Metformin - Anti Aging, Anti Cancer

[randyf]

Here's another recent paper discussing the anti cancer, anti aging
benefits of Metformin.
If you take this stuff, it's probably doing alot more good than you
might realize.

http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v5/n5/full/100556.html

//*******************
Metformin, aging and cancer
Olga Moiseeva, Xavier-Deschênes-Simard, Michael Pollak, and Gerardo
Ferbeyre

Many cancers are associated with aging [1]. Metformin, a widely used
antidiabetic drug, has been linked to a reduced cancer incidence in
some retrospective, hypothesis-generating studies [2]. Since cancer
and aging may share certain molecular processes, it is plausible that
metformin may prevent cancer by acting on the aging process.
Consistent with this idea, several studies report a life span
extension in animal models after treatment with metformin [3].

//*******************

Randy

[Julie Bove]

I just read this last night but can't remember where!

[mainframetech]

Hmm. My experience with statins was that as people found out that
much research said statins didn't do anything for heart events and
strokes, and sales fell off a bit, studies were popping up saying that
statins weren't good for lowering cholesterol for heart purposes, they
were good for inflammation (I've talked to doctors who bought that
one) and that lowered heart events and strokes. When that began to
fall off, statins were good for all sorts of things. When word came
out that statins lowering cholesterol may cause Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's due to the need for cholesterol for the nervous system,
studies came out saying that statins were good for Alzheimer's.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012-04-04-alzheimers-statin-cure-claims-unfounded/

Same for diabetes, which as we know now is sometimes a side effect of
statins.
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Guide-to-Diabetes-extra-pages/Statins/

In time maybe they'll announce statins are good for flaky dandruff
to keep sales up.

Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
capability to reduce the effects of 2 od the most feared things to
many people, aging and cancer. It seems they don't yet have a handle
on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
to get on that drug.

Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? I
haven't a clue. But the method of telling the world about it is
familiar. And it will sell a lot of Metformin. I don't even know if
folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.

Chris

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Julie Bove plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

> randyf wrote:
>> Here's another recent paper discussing the anti cancer, anti aging
>> benefits of Metformin.
>> If you take this stuff, it's probably doing alot more good than you
>> might realize.
>>
>> http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v5/n5/full/100556.html
>>
>> //*******************
>> Metformin, aging and cancer

>> Olga Moiseeva, Xavier-Deschï¿œnes-Simard, Michael Pollak, and Gerardo

>> Ferbeyre
>>
>> Many cancers are associated with aging [1]. Metformin, a widely used
>> antidiabetic drug, has been linked to a reduced cancer incidence in
>> some retrospective, hypothesis-generating studies [2]. Since cancer
>> and aging may share certain molecular processes, it is plausible that
>> metformin may prevent cancer by acting on the aging process.
>> Consistent with this idea, several studies report a life span
>> extension in animal models after treatment with metformin [3].
>>
>> //*******************
>>
>> Randy
>
> I just read this last night but can't remember where!

So this stuff is also good for memory loss :/
M.

[wmmckee]

As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my PCP
physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about....

Will, T2

[vittyguy]

"As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my PCP
physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about...."

It was discontinued because the kidney is the main way it is removed from
the body. Otherwise it would build up to toxic levels in kidney failure.

The metformin has nothing to do with kidney failure in the sense of a cause
and those who use it can have complete ease of mind on this point. It does
not cause kidney failure.

[W. Baker]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: On May 15, 8:23?pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
: > Here's another recent paper discussing the anti cancer, anti aging
: > benefits of Metformin.
: > If you take this stuff, it's probably doing alot more good than you
: > might realize.
: >
: > http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v5/n5/full/100556.html
: >
: > //*******************
: > Metformin, aging and cancer

: > Olga Moiseeva, Xavier-Desch?nes-Simard, Michael Pollak, and Gerardo

Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap. No one woudl make a killing
out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks. I costs less than many
many supplements that people take.

Wendy

[W. Baker]

wmmckee <wmm...@cox.net> wrote:
: As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my PCP

: physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
: contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about....

: Will, T2

Good t see you posting!!!!

It is bad once you have kidney failure or issues, but it does not cause
them.

Wendy

[Julie Bove]

mainframetech wrote:
> Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> capability to reduce the effects of 2 od the most feared things to
> many people, aging and cancer. It seems they don't yet have a handle
> on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> to get on that drug.
>
> Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? I
> haven't a clue. But the method of telling the world about it is
> familiar. And it will sell a lot of Metformin. I don't even know if
> folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.

What newer meds are supposed to be better than Metformin? I haven't heard
of any.

[Julie Bove]

Yes. My friend was taken off of it for the same reason.

[Julie Bove]

He didn't say that it caused it. But when you have it, you can't take it.
Not sure why.

[Ozlover]

W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]

> : Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> : capability to reduce the effects of 2 od the most feared things to
> : many people, aging and cancer. It seems they don't yet have a handle
> : on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> : risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> : to get on that drug.
>
> : Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? I
> : haven't a clue. But the method of telling the world about it is
> : familiar. And it will sell a lot of Metformin. I don't even know if
> : folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> : drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> : is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
>
> : Chris
>
> Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap. No one woudl make a killing
> out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks. I costs less than many
> many supplements that people take.

Don't confuse mainframetech with pesky little things like facts!

Do you think it's *easy* to come up with these paranoid conspiracy
theories!? And you destroy yet another one with a single sentence!?
Shame on you!

--
Frank Slootweg

[outsider]

The question is what stage kidney failure is the official recommended
cutoff. I took myself off and my PCP simply went along with my decision.

I don't want to be more of a pain in the ass than I usually am about
this, but the more I read and see the better insulin as the primary
solution to T2 appears. I haven't seen any detrimental side effects
as yet.

[mainframetech]

On May 16, 11:52 am, Maya Zuiderweg <

$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Julie Bove plaatste dit op zijn scherm :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > randyf wrote:
> >> Here's another recent paper discussing the anti cancer, anti aging
> >> benefits of Metformin.
> >> If you take this stuff, it's probably doing alot more good than you
> >> might realize.
>
> >>http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v5/n5/full/100556.html
>
> >> //*******************
> >> Metformin, aging and cancer

> >> Olga Moiseeva, Xavier-Desch nes-Simard, Michael Pollak, and Gerardo

> >> Ferbeyre
>
> >> Many cancers are associated with aging [1]. Metformin, a widely used
> >> antidiabetic drug, has been linked to a reduced cancer incidence in
> >> some retrospective, hypothesis-generating studies [2]. Since cancer
> >> and aging may share certain molecular processes, it is plausible that
> >> metformin may prevent cancer by acting on the aging process.
> >> Consistent with this idea, several studies report a life span
> >> extension in animal models after treatment with metformin [3].
>
> >> //*******************
>
> >> Randy
>
> > I just read this last night but can't remember where!
>
> So this stuff is also good for memory loss :/
> M.

Seems there's other that do that too!

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 16, 3:47 pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:

> :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012...

>
> : Same for diabetes, which as we know now is sometimes a side effect of
> : statins.

> :http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Guide-to-Diabetes-extra-...

>
> :    In time maybe they'll announce statins are good for flaky dandruff
> : to keep sales up.
>
> :   Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> : capability to reduce the effects of  2 od the most feared things to
> : many people, aging and cancer.  It seems they don't yet have a handle
> : on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> : risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> : to get on that drug.
>
> :    Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging?  I
> : haven't a clue.  But the method of telling the world about it is
> : familiar.  And it will sell a lot of Metformin.  I don't even know if
> : folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> : drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> : is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
>
> : Chris
>
> Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap.  No one woudl make a killing
> out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks.  I costs less than many
> many supplements that people take.
>
> Wendy

Are the sales slowing down?

Chris

[mainframetech]

There's always something in the pipeline.

Chris

[outsider]

More study is needed before that sort of unequivocal statement has
validity.

[mainframetech]

On May 16, 4:05 pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:

Oh, I don't mind facts. Looking around I see a few 'alternatives'
to Metformin, but not any that are going to take over for it soon. So
if there's any 'conspiracy' it would have to be to get folks to take
more Metformin just to raise the income on a drug that isn't pulling
in the old high profits anymore and has to deal in volume. There's
always a conspiracy somewhere...:)

Chris

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider formuleerde de vraag :

I agree. But does one get coverage for strips? As one mostly measures
more often when taking insulin. (Here no coverage).
Only coverage for 4 per day when type 1.
And/or when using a pump.
M.

[Elissa45]

Agreed. Per my particular nephrologist, people with kidney disease are
more prone to developing lactic acidosis and, should it happen, it can
become fatal in no time flat. He told me that he had just, that week,
become aware of another such case. Each time I have an appointment
with him, he mentions not just Metformin, but ibuprofen. He has told
me that ibuprofen can directly damage kidneys. I very much miss both
of those drugs and wish there were something as effective, but safe,
for those of us with renal disease.

Regards,

Elissa
Type 2, 38+ years

[vittyguy]

Metformin is perhaps the single most studied med for diabetes. It has been
around for decades now and used by millions and any such relationship to
kidney failure would have long ago appeared. The inserts that come with
meds are based on reports during research and as reported in actual use.

Read the insert for metformin and see most side effects are gastric in
nature and none are related to kidney failure. In the pharmacy history of
any med it does not get any better or more certain then that.

[Opple0påd]

Some insurance companies in the USA including Medicare try to limit
the number of BG test strips any kind of diabetic can get covered.
Thankfully the company that is paid to manage my healthcare plan does
not have the right to limit or deny any coverage for anything without
getting final approval from the company that pays them and I work for.
They tried to limit me to 5 test strips per day. One phone call to my
company rep ended that BS behavior immediately. That same management
company is limiting test strips to other diabetic working for other
companies. Those companies do not maintain the control over the
health plans like my company does. Hopefully they will take out a
class action law suit against Humana and hit them where it hurts them
the most, their bank account.

[outsider]

I'll repeat my statement that remains valid:

More study is needed before that sort of unequivocal statement
has validity."

