I'm gonna check it later.
Can't wait to see Moore's new film.
How interesting. Thanks for posting.
thanks for posting this, very interesting, though there have been a lot of hep c drugs that bit the dust over the past few years...I think it's got a lot of valid points...
One thing I heard on the radio today, NPR, I'll try to look for a transcript that was very interesting, and went along with some philosophies of members I've seen here...A very renown doctor was positing that one of the reasons that they are having so many troubles with some of these new drugs, Avandia was in question lately, is that there are these "standard" protocols used for every patient, when they should do a little more tailoring to the particular patient...like they have this "standardized" level that everyone has to get to, in terms of say, blood sugar, so they give patients too much of these drugs, which can lead to other problems for the patient, instead of titering up to a level that is acceptable to the patient...
or realizing that some people can do okay with their blood sugar a little bit higher then others...and realizing that some patients can do a little better at, say, a higher cholesterol level then others, so no need to overdose them with a cholesterol drug...etc etc...that was the gist of it anyway...I'll try to find the transcript...
i always wondered about schering ploughs numbers for pegintron rebetol.
i think one of their deals says 40% chance in 48 weeks for 1a to SVR.
didnt they hand pick that 1a crowd for low viral load and no liver damage?
i cant imagine in my wildest dreams that they would have a more realistic
cross section, but maybe they did. anyone know?
I'd really like to see that transcript. All my life I've heard that high blood sugar will cause irremediable damage to your body, especially circulation and heart. And over the years the standards have been raised substantially. It used to be you needed a fasting of 140 before being diagnosed as a diabetic, and now it's 126. It used to be that a fasting of 110 or above meant impaired glucose tolerance or pre-diabetes; now it's anything over 100. I also know that, as with hep c, people have diabetes for years before being diagnosed and that, when they finally are diagnosed, frequently they've already sustained some damage - up to and including the need for amputations. I'd be very afraid to mess with running high in the blood sugar department.
On the other hand, to continue with the above, my sister-in-law, who has had type 1 diabetes for 56 years, has never suffered any problems or damage except for minor retinopathy after giving birth, and a few zaps of the laser fixed that. She's a very compliant patient, but hasn't always been, so obviously running high for several years (she was rather negligent in her 20's) has not hurt her. The problem with this is that nobody knows why she's so healthy, and nobody knows (as I understand it, but I could be wrong) who can allow their blood sugar to stay at a higher level than is usually recommended. They just can't predict. So yes, tailor-made therapy is always the goal, but it's not easy to know what therapy will fit what person.
Also, BTW, referring to an earlier post of yours, the glucose tolerance test you got in Germany a number of years ago is probably out-of-date. Impaired glucose metabolism, whether it's hypoglycemia or diabetes, can change over time. It's a lot like hcv in that you need to monitor it frequently and stay on top of it. Sometimes you can live a healthy life and avoid meds, but then sometimes there comes the time when you do have to do something, unfortunately.