You’re saying that according to statistics, a large percentage of diabetics use NPH (with no differentiation between the % of T1 vs T2), and this proves that this is a good method of controlling T1 diabetes.
Is this what you’re saying? I’m really confused by the discussion we’re having right now. I had trouble finding the statistics on the site you listed. This is what I did find:
"Overall, there is a lack of clear evidence regarding benefits and harms of the newer insulin therapies. As a summary, the evidence so far suggests that:
Rapid-acting insulin analogues may improve postprandial hyperglycaemia and reduce hypoglycaemia.[10]
Long-acting insulin analogues may reduce nocturnal hypoglycaemia and weight gain.[4]However, some studies found them no better than conventional NPH insulin.[11, 12]
CSII therapy improves HbA1c values slightly overall but seems to be of greater benefit to some patients, particularly those who previously had poorer glycaemic control.[13]
The newer treatments seem to be safe so far.[10]"
Yeah because learning what R and and NPH would be like would only be beneficial to someone who can afford whatever insulin they want. That makes perfect sense.
Maybe you’re right. @kmichel and I can carry it out in a private thread and just invite the people who are sincerely interested.
Everyone has expressed interest in real world simulations. But private thread would work also if that’s what you want to do with this particular experiment since it doesn’t really lend itself to being a realistic scenario for most.
And vicious attacks by those who have closed minds has shown me this forum is not worth my time. People’s experience isn’t valued if it is different, people make hypocritical statements like “you have no experience with it” then argue points they have no experience in, and… can’t do their own research on readily available data.
What was my vicious attack? I actually never said “you have no experience with it.” You cannot quote me saying that. Even if I had, how is that a vicious attack? How exactly do I not have any experience with R or NPH? I feel like you’re just making up stuff to attack me.
I’ve been looking for this data, and I’m having a hard time finding it. That’s why I asked.
I don’t see this limitation as a problem in this experiment. We are not trying to find out if anyone can get great results starting randomly, but if it is possible to do so. If so, we could publish results that would help everyone. But it’s an experiment, not a recreation. So whatever works to make it happen is good.
Guys, we MUST stop looking at this thread as a political issue. Let’s look at this from the point of view of learning more about how to use a cheap medicine: it can be a truly valuable resource. There is no reason why this should be a closed thread: knowledge is precious to all of us.
I’m sorry, but I’m just asking where you got 80% from and whether you mean 80% of T1s or 80% of all insulin-using diabetics (this makes a big difference, in my opinion). Asking for references frequently happens on these forums and I don’t understand how you would see it as offensive or a “vicious attack”…? If someone cites a statistic they should be prepared to back it up with a reference. I read the document you linked to and could not find the statistic and found information saying MDI and pumps are recommended for treatment of T1. Living in a country with a similar healthcare system, I was genuinely surprised by 80% and wanted to clarify where it came from. Telling me to “go there and experience it firsthand” is not productive in any way. If you can’t remember the source, just say so and I’ll go to Google.
Everyone is interested in @Sam’s experiment. People have relayed their own experiences, whether positive or negative. You can’t get mad at someone for having a particular experience with R and NPH. I, for one, have tried very hard not to generalize and to keep my discussion based on my experience alone. I and many others found it difficult. You and @eric found it satisfactory. @Sam doesn’t know what his experience will be yet.
Also, @Sam, I didn’t mean for my comment about not being a real-world simulation to be taken negatively. I don’t think an exact simulation of reality is necessary to make this an interesting experiment. I actually think it would be far more interesting if you used a CGM to fine-tune things. I hope you keep it public.
True, novolog and humalog are covered. Tresiba is a weird case. It’s not completely covered, but pharmacies get a refund from NovoNordisk to make up the difference. So in practice you don’t have to pay anything.