See articles on the topic at

http://tinyurl.com/ch5sm83

Especially the article entitled "Acute kidney failure and severe
lactic acidosis caused by metformin successfully treated with
hemodialysis]."

Clearly you fail to understand that making the sort of claim you've
made is not logically supportable. If you had claimed, "It appears
that metformin does not cause kidney disease" then I would have
remained in silent agreement. As matters stand, you've doubled up
on your error, and there is some scholarly discussion (which your
claims are not) that metformin *may* sometimes cause kidney disease.

OTOH it is possible that lactic acidosis induced by metformin
generally kills patients before kidney disease has a chance to
manifest.

Parting thought: Absolutism is the refuge of a religious personality.

[outsider]

On 5/16/2013 7:53 PM, Susan wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes

>
> On 5/16/2013 8:04 PM, vitty guy wrote:
>
>> Metformin is perhaps the single most studied med for diabetes. It has
>> been
>> around for decades now and used by millions and any such relationship to
>> kidney failure would have long ago appeared. The inserts that come with
>> meds are based on reports during research and as reported in actual use.
>>
>> Read the insert for metformin and see most side effects are gastric in
>> nature and none are related to kidney failure. In the pharmacy
>> history of
>> any med it does not get any better or more certain then that.
>

> Metformin causes potassium loss, interferes with endogenous steroid
> functions and ability to withstand stress, and depletes the body of B12.
>
> Susan

It isn't the claimed panacea.

[W. Baker]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: On May 16, 3:47?pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: > mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On May 15, 8:23?pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
: > : > Here's another recent paper discussing the anti cancer, anti aging
: > : > benefits of Metformin.
: > : > If you take this stuff, it's probably doing alot more good than you
: > : > might realize.
: > : >
: > : >http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v5/n5/full/100556.html
: > : >
: > : > //*******************
: > : > Metformin, aging and cancer
: > : > Olga Moiseeva, Xavier-Desch?nes-Simard, Michael Pollak, and Gerardo
: > : > Ferbeyre
: > : >
: > : > Many cancers are associated with aging [1]. Metformin, a widely used
: > : > antidiabetic drug, has been linked to a reduced cancer incidence in
: > : > some retrospective, hypothesis-generating studies [2]. Since cancer
: > : > and aging may share certain molecular processes, it is plausible that
: > : > metformin may prevent cancer by acting on the aging process.
: > : > Consistent with this idea, several studies report a life span
: > : > extension in animal models after treatment with metformin [3].
: > : >
: > : > //*******************
: > : >
: > : > Randy
: >

: > : ? Hmm. ?My experience with statins was that as people found out that

: > : much research said statins didn't do anything for heart events and
: > : strokes, and sales fell off a bit, studies were popping up saying that
: > : statins weren't good for lowering cholesterol for heart purposes, they
: > : were good for inflammation (I've talked to doctors who bought that

: > : one) and that lowered heart events and strokes. ?When that began to
: > : fall off, statins were good for all sorts of things. ?When word came

: > : out that statins lowering cholesterol may cause Alzheimer's and
: > : Parkinson's due to the need for cholesterol for the nervous system,
: > : studies came out saying that statins were good for Alzheimer's.
: > :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012...
: >
: > : Same for diabetes, which as we know now is sometimes a side effect of
: > : statins.
: > :http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Guide-to-Diabetes-extra-...
: >

: > : ? ?In time maybe they'll announce statins are good for flaky dandruff
: > : to keep sales up.
: >
: > : ? Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
: > : capability to reduce the effects of ?2 od the most feared things to
: > : many people, aging and cancer. ?It seems they don't yet have a handle

: > : on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
: > : risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
: > : to get on that drug.
: >

: > : ? ?Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? ?I
: > : haven't a clue. ?But the method of telling the world about it is
: > : familiar. ?And it will sell a lot of Metformin. ?I don't even know if

: > : folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
: > : drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
: > : is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
: >
: > : Chris
: >

: > Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap. ?No one woudl make a killing
: > out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks. ?I costs less than many

: > many supplements that people take.
: >
: > Wendy

: Are the sales slowing down?

: Chris

I have no figures, but it still is sugessted as the first drug to give a
type 2 diabetic over the sulfs and the more expensive injectibles lik
Byetta, and the others in that catagory.

Wendy

[W. Baker]

outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

There is, often, weight gain particularly if peole are less careful about
what they eat and cover it wihth insulin. There are, of course, critical
problems with dosages and the increased likihood of hypoglycemia and all
its concommitant problems, including death. There is a great deal of care
necessary to use it correctly, partcularly if not someone who is willing
to study the situation and learn about foods, exercise, etc that can cause
success or failure with insulin treatment.

Wendy

[Julie Bove]

"Maya Zuiderweg" <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote in
message news:XoudnWCoH8l7_QjM...@giganews.com...

If you have insurance the strips are usually covered. You might not get
them for free though.

I was just reading a magazine on Tues. but I read many so can't remember
which one. There was an article on type 2 and it said that insulin was the
*worst* treatment and should only used as a last resort. Reasons being
weight gain and the subsequent added inflammation of dumping more insulin on
top of already waaaay too much insulin. The article said that there were
probably far more people running around with excess insulin (who have not
been diagnosed as prediabetic but should be) than there are prediabetics
with slightly elevated BG. I probably agree. I am just lucky that I saw
the signs with Angela and got her in to the specialist because her other
Drs. just blew it off. But I see these same signs in countless others and
they remain undiagnosed. Mainly the rapid weight gain and acanthosis
nigracans (darkened skin).

[Julie Bove]

And that's scary stuff! Happened to a woman in my diabetes support group in
CA who also went to my same Endo. When it first started, rather than go to
the hospital, she called the Dr. That particular Dr. rarely returned calls
in a timely fashion. Except for the time that I left him a message and by
the time he got it, it had gotten bungled into my having syphilis! Got an
immediate and freaked out phone call there. I was like... Psoriasis! It
was in my ears. Anyway... She was trying to get an appointment or
something and that didn't work. So she drove herself up there, somehow and
then passed out on the waiting room floor. That got her the attention she
needed. Fortunately the Drs. office was in a hospital and she remained
there for several days.

[Julie Bove]

I don't think anyone said that it did cause it. But if you *have* it, you
are not supposed to use this med.

[Julie Bove]

It is also widely prescribed for prediabetes and PCOS. In fact I think it
is the only med for those things.

[outsider]

I weigh very close to the same as I did before I switched over to
insulin in 2005. It was Prednisone that was causing me grief after
vascular surgery and no amount of oral medications could clear up
those problems. Post op they used insulin at Mayo, and I came home
back on oral meds. A few days later I was at a BG of ~400 and hadn't
had my dinner yet.

Idiots who chase BG levels caused by overeating with insulin are the
same folks who chase high BG levels caused by overeating with extra
oral meds. Some years back I knew a fellow who would pop an extra
pill or 2 whenever he was going to a family gathering so he could eat
whatever he wanted. He didn't quite make it 5 years from diagnosis to
death.

[randyf]

On May 16, 2:47 pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : On May 15, 8:23?pm, randyf <ra...@val.com> wrote:
> : > Here's another recent paper discussing the anti cancer, anti aging
> : > benefits of Metformin.
> : > If you take this stuff, it's probably doing alot more good than you
> : > might realize.
> : >
> : >http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v5/n5/full/100556.html
> : >
> : > //*******************
> : > Metformin, aging and cancer
> : > Olga Moiseeva, Xavier-Desch?nes-Simard, Michael Pollak, and Gerardo
> : > Ferbeyre
> : >
> : > Many cancers are associated with aging [1]. Metformin, a widely used
> : > antidiabetic drug, has been linked to a reduced cancer incidence in
> : > some retrospective, hypothesis-generating studies [2]. Since cancer
> : > and aging may share certain molecular processes, it is plausible that
> : > metformin may prevent cancer by acting on the aging process.
> : > Consistent with this idea, several studies report a life span
> : > extension in animal models after treatment with metformin [3].
> : >
> : > //*******************
> : >
> : > Randy
>

> :   Hmm.  My experience with statins was that as people found out that

> : much research said statins didn't do anything for heart events and
> : strokes, and sales fell off a bit, studies were popping up saying that
> : statins weren't good for lowering cholesterol for heart purposes, they
> : were good for inflammation (I've talked to doctors who bought that

> : one) and that lowered heart events and strokes.  When that began to
> : fall off, statins were good for all sorts of things.  When word came

> : out that statins lowering cholesterol may cause Alzheimer's and
> : Parkinson's due to the need for cholesterol for the nervous system,
> : studies came out saying that statins were good for Alzheimer's.
> :http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2012...
>
> : Same for diabetes, which as we know now is sometimes a side effect of
> : statins.
> :http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Guide-to-Diabetes-extra-...
>

> :    In time maybe they'll announce statins are good for flaky dandruff
> : to keep sales up.
>
> :   Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> : capability to reduce the effects of  2 od the most feared things to
> : many people, aging and cancer.  It seems they don't yet have a handle

> : on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> : risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> : to get on that drug.
>

> :    Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging?  I

> : haven't a clue.  But the method of telling the world about it is
> : familiar.  And it will sell a lot of Metformin.  I don't even know if

> : folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> : drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> : is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
>
> : Chris

Wendy wrote:
> Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap.  No one woudl make a killing
> out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks.  I costs less than many

> many supplements that people take.

Exactly - thanks!!

Also, as I recall, metformin was originally an herbal extract, not a
lab invention.
If the supplement folks had their way they would sell it OTC.

Randy

[Don Roberto]

On 5/16/2013 6:11 AM, mainframetech wrote:

> I haven't a clue.

Yep. You sure don't.

[Don Roberto]

After D & E fails.
It never ceases to amaze me how little play exercise gets here compared
to food.

I haven't seen any detrimental side effects
> as yet.
>

The problem's "the delivery".
AND the stigma of the syringe.

[Don Roberto]

Only if you are paranoid.

