Insulin Doubles Death Rate in Type 2 Diabetics

(Source)

HeConnection-Informed-Insulin Doubles Death rateA new study clearly documents that a standard treatment for type 2 diabetes is a killer. Insulin Doubles Death Rate in Type 2 Diabetics. The treatment justification has always been based on irrelevant criteria.

It seems so intuitive: People with diabetes should inject insulin. In the case of people with type 1 diabetes, in which the pancreas doesn’t produce sufficient insulin, that is usually true. However, modern doctors routinely give insulin to people with type 2 diabetes simply because it reduces blood sugar levels.

 

The reality, though, is that type 2 diabetics who take insulin injections die at more than double the rate of those given non-insulin treatment!

 

The Study

The study, Mortality and Other Important Diabetes-Related Outcomes With Insulin vs Other Antihyperglycemic Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes, investigated 84,622 primary care patients with type 2 diabetes from 2000 to 2010 and compared the results of these treatments:

  • Metformin monotherapy
  • Sulfonylurea monotherapy
  • Insulin monotherapy
  • Metformin plus Sulfonylurea combination therapy
  • Insulin plus Metformin combination therapy

These groups were compared for risks of certain severe adverse events: cardiac, cancer, and mortality. A primary outcome was defined as any one of these events occurring, but each such event was counted only once and only if it was the first adverse result. Any one of these events happening at any time, plus microvascular complications, counted as a secondary outcome. The results were dramatic.

Those on Metformin therapy had the lowest death rates, so that group was used as the reference.

In terms of primary outcome – that is, consideration of first adverse events only:

  • Sulfonylurea therapy resulted in patients being 1.4 times more likely to suffer one of these outcomes.
  • A combination of Metformin and Insulin resulted in 1.3 times greater risk.
  • Insulin therapy alone resulted in 1.8 times greater risk.
  • Those considered to be at greater risk because of glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c, AGEs] had as much as 2.2 times greater risk with Insulin therapy alone.

When considering any of these events happening, whether they were the first event or a subsequent one, the results were even more dramatic:

  • Insulin monotherapy resulted in:
    • 2.0 times more myocardial infarctions.
    • 1.7 time more major adverse cardiac events
    • 1.4 time more strokes
    • 3.5 times more renal complications
    • 2.1 time more neuropathy
    • 1.2 times more eye complications
    • 1.4 times more cancer
    • 2.2 times more deaths

 

Based on unsupported claims, thousands – and in the case of diabetes, millions – of people are placed on drugs and regimens that have never been demonstrated to have beneficial effect. The result is that the general public becomes a mass of guinea pigs for medical experimentation—experimentation that isn’t even documented and analyzed!

Redirection to Markers

Instead of looking at the outcomes that matter, substitutes are used. They’re called markers, which are intermediate results that are assumed to be indicative of benefit. In the case of insulin, the marker is blood sugar level. Insulin is required to transport glucose (blood sugar) into cells so that they can produce energy. Thus, insulin reduces blood sugar levels. If artificial pharmaceutical insulin brings blood sugar to more “normal” levels, then the treatment is considered successful.

Invalid Markers

As this study has demonstrated, markers are simply not a valid way to determine effectiveness of a treatment. In type 2 diabetes, the problem isn’t a lack of ability to produce insulin; neither is it high blood glucose. The problem is the cells’ ability to utilize insulin to transport glucose from blood into cells (insulin resistance).

The problem is that cells’ ability to use insulin has deteriorated. So, how can it be beneficial to give more insulin when cells are unable to utilize what’s already there? Clearly, that’s counterproductive.

Yet, that’s precisely what doctors do! They give insulin to replace insulin, when a lack of insulin isn’t the problem! It should come as no surprise that the real concerns of anyone being treated for type 2 diabetes are not usually answered by insulin treatment.

As this study has demonstrated, forcing insulin into the body actually results in worse outcomes. How many decades has this treatment been in vogue? All that time it’s been justified because it reduces blood sugar. But the effects that count—quality of life and longevity—haven’t been considered.

Health-e-Solutions comment: Insulin is the “friend” of type 1 diabetics, and we are glad it is available. It may not be the best treatment option for a type 2 diabetic, according to this research. We think the first priority should be placed on healthy lifestyle choices, regardless of the type of diabetes you may have. There is no substitute for eliminating the triggers and drivers of diabetes, many of which are in our power to control to a great extent. People with Type 1 diabetes can experience much greater blood sugar control by changing their diet and lifestyle, and so can people with type 2 diabetes.

Recipe-e-books-Rays--Insulin Doubles Death rateKey to successful implementation of the Health-e-Solutions lifestyle, is having great-tasting recipes the whole family can enjoy. To that end, we have created several recipe e-books from which to choose the options that best fit your needs. All of our immediately-downloadable recipe e-book options are specially designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who want to make a healthier diet a priority. Both of our type 1 diabetic boys and our whole family enjoy these delicious recipes with great success controlling blood glucose levels.

Journal Reference: Mortality and Other Important Diabetes-Related Outcomes With Insulin vs Other Antihyperglycemic Therapies in Type 2 DiabetesJournal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Craig J. Currie, Chris D. Poole, Marc Evans, John R. Peters and Christopher Ll. Morgan; doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3042