You know your a diabetic you inadvertently cut your finger and instead of saying "ouch, or damn" you response is,"Wow, that's a great drop of blood, where are my test strips and meter!"
You know your a Diabetic when a family member asks "how's it going?" And you respond. "Great my blood sugars have been like 110 and my A1C is 6!"
You know your a Diabetic when you look at the initials B.S. and think Blood Sugar, not Bull Shit.
You know your a Diabetic when you enter a party and immediately scope out where the food is, instead of looking to see if you know anyone.
You know your a Diabetic when you get really angry at someone (usually a stranger) who says:
"Oh, your take insulin and or wear an insulin pump? You must got the betes real bad!"
I swear I just want to punch that person!
You know your a Diabetic when your favorite foods are not just based on taste, but on carb count as well.
For example, I've loved strawberries since I was a kid. And not just because of the taste either, although that had a lot to do with it. I also loved strawberries because I could eat a whole cup of them, at least according to the ADA diet. I also refused to eat grapes when I was little because I could not fathom only eating 12. My reasoning as an 8 year old was, who eats only 12 grapes? forget about it!
Theres plenty more in my head, but I have to save them for another blog entry.
Please post your "You know your a diabetic when..." and we can start a whole Diabetesaliciousness section on it!
'Tryptophandango Brain" is Still In Progress
Tryptophandango Brain: WHen your brain is all sorts of wonky after ingesting A Thanksgiving turkey dinner and it's many leftover incarnations.
OK, since I'm all about honesty, I'm still experiencing the phenomena knows as 'Tryptophandango Brain," BIG TIME.
It’s been two days since my last Thanksgiving turkey leftover meal and for some reason, my brain is still tripped out on the tryptophan – at least as far as my diabetes and diabetes blog are concerned. Scratch, that - my Tryptophandango Brain is affecting all aspects of my life, diabetes and otherwise.
I'm still working the increased temporary basal rate thanks to my sinuses issues, which means that I’m constantly sniffling, and carrying an imaginary 50-pound weight on my nose.
I’m working on ½ a dozen blog posts/ diabetes articles, but none are completely finished yet.
National Diabetes Month comes to an end tomorrow and the holiday rush has officially started already.
My work schedule is starting to get busier and that makes me happy - I’m not stressed about work getting busier- I’m stressed about the other stuff.
Like right now, I’m gathering my tax receipts (which stress me out to no end) and reorganizing all sorts of things in my life. All good, but damn if they don’t cause me to stress!
Time goes by so quickly, and when I stop to think about all that’s happened in the past year, it blows my mind!
And then, when I think about what still needs to be done before years end, I come damn near close to stopping in my tracks and freaking out.
Does this happen to everyone during the Holidays, or am I the only one who's feeling like a deer caught in the tryptphandango headlights this time of year??
Homeopathy and Cancer (Healthy Medicine)
This blog was first published on the http://arh.blogspot.com/ blog, but was removed because of the difficulty in the UK discussing the medical treatment of cancer. With a few minor amendments, here it is.
Can homeopathy heal cancer? Well, no, of course it doesn't. The Cancer Act, 1939 does not allow any such claim to be made. Therefore, it is unusual for the mainstream media, but the Telegraph has recently retold the story of Gemma, and her recovery from cancer.
In 2010, my 'Homeopathy Safe Medicine' blog featured Gemma's story. It is, indeed, a quite a remarkable story. It is worth looking at these two articles in their own right, but also the responses to them, mainly made by homeopathy 'denialists', who, rather than being 'delighted' with the possibility that people claim that homeopathy has treated their cancer, do their best to rubbish all such stories. At the time of writing there are over 50 responses to the Telegraph article, and what they demonstrate is that the supporters of conventional medicine have no interest in such stories, and no intention of delving further.
"This is just and anacdotal, subjective experience - it is not science..."
"Homeopathy has never been shown to be better than placebo...."
"I just can't believe in homeopathy... it is quackery"
"It is cruel, because it raises people's hopes....."
"It is just 'spontaneous remission'...."
I know Gemma, and I know that she is pleased to be well. Indeed, she is pleased to be alive! So why do the denialists go out of their way to deny the evidence in from of them? And why does the Establishment support them?
Gemma's experience is not unique. Indeed, it is not even unusual. This is the story of Kaviraj. And this Kevin's story'. And these are just two that have appeared in my 'Homeopathy Safe Medicine blog.