[Don Roberto]

You are absolutely correct!

[outsider]

On 5/17/2013 7:03 AM, Don Roberto wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 2:36 PM, outsider wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 1:13 PM, wmmckee wrote:
>>> As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my PCP
>>> physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
>>> contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about....
>>>
>>> Will, T2
>>
>> The question is what stage kidney failure is the official recommended
>> cutoff. I took myself off and my PCP simply went along with my decision.
>>
>> I don't want to be more of a pain in the ass than I usually am about
>> this, but the more I read and see the better insulin as the primary
>> solution to T2 appears.
>
>
> After D & E fails.

AFAIC D&E never fails. It is abandoned. I can hear the excuses already,
"Well it didn't work for me." Of course not. Watching exercise programs
on TV won't do a thing for you!

> It never ceases to amaze me how little play exercise gets here compared
> to food.

We have one poster here who frequently discusses how many pushups he's
done, and another who has posted about her city blocks covered using
her walker. They've not been met with accolades, though they probably
should have been.

I have 5 sessions remaining in my cardiac rehab program that medicare
authorizes for 36. I'll be finishing that quite soon at the allowed
3 sessions a week. After that it is back to the machines I have at home,
a Schwinn exercise bike, a recumbent exercise bike, and a treadmill when
my knee allows it and as much outdoor work (spring is finally here) as
this body will allow.

My surgery was in December and I lost about 3 months afterward, in a
state of limbo while so sleep deprived. So my "recovery period," as I
count it, is now approaching 2 months. I don't have the stamina I think
I should and that's tough to fight through at the best of times. I think
I'm hitting that surmountable wall that causes so many to abandon D&E
but I won't let that happen.

>
> I haven't seen any detrimental side effects
>> as yet.
>>
>
> The problem's "the delivery".
> AND the stigma of the syringe.

Amazingly it is no different from the stigma of wearing glasses is
to a child. OTOH I took to glasses readily because I got a test (on
the blackboard) problem wrong because I was unable to see the decimal
point and I didn't want any repeats. "But Sister, I didn't see the
decimal point." And her answer, "I've heard that a lot over the years,
no I'm not changing your test grade. Besides, 90% is nothing to be
ashamed of"

My Stigma? Not getting that 100%, to hell with the stigma of wearing
glasses! I could never envision avoiding a solution on account of
*any* sort of vanity.

[outsider]

In this world economy, the reason why prices drop is that there are more
manufacturers willing to make a particular product at a lower price.

I've been looking for a really good conspiracy for a while now, but
haven't found one.

[W. Baker]

Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
: >

: The problem's "the delivery".

: AND the stigma of the syringe.

but some of the new drugs also use the syringe like /byetta, /Vistosa, etc
adn peole seem to be willing to go on those.

Wendy

[Maya Zuiderweg]

W. Baker schreef :

Yeah, thats why BGstrips are needed. And a BGmeter. And a good mind to
use them both well.

Overeating is not needed at all, nor is weightgain.
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Opple0pï¿œd plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

Good for you. The day before yeasterday I phoned the Diabetes
Vereniging Nederland, they have all the information about (different)
insurances, covering the costs of strips, of BGmeters, and a lot more.
I thought I had read somewhere that there was an alteration in the
coverage of strips per day, i.e. MORE coverage re costs.
No way. Its even worse than before.
Some years ago one had to prove (via specialist)that one used insulin,
that was enough to get coverage for 4 strips per day.
Right now thats not enough anymore. Specialist must fill in forms to
prove that one has type 1 and/or use a pump.
All these people with type whatever, but DO use insulin, dont get
coverage anymore.
Insurance companies make the rules here, which is a bloody shame, as
they only are interested in making heaps of money for themselves.
Patients? What alien species is that :-(
M.

[Opple0påd]

"Stigma of the syringe"?

In more than 40 years injecting insulin I have never experienced this.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Opple0pï¿œd plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

New adventures, changing horizon.
M.

[Opple0påad]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 18:42:27 +0200, Maya Zuiderweg
<$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:

>Opple0påd plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

Only for those seeking low self esteem.

[Oldmilret]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:36:26 -0500, outsider
<outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

>On 5/16/2013 1:13 PM, wmmckee wrote:
>> As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my PCP
>> physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
>> contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about....
>>
>> Will, T2
>
>The question is what stage kidney failure is the official recommended
>cutoff. I took myself off and my PCP simply went along with my decision.

My kidney doc said for me off Metformin if Creatinine greater than 1.6

>I don't want to be more of a pain in the ass than I usually am about
>this, but the more I read and see the better insulin as the primary

>solution to T2 appears. I haven't seen any detrimental side effects
>as yet.

[Ozlover]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:53 pm, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:

> > mainframetech wrote:
> > >   Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> > > capability to reduce the effects of  2 od the most feared things to
> > > many people, aging and cancer.  It seems they don't yet have a handle
> > > on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> > > risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> > > to get on that drug.
> >
> > >    Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging?  I
> > > haven't a clue.  But the method of telling the world about it is
> > > familiar.  And it will sell a lot of Metformin.  I don't even know if
> > > folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> > > drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> > > is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
> >

> > What newer meds are supposed to be better than Metformin?  I haven't heard
> > of any.
>
> There's always something in the pipeline.

Sure! No real alternative in *55 years*, but for our resident paranoid
conspiracy theorist "There's always something in the pipeline.". Sure,
they just have to find a way to make pigs fly and right after that there
will be a new and better metformin replacement. Can't wait!

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

Can't we make it a supplement (according to Randy it already was/is)?
That makes it perfectly safe by definition! Problem solved.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
[...]

> Good for you. The day before yeasterday I phoned the Diabetes
> Vereniging Nederland, they have all the information about (different)
> insurances, covering the costs of strips, of BGmeters, and a lot more.
> I thought I had read somewhere that there was an alteration in the
> coverage of strips per day, i.e. MORE coverage re costs.
> No way. Its even worse than before.
> Some years ago one had to prove (via specialist)that one used insulin,
> that was enough to get coverage for 4 strips per day.
> Right now thats not enough anymore. Specialist must fill in forms to
> prove that one has type 1 and/or use a pump.
> All these people with type whatever, but DO use insulin, dont get
> coverage anymore.
> Insurance companies make the rules here, which is a bloody shame, as
> they only are interested in making heaps of money for themselves.
> Patients? What alien species is that :-(
> M.

Maya, as I said before, please don't make blanket statements about the
policies of Dutch insurance companies, because the *is no* single
policy!

Case in point: As you know, I'm a med using T2 and get free strips.

What the Diabetes Vereniging Nederland probably meant is the *minumum*
benefits which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual*
benefits which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. AFAIK,
the actual benefits also depend on the level of insurance you have, i.e.
yes/no additional ("aanvullende") insurance and *which* additional
insurance.

FYI, a few days ago I was at my doctor's (GP's) office and asked for a
prescription for more strips, he did it right away and on his screen it
said "depending on contract" ("afhakelijk van kontrakt").

Botto line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)
providing strips.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 4:05 pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]

> > > :   Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> > > : capability to reduce the effects of  2 od the most feared things to
> > > : many people, aging and cancer.  It seems they don't yet have a handle
> > > : on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> > > : risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> > > : to get on that drug.
> >
> > > :    Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging?  I
> > > : haven't a clue.  But the method of telling the world about it is
> > > : familiar.  And it will sell a lot of Metformin.  I don't even know if
> > > : folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> > > : drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> > > : is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
> >

> > > : Chris
> >
> > > Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap.  No one woudl make a killing
> > > out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks.  I costs less than many
> > > many supplements that people take.
> >
> >   Don't confuse mainframetech with pesky little things like facts!
> >
> >   Do you think it's *easy* to come up with these paranoid conspiracy
> > theories!? And you destroy yet another one with a single sentence!?
> > Shame on you!
> >
> > --
> > Frank Slootweg
>
> Oh, I don't mind facts. Looking around I see a few 'alternatives'
> to Metformin, but not any that are going to take over for it soon. So
> if there's any 'conspiracy' it would have to be to get folks to take
> more Metformin just to raise the income on a drug that isn't pulling
> in the old high profits anymore and has to deal in volume. There's
> always a conspiracy somewhere...:)

Good! After your initial dodge attempt, you gave a rather accurate
description of your earlier posted paranoid conspiracy theory.

QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.

--
Frank Slootweg

[vittyguy]

> Metformin is perhaps the single most studied med for diabetes. It has
been
> around for decades now and used by millions and any such relationship to
> kidney failure would have long ago appeared. The inserts that come with
> meds are based on reports during research and as reported in actual use.
>
> Read the insert for metformin and see most side effects are gastric in
> nature and none are related to kidney failure. In the pharmacy history
of
> any med it does not get any better or more certain then that.

"Metformin causes potassium loss, interferes with endogenous steroid
functions and ability to withstand stress, and depletes the body of B12."

Thanks for the confirmation, no sign of kidney problems in sight. Have you
read the insert for aspirin, it has perhaps more items. During research,
and metformin has had tons of it, all possible side effects that showed up
no matter in how few and how rare and how dubious the connection are
listed. One can be quite sure that almost any substance we consume,
including foods, will have side effects.

[Julie Bove]

"Maya Zuiderweg" <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote in

message news:lY2dnY1go5nEygvM...@giganews.com...
> Opple0p�d plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

That's terrible!

[mainframetech]

On May 17, 12:14 pm, Maya Zuiderweg <
$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Opple0p d plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

Ah. Insurance companies! Another group of corporations I can be
paranoid about, along with the drug companies...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On May 17, 3:49 pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

That's what they depend on...pure faith...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

I'm sure that is the case, but I'm just as sure that insurance
companies will work toward having to pay out less on any claim or
account no matter the level of contract. It's a given, as with any
corporation wanting to lower labor costs.

Chris

[vittyguy]

> Thanks for the confirmation, no sign of kidney problems in sight. Have
you
> read the insert for aspirin, it has perhaps more items.

