When I was diagnosed with type 2
diabetes, I wondered what was ahead. Experiences in my life have been
varied, but in my research on self-monitoring of blood glucose
(SMBG), I experienced something unlike anything else. I did not
realize that whole industries and governments rely on and participate
in funding studies fabricating false and misleading information to
demean and direct fraudulent intent at a group of people with type 2
diabetes on no medications or oral medications.
These fabricated studies have been
reported in trusted reviews, belying the truth in the way the studies
were assembled and carried out. The editor of leading diabetes
community website Diabetes.co.uk, Benedict Jephcote states: “There
are a number of problems with the way results are presented within
the Cochrane review. For instance, in the UK, there are many
people with type 2 diabetes that are actively interested in
self-testing and significant numbers of these people have to buy test
strips from their own income. Studies which exclude these people
cannot therefore give a fair representation of people with type 2
diabetes in the UK."
Cracks along the above line are already
showing evidence to prove just that. In addition, in the future,
researchers that are more honest will begin to refute these false
studies. What is astounding is that the US Government has
participated in this cover-up of studies that are done to show
patients with type 2 diabetes do not need to self-monitor their blood
glucose levels. The National Institute of Health leads the way and
the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services follows by cutting
testing supplies for people needing them. By not educating Medicare
and Medicaid patients about the value of self-monitoring of blood
glucose and showing them how and when to test, they can support many
studies proving that people with type 2 diabetes do not need the
testing supplies.
This study by Roche shows that when a
study is properly organized and follows the Structured Testing
Protocol (SteP) standards, the results are more accurate and SMBG
does help people with type 2 diabetes and not on insulin obtain lower
A1c's and better glycemic control without harming the quality of
life.
Other writers proclaim that the studies
are right and say that the results beyond a year do not hold up. I
can understand this because these study participants are no longer
given the supplies with which to self-monitor blood glucose. Many of
the study participants probably are unable to afford the testing
supplies and therefore without them the results would be expected to
not hold up. That is one reason to have long-term studies of three
to five years.
The key in studies is the education
which I blogged about here. Whom do you think will obtain the best
results? Those just handed a meter and testing supplies and told to
test are not likely to understand the results or possibly even care?
My bet would be on people that were handed a meter and testing
supplies and required to attend classes where they learn when to
test, the reasons for testing, how to interpret the test results, and
the overall benefits in watching for trends. Better results and
longer-term results will be obtained when additional education is
done to reinforce good habits and find and attempt to eliminate bad
habits.
Although it would be great to have
physicians trained at the same time, patients that are educated in
testing and have learned the value of managing diabetes for better
health will in the long-term be able to do this without physician
assistance. With physician assistance, they will do even better.
No comments:
Post a Comment