added new triple AAA batteries to all my handbags. That way whenever I switch out my bag I have fresh spare battery in case my pump battery craps out.
Since I placed the batteries in my handbags on my birthday weekend, I have a gage in my head as to how old they are. It's a total win -win situation.
I'm Walking - And Not Just After Midnight!
OK, just so we're clear hear folks, I'm not a hooker, "Walking After Midnight" is a song/song title by the late, great, Patsy Cline. GOOGLE IT.
Anyway, I've started walking again, with a short term goal of walking 5 times week, for a total of between 5 and 9 hours weekly. last week I exercised via walking for 4 days, for about 50 minutes a pop. It felt good to get out and move again! Hopefully my scale will eventually reflect all my efforts.
Blood Sugar Nirvana Alert: On Friday night I dined on Alexia brand, Spicy Sweet Potato Fries. I sprinkled those bad boys ever so lightly with parmesan cheese, and YES, Blood Sugar Nirvana was indeed achieved. Pre-blood sugar meal was 130. Three hours later, post blood sugar meal was 144. And I was quite the happy camper!
Did Alexia pay me in the form of money and or fries to write this?
Unfortunately, no they did not, nor do I think that they are even aware that I'm mentioning them in my blog post. This is just the honest, gut reaction my gut had to their fantastical fries. Seriously good stuff folks, and totally bolus worthy!
Care to share any of the things you'd like to "file under awesome?"
BBC News whitewashes Statin Drugs!
BBC News is always doing Big Pharma's advertising for them - free of charge. On BBCs 'Today' programme (17th May 2012) it was reported that even healthy (low-risk) people should be taking Statin drugs, and that by doing so, 1000s of heart attacks and strokes could be prevented. They quote evidence published in the Lancet.
So the millions listening to BBC News this morning will be left with the understanding that there are no problems taking Statin drugs.
* No mention of adverse reactions.
* No mention of Disease-Inducing-Effects (DIEs).
* No mention that Statins are now known to cause Diabetes.
* No mention of serious structural muscle damage.
* No mention of serious skin diseases.
* No mention of Prostate Cancer.
* No mention of heart disease.
* No mention of Arthritis.
It seems pointless to BBC News why they continue to remain quite ignorant about all this evidence? Or indeed to suggest they might like to look at this website - and indeed so many other websites from organisations that, unlike the BBC, are prepared to fully inform their readers and listeners. Or is the BBC merely content to propagandise for Big Pharma drug companies? Or is it just that your health correspondents are not doing their job properly?
Yet, look at the BBC News website. The same news is put forward here, that is, the benefits of taking Statins. But this also mentions at least some of the downsides of Statins. So BBC News is aware! I have to assume, therefore, that it is just not prepared to tell its listeners (and viewers?)
I wonder if the BBC has an explanation for this? Is it because BBC News is aware that their Radio and Television News broadcasts are listened to by millions, whilst their website is seen only by thousands. Does honesty at the BBC News, certainly in their health reporting, only stretch so far.
I notice this research has been published on the GP website, Pulse; with no mention of adverse reactions, other than the usual 'the benefits outweigh the disadvantages' argument. But there are some interesting comments. First, that "nearly all the trials and authors are subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Industry", and second, that "after more than two decades of statin use, heart disease appears to still be prevalent and statins are not having any noticeable effect on cardiovascular disease incidence rates".
But it is unlikely that BBC News will be very interested in such matters! But there is a further matter, why is BBC News, and other mainstream Media outlets, not putting forward other medical research that does not involve advertising for drug companies? If they are genuinely concerned about lowering blood pressure, cholesterol, and preventing heart attacks and strokes, this new research might be of interest. It was reported by the WDDTY magazine today.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Big Pharma drugs are dangerous. It is also becoming increasingly clear that diet, exercise, and other medical therapies, such as Homeopathy, are far safer, and more effective than conventional medical treatment. So perhaps the solution to many health problems can be a little simpler than taking pharmaceutical drugs.
But from this mornings evidence, we cannot rely on the BBC telling us this. Indeed, they don't seem to be in the least interested!
So the millions listening to BBC News this morning will be left with the understanding that there are no problems taking Statin drugs.
* No mention of adverse reactions.
* No mention of Disease-Inducing-Effects (DIEs).
* No mention that Statins are now known to cause Diabetes.
* No mention of serious structural muscle damage.
* No mention of serious skin diseases.