"Yeah, and I've had a lot of bad reactions to aspirin. I know folks who've
had sudden kidney failure from ibuprofen."

And one assumes it is listed as one side effect, and it is not aspirin nor
metformin; to return to the topic.

> During research,
> and metformin has had tons of it, all possible side effects that showed
up
> no matter in how few and how rare and how dubious the connection are
> listed. One can be quite sure that almost any substance we consume,
> including foods, will have side effects.

"Some are essential and some are not.

Some have more benefits than risks, sometimes your illness cannot be
controlled without a particular drug."

And thereffore ...?

"Metformin isn't one of those drugs."

But it is one which is effective and safe and has multiple benefits in
diabetics.

"And the potassium loss/electrolyte imbalance and b12 deficiency disorders
are neglected by physicians, and not well reported on."

Irrelevant what docs do, take a multivitamin with minerals and it is good
to go. Not to mention that both can easily be replaced in very common
foods.

Bottom line and the topic, metformin does not cause kidney failure.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover had uiteengezet :
> mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On May 16, 4:05ï¿œpm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...]

>>>>> ￜ Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
>>>>> capability to reduce the effects of ￜ2 od the most feared things to
>>>>> many people, aging and cancer. ï¿œIt seems they don't yet have a handle

>>>>> on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
>>>>> risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
>>>>> to get on that drug.
>>>

>>>>> ￜ ￜIs Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? ￜI
>>>>> haven't a clue. ï¿œBut the method of telling the world about it is
>>>>> familiar. ï¿œAnd it will sell a lot of Metformin. ï¿œI don't even know if

>>>>> folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
>>>>> drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
>>>>> is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
>>>>> Chris
>>>

>>>> Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap. ï¿œNo one woudl make a killing
>>>> out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks. ï¿œI costs less than many

>>>> many supplements that people take.
>>>

>>> ￜ Don't confuse mainframetech with pesky little things like facts!
>>>
>>> ￜ Do you think it's *easy* to come up with these paranoid conspiracy

>>> theories!? And you destroy yet another one with a single sentence!?
>>> Shame on you!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frank Slootweg
>>
>> Oh, I don't mind facts. Looking around I see a few 'alternatives'
>> to Metformin, but not any that are going to take over for it soon. So
>> if there's any 'conspiracy' it would have to be to get folks to take
>> more Metformin just to raise the income on a drug that isn't pulling
>> in the old high profits anymore and has to deal in volume. There's
>> always a conspiracy somewhere...:)
>
> Good! After your initial dodge attempt, you gave a rather accurate
> description of your earlier posted paranoid conspiracy theory.
>
> QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.

NK? No Kiss :/
M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Na rijp beraad schreef mainframetech :

> On May 17, 3:49ï¿œpm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On May 16, 3:53ï¿œpm, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@frontier.com> wrote:
>>>> mainframetech wrote:

>>>>> ￜ Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
>>>>> capability to reduce the effects of ￜ2 od the most feared things to
>>>>> many people, aging and cancer. ï¿œIt seems they don't yet have a handle

>>>>> on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
>>>>> risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
>>>>> to get on that drug.
>>

>>>>> ￜ ￜIs Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? ￜI

>>>>> haven't a clue. ï¿œBut the method of telling the world about it is
>>>>> familiar. ï¿œAnd it will sell a lot of Metformin. ï¿œI don't even know if

>>>>> folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
>>>>> drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
>>>>> is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.

>>>> What newer meds are supposed to be better than Metformin? ï¿œI haven't heard
>>>> of any.
>>
>>> ￜ There's always something in the pipeline.
>>
>> ￜ Sure! No real alternative in *55 years*, but for our resident paranoid

>> conspiracy theorist "There's always something in the pipeline.". Sure,
>> they just have to find a way to make pigs fly and right after that there
>> will be a new and better metformin replacement. Can't wait!
>>
>> --
>> Frank Slootweg
>
> That's what they depend on...pure faith...:)

And flying pigs.
M.
>
> Chris

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover drukte met precisie uit :

> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> [...]
>> Good for you. The day before yeasterday I phoned the Diabetes
>> Vereniging Nederland, they have all the information about (different)
>> insurances, covering the costs of strips, of BGmeters, and a lot more.
>> I thought I had read somewhere that there was an alteration in the
>> coverage of strips per day, i.e. MORE coverage re costs.
>> No way. Its even worse than before.
>> Some years ago one had to prove (via specialist)that one used insulin,
>> that was enough to get coverage for 4 strips per day.
>> Right now thats not enough anymore. Specialist must fill in forms to
>> prove that one has type 1 and/or use a pump.
>> All these people with type whatever, but DO use insulin, dont get
>> coverage anymore.
>> Insurance companies make the rules here, which is a bloody shame, as
>> they only are interested in making heaps of money for themselves.
>> Patients? What alien species is that :-(
>> M.
>
> Maya, as I said before, please don't make blanket statements about the
> policies of Dutch insurance companies, because the *is no* single
> policy!

You tell that to the DVN, they'll laugh in your face.

>
> Case in point: As you know, I'm a med using T2 and get free strips.

Diabetes specialist's orders I assume. He/she knew how to convince your
insurance co to be lenient. This what we call a "coulance-regeling".
I use a minimal of 6 strips per day, I went via the ombudsman, who
wrote a letter to my insurance co. This all because of commitment of
the DVN.

>
> What the Diabetes Vereniging Nederland probably meant is the *minumum*
> benefits which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual*
> benefits which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. AFAIK,
> the actual benefits also depend on the level of insurance you have, i.e.
> yes/no additional ("aanvullende") insurance and *which* additional
> insurance.

Basal insurance package, that we all _have_ to take and pay for: is
what the DVN talked of.

>
> FYI, a few days ago I was at my doctor's (GP's) office and asked for a
> prescription for more strips, he did it right away and on his screen it
> said "depending on contract" ("afhakelijk van kontrakt").

QED.

>
> Botto line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)
> providing strips.

Yes there is: 4,4 per day for type 1 and/or pump users is the policy.

_Exceptions_ *can* be made, with the help of a good diabetes
specialist.

Or, in my case: the DVN and the ombudsman. That was in the 90's last
century though. Right now the DVN advises to let your _specialist_ fill
in some forms so you have a chance for more than the 4 strips per day.


Phoned the DVN last Wednesday.

M.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Julie Bove formuleerde op zaterdag :

> "Maya Zuiderweg" <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote in
> message news:lY2dnY1go5nEygvM...@giganews.com...

>> Opple0pï¿œd plaatste dit op zijn scherm :

Yes it is. It started quite some years ago: to press costs of the
health care here, insurance companies were put in the charge of it. The
idea behind it was/is: competition in the health care will make it
cheaper.
Doesnt work for a bit.
M.

[vittyguy]

> But it is one which is effective and safe and has multiple benefits in
> diabetics.

"It's comparatively safe, it has significant risks for many."

And therefore ...?

> "And the potassium loss/electrolyte imbalance and b12 deficiency
disorders
> are neglected by physicians, and not well reported on."
>
> Irrelevant what docs do, take a multivitamin with minerals and it is good
> to go. Not to mention that both can easily be replaced in very common
> foods.

"It's not that simple."

It's that simple, it is by such sources that we get them in the first
place.

> Bottom line and the topic, metformin does not cause kidney failure.

"Metformin puts a strain on the kidneys and makes them more vulnerable,
which is why it's unsafe to take it with imaging dyes, for example.

It has numerous risks that go undiagnosed when the symptoms present because
they're often insidious and it's an unnecessary drug in most cases if a
person is willing to moderate carbs. In fact, it's basically useless after
that."

All the above blurb known as an ad hoc speculation. In the several decades
and with millions of users any such would have appeared regarding kidney
failure, which is the topic.

Even with carb consideration its benefits make it worth using. It
addresses the major pathways by which diabetes works and can be reversed,
as well as other non-diabetic benefits. "Oh, and in my case, it caused
chronic intermittent liver enzyme elevations that did not happen before or
after using it for a year."

Otherwise known as an anecdotal report of one data point, which in science
isnext to worthless.

[Julie Bove]

<vitty guy> wrote in message
news:5196b360$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...

Actually no to the vitamins. They now recommend that adults do not take
them with iron and copper. I switched to that kind only to suffer from
exhaustion. In talking to my friend about this, I discovered that the ones
I was taking had no B vitamins and very little of anything else! I have
since switched to the old kind until my new order arrives.

I already supplement with the B vitamins. I take a B Complex. But my Endo.
told me to take extra B 12 and I also take extra of all of the others except
for B 6. But deficiencies are easy to check for. Just need a blood test.

[Oldmilret]

On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:12:55 -0400, Susan <su...@nothanks.org> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes

>
>On 5/17/2013 6:46 PM, vitty guy wrote:
>
>> But it is one which is effective and safe and has multiple benefits in
>> diabetics.
>

>It's comparatively safe, it has significant risks for many.
>
>>

>> "And the potassium loss/electrolyte imbalance and b12 deficiency disorders
>> are neglected by physicians, and not well reported on."
>>
>> Irrelevant what docs do, take a multivitamin with minerals and it is good
>> to go. Not to mention that both can easily be replaced in very common
>> foods.
>

>It's not that simple.
>
>>

>> Bottom line and the topic, metformin does not cause kidney failure.
>

>Metformin puts a strain on the kidneys and makes them more vulnerable,
>which is why it's unsafe to take it with imaging dyes, for example.

Below seems to be opposite of what you write?

"If your doctor allows, medications that contain metformin should
be stopped on the day you have a CT scan or procedure that
requires the use of iodine contrast material (radiology dye). This
type of contrast, which is used in the veins, may affect your
kidneys and how your body clears metformin from your system."
http://www.uwmedicine.org/patient-care/our-services/medical-services/radiology-imaging-services/documents/metformin-and-your-ct-scan.pdf

>It has numerous risks that go undiagnosed when the symptoms present
>because they're often insidious and it's an unnecessary drug in most
>cases if a person is willing to moderate carbs. In fact, it's basically
>useless after that.
>

>Oh, and in my case, it caused chronic intermittent liver enzyme
>elevations that did not happen before or after using it for a year.
>

>Susan

[outsider]

Ain't no free lunch.