There is much, much more; many more people who have tried homeopathy have found it to be both safe, free from awful adverse reactions, and effective. The whole topic of Homeopathy and cancer does need to be discussed, if only as a matter of information. So here are some recent articles on the subject.
* This article looks at how a homeopathic remedy emanating from Cuba is being used in the treatment of cancer in China.
* Homeopathy even works with animals that contract cancer. See this description of the homeopathic treatment of animals with cancer - and article that includes several case studies.
What this experience means is that homeopaths are being asked to treat cancer. Indeed, many homeopaths are developing programmes for doing so. Take this example - Welling Homeopathy have developed an interesting programme that focuses on the treatment of cancer.
* Even for people who want to go through the gruelling adverse effects of ConMed's cancer treatment, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, homeopathy can still be useful in combating some of this suppressive treatment.
So what should be done about homeopathy and cancer? Certainly, anyone looking seriously at developing more effective ways of treating cancer should not be dismissing any form of treatment out of hand - as the law appears to demand. Such an approach is a totally 'unscientific'. Science demands that the world is first observed, and then explained. Cancer patients deserve nothing less than this, unless we are all to assume that Big Pharma drug and radiation treatments are all that are available. There has to be a search for truth, and where possible, the development of new approaches to cancer.
As more people look towards homeopathy for treatment, homeopaths need to 'hone' their techniques and their strategies, not to deny them. And there is promising research evidence that suggests why we should be doing so.
* In particular, look at this article, which states that when considering the treatment of breast cancer, homeopathy should be doing this in conjunction with other natural therapies.
Of course, more scientific research should be done, both pure research into the impact highly diluted homeopathic remedies has on tumours, and through 'outcome' studies. As far as pure research is concerned, this process has already begun.
In this study, the Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer, 4 remedies were used, with interesting, and positive results.
And in this study, just one remedy, Ruta Grav, was studied for its effect on brain tumours, again interesting and positive results.
So there is increasing evidence that homeopathy has a part to play. Moshe Frenkel, MD., looks here at the evidence for homeopathy in the treatment of cancer in this paper. Unlike the homeopathy denialists, Frenkel comes to a proper science-based conclusion. He says that the existing data 'necessitates further studies'. He says that there are already two conclusions from what has already been done.
* First, homeopathic remedies 'appear to be safe and without adverse reactions'.
* Second, that there may be a role for homeopathy in improving the quality of life of cancer patients.
Yet because homeopathy is a safe and gentle form of medicine, in contrast to the toxicity of ConMed treatment, I would argue that it is the development of treatment that should be the main objective of homeopathy at this time. And much work has already been done here too, especially in India, and especially by Dr AU Ramakrishnan, who has developed a method of treatment, which he calls 'plussing'. He can make extraordinary claims of success over the past 20 years of practice. For instance, he claims a 73% success rate for breast cancer, 55% for stomach cancer, 75% for pancreatic cancer, 32% for liver cancer, 40% for colon cancer, 80% for prostate cancer, and so on.
A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer. Dr AU Ramakrishnan, Catherine R Coulter. Quality Medical Publishing. 2001.
Gemma's story in the Telegraph may be the start of something new and exciting. It means that a national newspaper has now been brave enough to publish a story about homeopathy and cancer. It could open the door for people with cancer, to try new treatments. It could provide an opportunity for the mainstream media to begin telling us more about such treatments. It could start a process within the NHS to compare and contrast the value of different treatments, even to offer them to people who might otherwise die of their cancers, or the toxic treatments that conventional medicine has been offering them now, for decades.
In 2010, my 'Homeopathy Safe Medicine' blog featured Gemma's story. It is, indeed, a quite a remarkable story. It is worth looking at these two articles in their own right, but also the responses to them, mainly made by homeopathy 'denialists', who, rather than being 'delighted' with the possibility that people claim that homeopathy has treated their cancer, do their best to rubbish all such stories. At the time of writing there are over 50 responses to the Telegraph article, and what they demonstrate is that the supporters of conventional medicine have no interest in such stories, and no intention of delving further.
"This is just and anacdotal, subjective experience - it is not science..."
"Homeopathy has never been shown to be better than placebo...."
"I just can't believe in homeopathy... it is quackery"
"It is cruel, because it raises people's hopes....."
"It is just 'spontaneous remission'...."
I know Gemma, and I know that she is pleased to be well. Indeed, she is pleased to be alive! So why do the denialists go out of their way to deny the evidence in from of them? And why does the Establishment support them?