* No mention of Prostate Cancer.
* No mention of heart disease.
* No mention of Arthritis.
It seems pointless to BBC News why they continue to remain quite ignorant about all this evidence? Or indeed to suggest they might like to look at this website - and indeed so many other websites from organisations that, unlike the BBC, are prepared to fully inform their readers and listeners. Or is the BBC merely content to propagandise for Big Pharma drug companies? Or is it just that your health correspondents are not doing their job properly?
Yet, look at the BBC News website. The same news is put forward here, that is, the benefits of taking Statins. But this also mentions at least some of the downsides of Statins. So BBC News is aware! I have to assume, therefore, that it is just not prepared to tell its listeners (and viewers?)
I wonder if the BBC has an explanation for this? Is it because BBC News is aware that their Radio and Television News broadcasts are listened to by millions, whilst their website is seen only by thousands. Does honesty at the BBC News, certainly in their health reporting, only stretch so far.
I notice this research has been published on the GP website, Pulse; with no mention of adverse reactions, other than the usual 'the benefits outweigh the disadvantages' argument. But there are some interesting comments. First, that "nearly all the trials and authors are subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Industry", and second, that "after more than two decades of statin use, heart disease appears to still be prevalent and statins are not having any noticeable effect on cardiovascular disease incidence rates".
But it is unlikely that BBC News will be very interested in such matters! But there is a further matter, why is BBC News, and other mainstream Media outlets, not putting forward other medical research that does not involve advertising for drug companies? If they are genuinely concerned about lowering blood pressure, cholesterol, and preventing heart attacks and strokes, this new research might be of interest. It was reported by the WDDTY magazine today.
"High-dose vitamin C lowers blood pressure, prevents stroke. Taking 0.5g of vitamin C – the equivalent of drinking six glasses of orange juice – every day lowers your blood pressure and reduces the risk of stroke.
The amount, which is around five times the recommended daily allowance, is especially effective in people already diagnosed with high blood pressure, or hypertension.
The vitamin can lower blood pressure by 5 millimetres of mercury, which is half as good as an ACE inhibitor or diuretic (water pill), in people with hypertension. The immediate impact is a 3 millimetres fall, enough to reduce significantly the number of people who suffer a stroke, say researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
The researchers think the vitamin works in a similar way to a diuretic, allowing the kidneys to remove more sodium and water from the body, and helping relax blood vessel walls.
The process suggests that vitamin C doesn’t directly reduce rates of cardiovascular disease, they caution.
Vitamin C is found in fruit and vegetables, and can also be taken as supplements.
(Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012; 95: 1079-88).
It is becoming increasingly clear that Big Pharma drugs are dangerous. It is also becoming increasingly clear that diet, exercise, and other medical therapies, such as Homeopathy, are far safer, and more effective than conventional medical treatment. So perhaps the solution to many health problems can be a little simpler than taking pharmaceutical drugs.
But from this mornings evidence, we cannot rely on the BBC telling us this. Indeed, they don't seem to be in the least interested!
Do GPs know but just don't bother to tell us?
It would seem that our doctor's/GPs know something about their medicine that they are not prepared to tell us!
New research suggests that when faced with a choice of treatments, doctors often choose a different option than they recommend to patients. The research was published on 11th April 2011, in the 'Archives of Internal Medicine'.
New research suggests that when faced with a choice of treatments, doctors often choose a different option than they recommend to patients. The research was published on 11th April 2011, in the 'Archives of Internal Medicine'.
"It's a pretty clear message: There's a discrepancy between what doctors recommend to their patients and to themselves," said Dr. Timothy Quill, author of an accompanying editorial in the journal.
Most people were aware that during the most recent (ConMed engineered) panic about Avian Flu that about 60% of GPs were not prepared to have the 'flu jab they were routinely recommending to patients. So perhaps they know something about the DIEs (disease-inducing-effects) of the drugs they recommend to us - but aren't prepared to tell us.
The misinformation about health stems from Governments, Drug Regulatory agencies, the Big Pharma drug companies, the NHS, the mainstream media (who refuse to tell us the truth); but at the end of this shameful process, it is GPs who have given us the toxic drugs that have caused such harm to our health for so long.
This makes the right of patients to choose the medical therapy of their choice more vital than ever. Patient choice is an important part of the UK government's health policy. We now have to ensure that they actually implement it. Patient's are not just looking for medicine that makes them better. They are looking for medicine that is safe.