[outsider]

Consider the air you breathe.

[outsider]

On 5/17/2013 5:46 PM, vitty guy wrote:

> Bottom line and the topic, metformin does not cause kidney failure.

No evidence of that.

[outsider]

It has become obvious to me that you have a financial interest in this
topic.

[randyf]

vitty guy wrote:
"Bottom line and the topic, metformin does not cause kidney failure."

I agree.

Outsider wrote:
" No evidence of that."

Evidence for negatives is problematic.

As far as evidence for a positive, that metformin causes kideny
failure, I haven't seen anything suggesting that.

The evidenced based medical view is:
1. If kidney function is compromised, then metformin serum levels
might rise due to reduced filtering ability of the kidneys.
2. This "might" increase the incidence of lactic acidosis, a serious
and potentially fatal condition.
3. I've seen no evidence or suggestions that metformin can cause the
initial kidney issues. Of course we do know that diabetes Can cause
kidney damage
4. Lactic acidosis is very rare side effect in metformin users. About
3 per 100,000/year.
5. One of the latest literature reviews suggest that higher dosages of
metformin be used in reduced kidney functions in the US as is done in
Canada and the UK.

Take home - If kidney function is reduced, you might want to reduce or
eliminate metformin (and the best evidence says this is not a severe
as previously thought), but there is no evidence that metformin is
responsible for existent kidney problems.

Refs:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/6/1431.full
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/PUarticles/5.htm

Here's the conclusion of a recent, extensive review on the subject:
***********************
Although metformin is eliminated renally, and accumulation may
conceivably lead to lactic acidosis, there currently is limited
systematic evidence to substantiate continued reliance on the
creatinine-based contraindications in use in the U.S. Indeed, in the
modern era of eGFR, this measure of glomerular filtration appears to
give a more reliable estimate of renal dysfunction. Metformin-
associated lactic acidosis is exceedingly rare based on the available
literature, and even though the use of metformin has not been
comprehensively assessed in individuals with CKD, there is extensive
evidence that this agent often is used without adverse effects in
those with mildly to moderately reduced renal function. In the context
of rising concerns regarding other glucose-lowering therapies (55),
safety restrictions over the use of metformin in this population may
result in the drug being stopped prematurely and unnecessarily in some
patients. This may lead to significant deterioration in glycemic
control and/or the need for other glucose-lowering medications, which
present their own safety concerns. An evidence-based approach to
prescribing metformin in this group appears warranted, taking into
account the current pervasive use of eGFR in clinical care.

We therefore suggest that the current guidelines for metformin use in
the U.S. be updated. These recommendations should include eGFR
thresholds that are generally consistent with the National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines in the U.K. and those
endorsed by the Canadian Diabetes Association and the Australian
Diabetes Society (Table 1). Metformin may be continued (or initiated)
with eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, but renal function should be
monitored closely (every 3–6 months). The dose of metformin should be
reviewed and reduced (e.g., by 50% or to half-maximal dose) in those
with eGFR <45 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and renal function should be
monitored closely (every 3 months). Metformin should not be initiated
in patients at this stage, however. The drug should be stopped once
eGFR falls to <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Additional caution is required
in patients with anticipated significant fluctuations in renal status
or those at risk for abrupt deterioration in kidney function, based on
previous history, other comorbidities, albuminuria, and medication
regimen (e.g., potent diuretics or nephrotoxic agents).
*****************************************************

[randyf]

May wrote:
> Read the insert for metformin and see most side effects are gastric in
> nature and none are related to kidney failure.  In the pharmacy history of
> any med it does not get any better or more certain then that.

Agreed, totally.

The fact that a drug is contraindicated with kidney failure is a
completely statement that said drug causes kidney failure.

It's a sad commentary that of all places, this issue should arise on
ASD.

Regards
Randy

[outsider]

On 5/18/2013 8:15 AM, randyf wrote:
> vitty guy wrote:
> "Bottom line and the topic, metformin does not cause kidney failure."
>
> I agree.
>
> Outsider wrote:
> " No evidence of that."
>
> Evidence for negatives is problematic.

With good reason.

> As far as evidence for a positive, that metformin causes kideny
> failure, I haven't seen anything suggesting that.

The statement in contention is "metformin does not cause kidney
failure" offered as a proven fact. It isn't. The fact that there
is currently no literature suggesting that isn't proof either.

Randy, I just looked at a number of web pages discussing renal
failure and lactic acidosis. I am about as far as one can get
from being a conspiracy theorist, but what I see is a massive
whitewash of metformin that didn't exist in the literature some
years back, the last time I looked. In fact, I won't even
speculate about this except to raise the admonition that when
something seems too good to be true, it usually is.

If OP had written that no causative correlation between metformin
and kidney disease has been found, I would not have contested
such a statement.

Talk to a knowledgeable computer programmer about testing his/her
software for all possible conditions. It cannot be done. This
is the same problem.

After the Boston bombers were caught, the number of clues available
in advance grew to the point that some were saying, "How could the
USG have missed all that?!" Since you never know what tomorrow will
bring, couching one's words with reasonable caution is indicated. OP
doesn't do that. I think (s)he works for a pharmaceutical. It used to
happen more often on Usenet than it does today.

[outsider]

On 5/18/2013 8:48 AM, randyf wrote:
> May wrote:
>> Read the insert for metformin and see most side effects are gastric in
>> nature and none are related to kidney failure. In the pharmacy history of
>> any med it does not get any better or more certain then that.
>
> Agreed, totally.
>
> The fact that a drug is contraindicated with kidney failure is a
> completely statement that said drug causes kidney failure.

Aside from the fact that your sentence doesn't parse, any logic
one can build out of it is without any basis or merit as it stands.
Please do some reading on logic. Try this first:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation>
followed by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corollary

> It's a sad commentary that of all places, this issue should arise on
> ASD.

Excuse me? This is the very place *any* discussion about a diabetes
drug should come up. Are you so blinded by appearances that you're
willing to completely neglect the logic that underlies all the
studies you're so fond of quoting?

No one has claimed that metformin causes kidney disease. The only
claims I've made are that unsubstantiated statements about metformin
not causing kidney disease simply aren't acceptable.

Please get your head screwed on straight. And be *very very* careful
about agreeing with anything Maya writes. "In the pharmacy history of
any med it does not get any better or more certain then that." is
just another bullshit statement with no foundation and of no
consequence.

See also "critical reading." Google scores it at 2,500,000 hits.

BTW, I have this bridge you might be interested in buying.
http://tinyurl.com/bvzhxsm

[Maya Zuiderweg]

outsider gebruikte zijn klavier om te schrijven :

HUH??? I didnt write a thing about metformin.
Nor about kidneys.
Talking of BS!!!
Maya

[randyf]

Outsider wrote:
> Excuse me? This is the very place *any* discussion about a diabetes
> drug should come up. Are you so blinded by appearances that you're
> willing to completely neglect the logic that underlies all the
> studies you're so fond of quoting?

The *logic (your) willing to neglect* includes the fact that the
toxicity/pharmacology of metfomin has been studied for decades with no
indication of kidney damage that I know of.
It's not a case that no one has ever looked into the issue, it's a
case that the issue has been investigated and evidence of kidney does
not exist.

Before a drug passes FDA approval data on kidney function and
metformin was considered. If your saying that no one ever bothered to
look into the matter, I'd say *I don't buy it*.

And there are diabetic drugs that can cause kidney damage like Byetta

Outsider wrote:
> No one has claimed that metformin causes kidney disease.

You certainly implied it by earlier in the thread when you wrote:

***********************
"See articles on the topic at
http://tinyurl.com/ch5sm83
Especially the article entitled "Acute kidney failure and severe
lactic acidosis caused by metformin successfully treated with
hemodialysis]."
**********************

These are articles about the dangers of metformin use (resulting in
lactic acidosis) with diminished kidney function There is no
suggestion that metformin precipitated in the kidney issues.
This is exactly what I meant by confusing *warnings about metformin
use with decreased kidney function* versus and *claims of evidence of
metformin being causual in kidney issues*.

Randy

[W. Baker]

outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

IIRC you can never positively prove anything , but can only say , to
negatives have been found. this is the way science works.

Wendy

[outsider]

On 5/18/2013 12:31 PM, randyf wrote:
>
> Outsider wrote:
>> Excuse me? This is the very place *any* discussion about a diabetes
>> drug should come up. Are you so blinded by appearances that you're
>> willing to completely neglect the logic that underlies all the
>> studies you're so fond of quoting?
>
> The *logic (your) willing to neglect* includes the fact that the
> toxicity/pharmacology of metfomin has been studied for decades with no
> indication of kidney damage that I know of.

Of no consequence to this discussion.

> It's not a case that no one has ever looked into the issue, it's a
> case that the issue has been investigated and evidence of kidney does
> not exist.

That's all well and fine, but is a very long ways from the statement
that "metformin does not cause kidney disease."

> Before a drug passes FDA approval data on kidney function and
> metformin was considered. If your saying that no one ever bothered to
> look into the matter, I'd say *I don't buy it*.

Still a very long ways from the statement that "metformin does not
cause kidney disease."

> And there are diabetic drugs that can cause kidney damage like Byetta

Not an issue in this discussion.

Consider yourself up against a very good lawyer, attempting to prove in
court that metformin does not cause kidney disease. Lack of evidence
that kidney disease has not resulted from metformin is not evidence that
it cannot happen. Where do you take this case next?

Perhaps it is best to refine the premise by stating that" we have found
no evidence of metformin causing kidney disease." Once you do that, we
have no further dispute. But as long as someone/anyone says "metformin
does not cause kidney disease" we'll have a dispute.

How many ways can I explain this?

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Ozlover had uiteengezet :
> > mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> On May 16, 4:05�ｿｽpm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >>> W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote: [...]