Gemma's experience is not unique. Indeed, it is not even unusual. This is the story of Kaviraj. And this Kevin's story'. And these are just two that have appeared in my 'Homeopathy Safe Medicine blog.
There is much, much more; many more people who have tried homeopathy have found it to be both safe, free from awful adverse reactions, and effective. The whole topic of Homeopathy and cancer does need to be discussed, if only as a matter of information. So here are some recent articles on the subject.
* This article looks at how a homeopathic remedy emanating from Cuba is being used in the treatment of cancer in China.
* Homeopathy even works with animals that contract cancer. See this description of the homeopathic treatment of animals with cancer - and article that includes several case studies.
What this experience means is that homeopaths are being asked to treat cancer. Indeed, many homeopaths are developing programmes for doing so. Take this example - Welling Homeopathy have developed an interesting programme that focuses on the treatment of cancer.
* Even for people who want to go through the gruelling adverse effects of ConMed's cancer treatment, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, homeopathy can still be useful in combating some of this suppressive treatment.
So what should be done about homeopathy and cancer? Certainly, anyone looking seriously at developing more effective ways of treating cancer should not be dismissing any form of treatment out of hand - as the law appears to demand. Such an approach is a totally 'unscientific'. Science demands that the world is first observed, and then explained. Cancer patients deserve nothing less than this, unless we are all to assume that Big Pharma drug and radiation treatments are all that are available. There has to be a search for truth, and where possible, the development of new approaches to cancer.
As more people look towards homeopathy for treatment, homeopaths need to 'hone' their techniques and their strategies, not to deny them. And there is promising research evidence that suggests why we should be doing so.
* In particular, look at this article, which states that when considering the treatment of breast cancer, homeopathy should be doing this in conjunction with other natural therapies.
Of course, more scientific research should be done, both pure research into the impact highly diluted homeopathic remedies has on tumours, and through 'outcome' studies. As far as pure research is concerned, this process has already begun.
In this study, the Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer, 4 remedies were used, with interesting, and positive results.
And in this study, just one remedy, Ruta Grav, was studied for its effect on brain tumours, again interesting and positive results.
So there is increasing evidence that homeopathy has a part to play. Moshe Frenkel, MD., looks here at the evidence for homeopathy in the treatment of cancer in this paper. Unlike the homeopathy denialists, Frenkel comes to a proper science-based conclusion. He says that the existing data 'necessitates further studies'. He says that there are already two conclusions from what has already been done.
* First, homeopathic remedies 'appear to be safe and without adverse reactions'.
* Second, that there may be a role for homeopathy in improving the quality of life of cancer patients.
Yet because homeopathy is a safe and gentle form of medicine, in contrast to the toxicity of ConMed treatment, I would argue that it is the development of treatment that should be the main objective of homeopathy at this time. And much work has already been done here too, especially in India, and especially by Dr AU Ramakrishnan, who has developed a method of treatment, which he calls 'plussing'. He can make extraordinary claims of success over the past 20 years of practice. For instance, he claims a 73% success rate for breast cancer, 55% for stomach cancer, 75% for pancreatic cancer, 32% for liver cancer, 40% for colon cancer, 80% for prostate cancer, and so on.
A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer. Dr AU Ramakrishnan, Catherine R Coulter. Quality Medical Publishing. 2001.
Gemma's story in the Telegraph may be the start of something new and exciting. It means that a national newspaper has now been brave enough to publish a story about homeopathy and cancer. It could open the door for people with cancer, to try new treatments. It could provide an opportunity for the mainstream media to begin telling us more about such treatments. It could start a process within the NHS to compare and contrast the value of different treatments, even to offer them to people who might otherwise die of their cancers, or the toxic treatments that conventional medicine has been offering them now, for decades.
Health Spending brings down Governments, and bankrupts the Nation?
Spending money on health care has become a major political objective for every British government since the inauguration of the National Health Service in 1947. In every election, political parties have positioned themselves carefully so that the electorate would see them as major investors in health care.
The result has been that each successive government has sought outbid itself, and its predecessor, with little appreciable improvement in national health outcomes, but leading to a situation that has brought down governments, and spending on health is now coming close to bankrupting the nation
1951 General Election
The Labour manifesto in 1951, 4 years after the creation of the NHS, appealed to the electorate by contrasting Britain in the inter-war years with the new situation, brought about by the NHS. It spoke about the people’s dread of doctor's bills, and good healthcare costing more than most people could afford. They criticised the Tory opposition, who had consistently opposed the scheme.