> >>>>> �ｿｽ Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
> >>>>> capability to reduce the effects of �ｿｽ2 od the most feared things to
> >>>>> many people, aging and cancer. �ｿｽIt seems they don't yet have a handle

> >>>>> on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
> >>>>> risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and want
> >>>>> to get on that drug.
> >>>

> >>>>> �ｿｽ �ｿｽIs Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? �ｿｽI
> >>>>> haven't a clue. �ｿｽBut the method of telling the world about it is
> >>>>> familiar. �ｿｽAnd it will sell a lot of Metformin. �ｿｽI don't even know if

> >>>>> folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the newer
> >>>>> drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
> >>>>> is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this article.
> >>>>> Chris
> >>>

> >>>> Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap. �ｿｽNo one woudl make a killing
> >>>> out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks. �ｿｽI costs less than many

> >>>> many supplements that people take.
> >>>

> >>> �ｿｽ Don't confuse mainframetech with pesky little things like facts!
> >>>
> >>> �ｿｽ Do you think it's *easy* to come up with these paranoid conspiracy

> >>> theories!? And you destroy yet another one with a single sentence!?
> >>> Shame on you!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Frank Slootweg
> >>
> >> Oh, I don't mind facts. Looking around I see a few 'alternatives'
> >> to Metformin, but not any that are going to take over for it soon. So
> >> if there's any 'conspiracy' it would have to be to get folks to take
> >> more Metformin just to raise the income on a drug that isn't pulling
> >> in the old high profits anymore and has to deal in volume. There's
> >> always a conspiracy somewhere...:)
> >
> > Good! After your initial dodge attempt, you gave a rather accurate
> > description of your earlier posted paranoid conspiracy theory.
> >
> > QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK.
>
> NK? No Kiss :/

The K-word is four letters in length, but uses only two different ones.

--
Frank Slootweg

[W. Baker]

outsider <outs...@sometime.individual.net> wrote:

One should also add, "Over decaes of testing and use, Metromin has not
been found to cause kidney disese, etc. There is no way to ever prove
that something will never do something, one can only say, "untilnow it has
never beenseen to," or some such statement. Same wth phrases like "will
always."

Wendy

[randyf]

> Consider yourself up against a very good lawyer, attempting to prove in
> court that metformin does not cause kidney disease. Lack of evidence
> that kidney disease has not resulted from metformin is not evidence that
> it cannot happen. Where do you take this case next?

A very good lawyer wouldn't take the case cause he wouldn't have a
chance.
You've got millions of folks that's been taking the stuff for decades
without any evidence of kidney disease.

Plus you've got reams of evidence trying to create kidney disease in
animals at normal, high and gigantic levels of metformin.

It's takes the human equivalent of 65000 mg/day for months to result
in any kidney issues.
Try a dosage of insulin at 20 times your usual dosage and see how that
works.

All this boils down to the absurdity of proving a negative.
I claim that Leprechauns don't exst. Can I prove it, absolutely. Nope.
Does that mean the statement "Leprocons don't exist" is an
unreasonable. Not in my view. According to your logic it is.

Also *lack of evidence* is different from *evidence of lack*.
It's not that no one has looked into the issue of metformin/kidney
disease, its that when the issue is investigated no relation is found.

> Perhaps it is best to refine the premise by stating that" we have found
> no evidence of metformin causing kidney disease." Once you do that, we
> have no further dispute. But as long as someone/anyone says "metformin
> does not cause kidney disease" we'll have a dispute.
>
> How many ways can I explain this?

OK, got it. Negatives can't ever be disproved so shouldn't be stated
as fact.
Seen any Leprechauns recently?

Randy

[randyf]

Wendy wrote:
>  One should also add, "Over decaes of testing and use, Metromin has not
> been found to cause kidney disese, etc.  There is no way to ever prove
> that something will never do something, one can only say, "untilnow it has
> never beenseen to," or some such statement. Same wth phrases like "will
> always."

Thanks Wendy, I agree.

I just thought that the OP that made the remark about metformin and
kidney disease wasn't deserving of the severity of response from
Outsider.

Of course one can never prove a negative, but these sorts of
statements are made by reasonable people in reasonable discourse all
the time.
Considering all the evidence I don't think it unreasonable to state
that metformin doesn't causes kidney failure. Sure new findings can
change views, but with all he available evidence that's been
accumulated over decades it's not unreasonable.

Randy

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Ozlover drukte met precisie uit :
> > Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Good for you. The day before yeasterday I phoned the Diabetes
> >> Vereniging Nederland, they have all the information about (different)
> >> insurances, covering the costs of strips, of BGmeters, and a lot more.
> >> I thought I had read somewhere that there was an alteration in the
> >> coverage of strips per day, i.e. MORE coverage re costs.
> >> No way. Its even worse than before.
> >> Some years ago one had to prove (via specialist)that one used insulin,
> >> that was enough to get coverage for 4 strips per day.
> >> Right now thats not enough anymore. Specialist must fill in forms to
> >> prove that one has type 1 and/or use a pump.
> >> All these people with type whatever, but DO use insulin, dont get
> >> coverage anymore.
> >> Insurance companies make the rules here, which is a bloody shame, as
> >> they only are interested in making heaps of money for themselves.
> >> Patients? What alien species is that :-(
> >> M.
> >
> > Maya, as I said before, please don't make blanket statements about the
> > policies of Dutch insurance companies, because the *is no* single
> > policy!
>
> You tell that to the DVN, they'll laugh in your face.

Please READ and try to comprehend a posting, before making silly
statements like that. Either the DVN rep was clueless or you
misinterpreted what (s)he said. My money is on the latter.

> > Case in point: As you know, I'm a med using T2 and get free strips.
>
> Diabetes specialist's orders I assume. He/she knew how to convince your
> insurance co to be lenient. This what we call a "coulance-regeling".

Exactly *which* part of "GP" didn't you understand!?

And he did not do any "convincing". He just wrote a prescription and
the pharmacy filled it. No "coulance-regeling" involved. End of story.

> I use a minimal of 6 strips per day, I went via the ombudsman, who
> wrote a letter to my insurance co. This all because of commitment of
> the DVN.

So *your* insurance company's *actual* *practice* for *your* level of
insurance is different than mine. Duh!

> > What the Diabetes Vereniging Nederland probably meant is the *minumum*
> > benefits which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual*
> > benefits which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. AFAIK,
> > the actual benefits also depend on the level of insurance you have, i.e.
> > yes/no additional ("aanvullende") insurance and *which* additional
> > insurance.
>
> Basal insurance package, that we all _have_ to take and pay for: is
> what the DVN talked of.

READ and try to comprehend, will you!?

AS I SAID, the "basis verzekering" describes the level of benefits

which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual* benefits

which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. I.e. also for
the "basis verzekering", what company A offers and what company B
offers, can and will be different.

If you don't believe that/me, then look at the policies for meds,
which meds company A (fully/partly/not) pays for and which meds company
B (fully/partly/not) pays for, *is* different. It's called
"preferentiebeleid" (preference policy). Look it up. My wife and I have
two different insurance companies and their "preferentiebeleid" is
different and even for the same company the "preferentiebeleid" differs
from year to year, i.e. a med which is fully/partly/not payed for one
year, maybe not/partly/fully payed for next year. Been there, done that,
did (not) get the T-shirt.

> > AFAIK,

> >
> > FYI, a few days ago I was at my doctor's (GP's) office and asked for a
> > prescription for more strips, he did it right away and on his screen it
> > said "depending on contract" ("afhakelijk van kontrakt").
>
> QED.

Nope. It depends on the contract between the insurance company and the
*drug supplier* (and pharmacy), *not* (only) on the contract ("polis")
you have with the insurance company.

> > Botto line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)
> > providing strips.
>
> Yes there is: 4,4 per day for type 1 and/or pump users is the policy.
>
> _Exceptions_ *can* be made, with the help of a good diabetes
> specialist.

False: In my case: No specific number of strips, T2, no pump, no
exception, no "help", no "specialist", just one *computer* (the GP's)
talking to another (the pharmacy's).

> Or, in my case: the DVN and the ombudsman. That was in the 90's last
> century though. Right now the DVN advises to let your _specialist_ fill
> in some forms so you have a chance for more than the 4 strips per day.

Your experience is just that, your experience. My example(s) shows
that your experience is not cast-in-stone policy for all insurance
companies.

> Phoned the DVN last Wednesday.

Call them again and ask them if *some* insurance companies have *more
lenient* *actual* *practice* *without-asking* (i.e. *not*
"coulance-regeling"). If they stick to what you think/say they said,
then tell them they don't know what they're talking about and feel free
to say that I said so.

EOD.

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 17, 4:14�pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
[...]
> > > Good for you. The day before yeasterday I phoned the Diabetes
> > > Vereniging Nederland, they have all the information about (different)
> > > insurances, covering the costs of strips, of BGmeters, and a lot more.
> > > I thought I had read somewhere that there was an alteration in the
> > > coverage of strips per day, i.e. MORE coverage re costs.
> > > No way. Its even worse than before.
> > > Some years ago one had to prove (via specialist)that one used insulin,
> > > that was enough to get coverage for 4 strips per day.
> > > Right now thats not enough anymore. Specialist must fill in forms to
> > > prove that one has type 1 and/or use a pump.
> > > All these people with type whatever, but DO use insulin, dont get
> > > coverage anymore.
> > > Insurance companies make the rules here, which is a bloody shame, as
> > > they only are interested in making heaps of money for themselves.
> > > Patients? What alien species is that :-(
> > > M.
> >
> > � Maya, as I said before, please don't make blanket statements about the
> > policies of Dutch insurance companies, because the *is no* single
> > policy!
> >

> > � Case in point: As you know, I'm a med using T2 and get free strips.
> >
> > � What the Diabetes Vereniging Nederland probably meant is the *minumum*

> > benefits which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual*
> > benefits which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. AFAIK,
> > the actual benefits also depend on the level of insurance you have, i.e.
> > yes/no additional ("aanvullende") insurance and *which* additional
> > insurance.
> >

> > � FYI, a few days ago I was at my doctor's (GP's) office and asked for a

> > prescription for more strips, he did it right away and on his screen it
> > said "depending on contract" ("afhakelijk van kontrakt").
> >

> > � Botto line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)
> > providing strips.
> >
> > --
> > Frank Slootweg
>
> I'm sure that is the case, but I'm just as sure that insurance
> companies will work toward having to pay out less on any claim or
> account no matter the level of contract. It's a given, as with any
> corporation wanting to lower labor costs.