"Now we have a national health scheme which is the admiration of the post-war world".
For their part, the Tories stated that "In Education and Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes we all held when we planned the improvements during the war".
Clearly, Labour were not spending enough - so they lost, and went into opposition for 13 years!
1964 General Election
Under the Conservative government, expenditure on the NHS increased, although never sufficient to satisfy the Labour opposition. The Conservatives said this in their 1964 manifesto, entitled 'A Healthy Nation'.
"The past thirteen years have seen improvements in the nation's health greater than in any comparable period. These advances we owe to medical science and the skill of the healing professions. They could only have been achieved against a background of rising living standards and continuously expanding health services such as Conservative Government is providing".
They went on to promise that every man, woman and child in the country would have access to the best treatment, and that their aim was to build or rebuild some 300 hospitals. There was also a promise to "improve and bring up to date the law controlling the safety and quality of drugs".
These promises were not sufficient. The Conservatives lost the election, and Labour returned to power.
1970 General Election
Labour lost again, despite their promises on health. They claimed to have doubled expenditure on hospital building, whilst local health and welfare expenditure "is now running at three times the level of just ten years ago". They promised a continued expansion of training on doctors, nurses and other staff, the continuation of "our great building programme", and inevitably, more changes in the administrative structure of the NHS.
Again, it was not enough, and Labour lost again.
1974 General Election
There is little or no mention of the NHS in the Conservative manifesto of this outgoing Tory administration – so perhaps it is little wonder that they lost!
In comparison, the Labour opposition made many health promises - to revise and expand the NHS, to abolish prescription charges, to introduce free family planning, to phase out private practice from the hospital service, and to transform the area health authorities into democratic bodies.
1979 General Election
After 5 years in power, the Labour Manifesto for this election was called 'A Healthier Nation'. It stated that it would gave 'priority to health', and attacked the Tory alternatives.
"We reject Tory plans to create two health services: one for the rich, financed by private insurance with a second-class service for the rest of us. Labour reaffirms its belief in a comprehensive national health service for all our people. We oppose Tory proposals for higher prescription charges and charges for seeing a doctor or being in hospital. Our aim is to abolish all charges in the NHS".
And Labour tried to defend its record from Conservative claims that it was cutting NHS budgets.
"For all the talk of cuts, the truth is that the Labour Government are spending over £600m a year more on health in real terms than the Tories. Labour will devote a higher proportion of the nation's wealth to the health service and the personal social services".
As usual, the problems of the NHS was also said to concern management rather than the medical treatment that was offered.
"We will streamline the bureaucratic and costly structure the Tories created and give a bigger say in running the NHS to the public and staff".
Needless to say, despite these promises Labour lost the election, and the Tories were destined to be in power for the next 18 years.
1997 General Election
Despite the low priority that the 11-year Thatcher government gave to public spending, the Tory manifesto of 1997 was prepared to defend its record.
"Government spending has concentrated on priorities, not wasteful bureaucracy and over-manning. Despite tough overall public spending plans, real spending on the NHS has risen nearly 75% since 1979". The Health Service is treating over 1 million more patients each year than before our reforms. The number of people waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment has fallen from over 200,000 in 1990 to 22,000 last year. The average wait has fallen from nearly 9 months to 4 months".
The Conservative government lost the election, and Labour was in power for 13 years, embarking on the biggest increase in NHS spending ever seen.
2010 General Election
The New Labour government cannot be accused of scrimping on the NHS for the 13 years of its existence! Indeed, it virtually bankrupted itself, and the country, in an effort to make the NHS, now completely dominated by the Conventional Medical Establishment, work properly! When they were defeated in this election NHS spending had reached close to £120 billion per annum. But it did not save them!
Nor could any political party admit at this time that NHS spending was a major factor in the nation’s financial difficulties! All the main parties campaigned to ‘ring-fence’ health spending even though it was known that massive government spending cuts would have to be enforced over the next few years.
The new Coalition Government decided to ‘ring-fence’ health spending, one of the few departments to be so privileged. And in order to do so the government is prepared to cut other departmental spending by as much as 40-50% over the life-time of the Parliament.
Clearly, government spending on ConMed has become not just a priority. It is now a sacred cow!
This article was first published in the e-book (The Failure of Conventional Medicine)