This is getting rather off-topic, but in my experience it's largely a
YMMV thing.

I've had insurance companies pay claims of thousands and (many) tens
of thousands of dollars without any questions asked (other than how I/we
am/are doing, etc.). And I have insurance companies wiggle over items
which cost a few dollars [1]. AFAICT, it mainly depends on the total
cost of all similar claims (the higher the total, the more wiggling) and
whether or not the claim can be disputed (broken leg versus stolen
sunglasses).

[1] In one case the 'wiggler' was the *same* company and *same* policy,
which payed the many tens of thousands of dollars without any questions
asked!

--
Frank Slootweg

[Ozlover]

Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
> Ozlover drukte met precisie uit :

[...]

[See also my earlier/longer response.]

> > Bottom line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)

> > providing strips.
>
> Yes there is: 4,4 per day for type 1 and/or pump users is the policy.

Instead of just my experience which proves this as false/non-general,
here is a non-personal official reference which also proves this as
false/non-general:

<http://www.vgz.nl/zorg-en-gezondheid/ziektes-en-aandoeningen/diabetes>

"Diabetes en insuline afhankelijk

Bent u nagenoeg uitbehandeld met orale middelen en overweegt u
insuline? U krijgt eenmalig 100 teststrips en lancetten vergoed om te
kijken of insuline voor u werkt. Als u besluit over te gaan op insuline
krijgt u diabetes testmateriaal, zoals teststrips en lancetten,
volledig vergoed vanuit uw basisverzekering. Gebruikt u al insuline?
Dan krijgt u ook uw testmateriaal volledig vergoed."

I.e. an insulin user, i.e. also a T2, gets strips fully payed for, not
just "type 1 and/or pump users". It also does not mention any magical
"4.4 per day" limit.

QED. EOD.

[And, as I said, in *practice*, I - a non (injected :-)) insulin using
T2 - *also* get free strips.]

--
Frank Slootweg

[outsider]

On 5/18/2013 2:21 PM, randyf wrote:

> Seen any Leprechauns recently?

In the present case, you might qualify. :-)

[outsider]

On 5/18/2013 3:00 PM, randyf wrote:
> Wendy wrote:
>> One should also add, "Over decaes of testing and use, Metromin has not
>> been found to cause kidney disese, etc. There is no way to ever prove
>> that something will never do something, one can only say, "untilnow it has
>> never beenseen to," or some such statement. Same wth phrases like "will
>> always."
>
> Thanks Wendy, I agree.
>
> I just thought that the OP that made the remark about metformin and
> kidney disease wasn't deserving of the severity of response from
> Outsider.

Oops? Social considerations now outweigh facts?

> Of course one can never prove a negative, but these sorts of
> statements are made by reasonable people in reasonable discourse all
> the time.

Perhaps in your world, but not in mine. Of course you're (please pay
attention to the usage of your vs. you're, the latter being the
contraction for you are - it might help your propounding) redefines
"reasonable."

> Considering all the evidence I don't think it unreasonable to state
> that metformin doesn't causes kidney failure.

Making statement of fact where the underlying fact doesn't exist
is never reasonable. In fact it is a well established knuckle
dragger tactic. It is actually too easy to get the statement right
without getting caught up in this amateurish sort of argumentation
I'm encountering in this thread.

> Sure new findings can
> change views, but with all he available evidence that's been
> accumulated over decades it's not unreasonable.

Now you've embraced opinion as fact. I'll bear that in mind whenever
reading your articles in future.

[outsider]

On 5/18/2013 4:19 PM, Ozlover wrote:

> mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> I'm sure that is the case, but I'm just as sure that insurance
>> companies will work toward having to pay out less on any claim or
>> account no matter the level of contract. It's a given, as with any
>> corporation wanting to lower labor costs.

> This is getting rather off-topic, but in my experience it's largely a
> YMMV thing.

> I've had insurance companies pay claims of thousands and (many) tens
> of thousands of dollars without any questions asked (other than how I/we
> am/are doing, etc.). And I have insurance companies wiggle over items
> which cost a few dollars [1]. AFAICT, it mainly depends on the total
> cost of all similar claims (the higher the total, the more wiggling) and
> whether or not the claim can be disputed (broken leg versus stolen
> sunglasses).

> [1] In one case the 'wiggler' was the *same* company and *same* policy,
> which payed the many tens of thousands of dollars without any questions
> asked!

Understanding how insurance companies are organized, licensed, and
regulated, helps a lot in understanding. Generally speaking, health
insurance companies gladly pay out any amount demanded so long as it
is adequately defined in the coverage policy. The reason is simple.
Insurance company profits are directly linked to the amount of cash
flowing through the company. Higher payouts mean regulatory approval
for higher premiums during the next rate approval cycle. So long as
their overhead remains fairly stable, the net profit increases over
time.

This is generally true for all regulated businesses. Unfortunately
the scheme rewards inefficiencies and that's why, in the USA anyway,
certain businesses such as airlines, telephone companies, and freight,
have been deregulated.

[Colt T]

I think metformin can cause Alzheimer's unless you use insulin with it,
yes I know they now claim it prevents Alzheimer's. Maybe diabetics get
Alzheimer's more than others is because so many of them take metformin?

[Colt T]

http://www.sciencentral.com/video/2009/02/23/diabetes-drug/

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Na rijp beraad schreef Ozlover :

Phone the DVN.

>
>>> Case in point: As you know, I'm a med using T2 and get free strips.
>>
>> Diabetes specialist's orders I assume. He/she knew how to convince your
>> insurance co to be lenient. This what we call a "coulance-regeling".
>
> Exactly *which* part of "GP" didn't you understand!?

You are a type 2 arent you? Some type 2 patients are indeed treated by
the GP (mine does that too), but as soon as insulin is involved, mine
sent me to the diabetes specialist, also _all_ my medication goes via
the specialist. Strips are a seperate thing: see the KLOZ in your
insurance regulations. Which says that a certain amount of strips is
covered per month. If you look close enough you'll see it comes to 4,4
strips per day.

>
> And he did not do any "convincing". He just wrote a prescription and
> the pharmacy filled it. No "coulance-regeling" involved. End of story.

Phone the DVN and tell them. They certainly will be very surprised. As
type 2's dont get strips covered!

>
>> I use a minimal of 6 strips per day, I went via the ombudsman, who
>> wrote a letter to my insurance co. This all because of commitment of
>> the DVN.
>
> So *your* insurance company's *actual* *practice* for *your* level of
> insurance is different than mine. Duh!

This was in the 90's last century. I got a "coulance regeling" via
first the DVN (they informed me to write a letter to the ombudsman),
then after one year (!) I got a response from same ombudsman, who would
phone the insurance company. So effectively it was the ombudsman who
made the "coulance regeling" possible. NOT the specialist.

>
>>> What the Diabetes Vereniging Nederland probably meant is the *minumum*
>>> benefits which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual*
>>> benefits which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. AFAIK,
>>> the actual benefits also depend on the level of insurance you have, i.e.
>>> yes/no additional ("aanvullende") insurance and *which* additional
>>> insurance.
>>
>> Basal insurance package, that we all _have_ to take and pay for: is
>> what the DVN talked of.
>
> READ and try to comprehend, will you!?
>
> AS I SAID, the "basis verzekering" describes the level of benefits
> which *all* insurance companies *must* offer, not the *actual* benefits
> which *each individual* insurance company *does* offer. I.e. also for
> the "basis verzekering", what company A offers and what company B
> offers, can and will be different.

NO. The "basisverzekering" does NOT differ per company. Phone the DVN,
this is exactly the question I asked: "Policy differences per insurance
co's, do these guarantee more or less strips?"
Answer: same amount of strips per company. In effect: 4,4 per day.

>
> If you don't believe that/me, then look at the policies for meds,
> which meds company A (fully/partly/not) pays for and which meds company
> B (fully/partly/not) pays for, *is* different. It's called
> "preferentiebeleid" (preference policy). Look it up. My wife and I have
> two different insurance companies and their "preferentiebeleid" is
> different and even for the same company the "preferentiebeleid" differs
> from year to year, i.e. a med which is fully/partly/not payed for one
> year, maybe not/partly/fully payed for next year. Been there, done that,
> did (not) get the T-shirt.

Policy for meds is not the same as for "hulpmiddelen".

>
>>> AFAIK,
>>>
>>> FYI, a few days ago I was at my doctor's (GP's) office and asked for a
>>> prescription for more strips, he did it right away and on his screen it
>>> said "depending on contract" ("afhakelijk van kontrakt").
>>
>> QED.
>
> Nope. It depends on the contract between the insurance company and the
> *drug supplier* (and pharmacy), *not* (only) on the contract ("polis")
> you have with the insurance company.

"hulpmiddelen"= strips is not the same as meds.

>
>>> Botto line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)
>>> providing strips.
>>
>> Yes there is: 4,4 per day for type 1 and/or pump users is the policy.
>>
>> _Exceptions_ *can* be made, with the help of a good diabetes
>> specialist.
>
> False: In my case: No specific number of strips, T2, no pump, no
> exception, no "help", no "specialist", just one *computer* (the GP's)
> talking to another (the pharmacy's).

You better watch out, this is not protocol. Type 2's dont get strips
covered at all. Maybe you slipped through.

>
>> Or, in my case: the DVN and the ombudsman. That was in the 90's last
>> century though. Right now the DVN advises to let your _specialist_ fill
>> in some forms so you have a chance for more than the 4 strips per day.
>
> Your experience is just that, your experience. My example(s) shows
> that your experience is not cast-in-stone policy for all insurance
> companies.
>
>> Phoned the DVN last Wednesday.
>
> Call them again and ask them if *some* insurance companies have *more
> lenient* *actual* *practice* *without-asking* (i.e. *not*
> "coulance-regeling"). If they stick to what you think/say they said,
> then tell them they don't know what they're talking about and feel free
> to say that I said so.

Thats just what I asked. See above.

BTW: this policy has been valid since at least 1985. Ive called enough.
Now you call them.
M.
>
> EOD.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Ozlover stelde de volgende uitleg voor :

> Maya Zuiderweg <$no_spam#ma_dot_zuiderweg_@_me_dot_com#maps_on$> wrote:
>> Ozlover drukte met precisie uit :
> [...]
>
> [See also my earlier/longer response.]
>
>>> Bottom line: There is no 'one size fits all' Dutch policy for (not)
>>> providing strips.
>>
>> Yes there is: 4,4 per day for type 1 and/or pump users is the policy.
>
> Instead of just my experience which proves this as false/non-general,
> here is a non-personal official reference which also proves this as
> false/non-general:
>
> <http://www.vgz.nl/zorg-en-gezondheid/ziektes-en-aandoeningen/diabetes>
>
> "Diabetes en insuline afhankelijk
>
> Bent u nagenoeg uitbehandeld met orale middelen en overweegt u
> insuline? U krijgt eenmalig 100 teststrips en lancetten vergoed om te
> kijken of insuline voor u werkt. Als u besluit over te gaan op insuline
> krijgt u diabetes testmateriaal, zoals teststrips en lancetten,
> volledig vergoed vanuit uw basisverzekering. Gebruikt u al insuline?
> Dan krijgt u ook uw testmateriaal volledig vergoed."

I read that too. Thats the reason why I phoned the DVN.
BTW: the 100 strips is true. NOT more.

>
> I.e. an insulin user, i.e. also a T2, gets strips fully payed for, not
> just "type 1 and/or pump users". It also does not mention any magical
> "4.4 per day" limit.

Then you're misinformed. If it only were true!!!!! And *this* I really
mean, Frank.

>
> QED. EOD.
>
> [And, as I said, in *practice*, I - a non (injected :-)) insulin using
> T2 - *also* get free strips.]

You slipped through the protocol, keep a low profile!

M.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/17/2013 7:18 AM, outsider wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 7:03 AM, Don Roberto wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 2:36 PM, outsider wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2013 1:13 PM, wmmckee wrote:
>>>> As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my
>>>> PCP
>>>> physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
>>>> contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about....
>>>>
>>>> Will, T2
>>>
>>> The question is what stage kidney failure is the official recommended
>>> cutoff. I took myself off and my PCP simply went along with my decision.
>>>
>>> I don't want to be more of a pain in the ass than I usually am about
>>> this, but the more I read and see the better insulin as the primary
>>> solution to T2 appears.
>>
>>
>> After D & E fails.
>
> AFAIC D&E never fails. It is abandoned.

Picky...

I can hear the excuses already,
> "Well it didn't work for me." Of course not. Watching exercise programs
> on TV won't do a thing for you!
>
>> It never ceases to amaze me how little play exercise gets here compared
>> to food.
>
> We have one poster here who frequently discusses how many pushups he's
> done, and another who has posted about her city blocks covered using
> her walker. They've not been met with accolades, though they probably
> should have been.
>

In Wendy's case, yes.
As for the pushup artist claiming he is doing 250 pushups per day - even
if it is true - I wouldn't consider this to be proper exercise,
especially if that's all he does.

> I have 5 sessions remaining in my cardiac rehab program that medicare
> authorizes for 36. I'll be finishing that quite soon at the allowed
> 3 sessions a week. After that it is back to the machines I have at home,
> a Schwinn exercise bike, a recumbent exercise bike, and a treadmill when
> my knee allows it and as much outdoor work (spring is finally here) as
> this body will allow.
>
> My surgery was in December and I lost about 3 months afterward, in a
> state of limbo while so sleep deprived. So my "recovery period," as I
> count it, is now approaching 2 months. I don't have the stamina I think
> I should and that's tough to fight through at the best of times. I think
> I'm hitting that surmountable wall that causes so many to abandon D&E
> but I won't let that happen.
>
>>
>> I haven't seen any detrimental side effects
>>> as yet.
>>>
>>
>> The problem's "the delivery".
>> AND the stigma of the syringe.
>
> Amazingly it is no different from the stigma of wearing glasses is
> to a child. OTOH I took to glasses readily because I got a test (on
> the blackboard) problem wrong because I was unable to see the decimal
> point and I didn't want any repeats. "But Sister, I didn't see the
> decimal point." And her answer, "I've heard that a lot over the years,
> no I'm not changing your test grade. Besides, 90% is nothing to be
> ashamed of"
>
> My Stigma? Not getting that 100%, to hell with the stigma of wearing
> glasses! I could never envision avoiding a solution on account of
> *any* sort of vanity.
>

[Don Roberto]

On 5/17/2013 7:22 AM, outsider wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 7:05 AM, Don Roberto wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 2:57 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>>> On May 16, 4:05 pm, Ozlover <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>> W. Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]

>>>>> : Now we have a popular diabetes drug that is now showing an amazing
>>>>> : capability to reduce the effects of 2 od the most feared things to
>>>>> : many people, aging and cancer. It seems they don't yet have a

>>>>> handle
>>>>> : on the exact process where Metformin makes lives longer, or lowers
>>>>> : risk of cancer, but the signs are there and many will see it and
>>>>> want
>>>>> : to get on that drug.
>>>>

>>>>> : Is Metformin any good for these 2 terrors, cancer and aging? I
>>>>> : haven't a clue. But the method of telling the world about it is
>>>>> : familiar. And it will sell a lot of Metformin. I don't even

>>>>> know if
>>>>> : folks are slowing down their use of Metformin and moving to the
>>>>> newer
>>>>> : drugs that are always being advertised as being better than whatever
>>>>> : is being used currently, but it seems possible based on this
>>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>>> : Chris
>>>>

>>>>> Met is a generic these days and dirt cheap. No one woudl make a
>>>>> killing
>>>>> out of it even if it stopa either in its tracks. I costs less than

>>>>> many
>>>>> many supplements that people take.
>>>>

>>>> Don't confuse mainframetech with pesky little things like facts!
>>>>

>>>> Do you think it's *easy* to come up with these paranoid conspiracy
>>>> theories!? And you destroy yet another one with a single sentence!?
>>>> Shame on you!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Frank Slootweg
>>>
>>> Oh, I don't mind facts. Looking around I see a few 'alternatives'
>>> to Metformin, but not any that are going to take over for it soon. So
>>> if there's any 'conspiracy' it would have to be to get folks to take
>>> more Metformin just to raise the income on a drug that isn't pulling
>>> in the old high profits anymore and has to deal in volume. There's
>>> always a conspiracy somewhere...:)
>>>
>>

>> Only if you are paranoid.
>
> In this world economy, the reason why prices drop is that there are more
> manufacturers willing to make a particular product at a lower price.
>
> I've been looking for a really good conspiracy for a while now, but
> haven't found one.
>

Spend more time watching the Fox News Channel!

[Don Roberto]

On 5/17/2013 8:36 AM, W. Baker wrote:
> Don Roberto <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
> : >
>
> : The problem's "the delivery".

> : AND the stigma of the syringe.
>

> but some of the new drugs also use the syringe like /byetta, /Vistosa, etc
> adn peole seem to be willing to go on those.
>
> Wendy
>

That's probably because a lot of folks don't want to be identified as
diabetics and insulin is the diabetes med per se. At least to non-diabetics.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/17/2013 9:41 AM, Opple0p�d wrote:

> On Fri, 17 May 2013 05:03:50 -0700, Don Roberto
> <anothas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2013 2:36 PM, outsider wrote:
>>> On 5/16/2013 1:13 PM, wmmckee wrote:
>>>> As one who has suffered heart failure and kidney failure, I asked my PCP
>>>> physician why he took me off metformin.... He said it is known to be
>>>> contraindicated for kidney failure. Just something to think about....
>>>>
>>>> Will, T2
>>>
>>> The question is what stage kidney failure is the official recommended
>>> cutoff. I took myself off and my PCP simply went along with my decision.
>>>
>>> I don't want to be more of a pain in the ass than I usually am about
>>> this, but the more I read and see the better insulin as the primary
>>> solution to T2 appears.
>>
>>
>> After D & E fails.

>> It never ceases to amaze me how little play exercise gets here compared
>> to food.
>>

>> I haven't seen any detrimental side effects
>>> as yet.
>>>
>>

>> The problem's "the delivery".
>> AND the stigma of the syringe.
>
>

> "Stigma of the syringe"?
>
> In more than 40 years injecting insulin I have never experienced this.
>

Good for you.
But now try to imagine you are not alone in this here universe.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Op 19-5-2013, heeft Don Roberto verondersteld :

Watchit: low esteem on the pry.
M.

[Don Roberto]

On 5/18/2013 6:48 AM, randyf wrote:
> May wrote:
>> Read the insert for metformin and see most side effects are gastric in
>> nature and none are related to kidney failure. In the pharmacy history of
>> any med it does not get any better or more certain then that.
>
> Agreed, totally.
>
> The fact that a drug is contraindicated with kidney failure is a
> completely statement that said drug causes kidney failure.
>

> It's a sad commentary that of all places, this issue should arise on
> ASD.
>

Why?
I'd say it's appropriate in an alt.science group.

[Maya Zuiderweg]

Don Roberto heeft ons zojuist aangekondigd :

I have question: who is this "May", that told:
"Read the insert for metformin..........
...................In the pharmacy history of any med....
......not getting any better or more certain then (sic) that".
This is NOT me. I have never posted about metformin.
Maya