Diseases/Conditions

Insulin Doubles Death Rate in Type 2 Diabetics: Study

February 11, 2013 by admin in Pharmaceuticals with 12 Comments

A new study clearly documents that the standard treatment for type 2 diabetes is a killer, resulting in more than double the deaths. The treatment justification has always been based on irrelevant criteria—just as it is with most pharmaceutical treatments.

Enough with Insulin! by Jeff Fillmore

Enough with Insulin! by Jeff Fillmore

by Heidi Stevenson

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

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

The Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Hubris

Modern medicine’s hubris allows it to make claims that simply are not supported. Based on those unsupported claims, thousands—and in the case of diabetes, millions—of people are placed on drugs and regimens that have never been demonstrated to have any beneficial effect. The result is that the general public becomes a mass of guinea pigs for medical experimentation—experimentation that isn’t even documented and analyzed!

The use of insulin in type 2 diabetics is only one example, but it’s been clearly demonstrated again and again with disasters like Vioxx.

Redirection to Markers

The method by which these treatments are justified is a little redirection away from what really counts. What matters is whether lives are improved and lengthened. But drugs are rarely tested on that basis. The excuse generally given is that it would take too long. But if that were a valid explanation, then surely we’d see the regulating agencies keeping careful and formal oversight over the experiences of all new drugs for the first few years of use. That, though, simply doesn’t happen.

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

Invalid Markers

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

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

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

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

There’s one lesson to be learned here: Health isn’t found in pharmaceutical drugs, not even old tried-and-true drugs.

Sources:

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • Ashby Thomas

    You are insane to base your extremely outlandish opinions on 1 retrospective trial. Your evaluation of this trial is biased to the point of hilarity, which is disgusting because you’re playing it off as scientific evidence.. Read the entire article, along with the thousands of other peer reviewed articles discussing treatment of type II diabetes, then make a decision based on that. That is how doctors and pharmacists come up with treatment regimens, despite your claim that they just give drugs based on random markers. “Successful treatment” has a different specific definition in every disease state and is always based on multiple factors affecting patients wellness, not just biomarkers. Get your facts straight before you offend healthcare professionals and put sick people in danger by making them fearful of treatment options.

    • http://www.facebook.com/louis.jans Louis Jans

      Apparently there is something you and all the peer reviewers you mention don’t see, Ashby Thomas. And this is what Heidi eloquently describes in this article. T2DM is a “disease” of cell insulin resistance and forcing glucose into the cell by injecting insulin is not the most beneficial approach.

  • jo

    I don’t disagree with the main message of your article, Heidi. I, also, am skeptical of the usefulness of forcing more glucose into a cell when we don’t know why or what the impact of overfeeding might be. However, a very important piece of information that you might want to take into consideration: many many type 2 diabetics *do not* produce enough insulin to move glucose into cells.

    • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

      Someone whose body cannot produce the needed insulin is, by definition, a type 1 diabetic, not a type 2 diabetic. This article is unrelated to their condition.

      • jo

        I did, in my comment, say cannot produce enough, as in – sufficient. I am a T2D who does not produce enough to process normal amounts of glucose. Type 2 diabetics are not as strictly/easily definable as T1Diabetics. Please deepen your research. We need your voice in protest, but your arguments need to be well informed.

        • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

          It seems fairly clear that, if your pancreas isn’t producing enough insulin, then you are a type 1 diabetic, though you may also be dealing with cellular insulin resistance. I do think that’s a terribly unfortunate situation, but please don’t fault an article for not considering every possible variant of a condition, as that is never going to be possible.

          It’s like referring to someone with cancer of the liver who also has a gut condition that prevents taking the treatment recommended for the cancer. What benefits one may harm the other, but it’s not reasonable to expect any individual article on either topic to cover both possibilities at the same time.

          Perhaps you would like to provide some information about combination type 1 and type 2 diabetes? I would welcome it.

  • Pingback: Iνσουλίνη, άλλος ενας μύθος καταρρίπτεται; | fytro

  • Sarah

    Ridiculous. Did you read more than just the abstract? You have to examine baseline characteristics between the groups to understand what these results mean. Patients receiving treatment for diabetes start with oral medications, and if not adequately controlled on those, progress to oral medications plus basal insulin and finally transition (if needed) to an insulin only regimen called basal/bolus. Patients who are managed solely on insulin have had diabetes longer and have more advanced diabetes than those not using insulin. It is completely logical that those who are sicker and have been sick for longer would be at increased risk of death. It’s not the insulin that causes death. It’s the years of exposure to high blood glucose levels.

    And to address another point that the author (and mod) have erroneously made. Patients with Type 2 diabetes can ABSOLUTELY have impaired insulin secretion. That happens for a number of reasons including what is called beta cell fatigue. This does not mean that these patients have Type 1 diabetes. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition that results in the destruction of the beta cells in the Islets of Langerhans in the pancreas. Insulin resistance is definitely an important part of Type 2 diabetes, but impaired insulin secretion also plays a role, particularly in patients who have a longer duration of illness.

    • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

      Of course I read the study, as you’d realize if you’d bother clicking on the link to it. You don’t like the results, so you attack me and presume that what I wrote was an invention. That’s a rather cheap attempt at debate.

      The fact is that giving insulin to type 2 diabetics causes death. You don’t like it, then take it up with the researchers.

      • Sarah

        No, the insulin doesn’t cause death. That’s not what the study says either. Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? I don’t think you do. Association studies do not explore causation, and without evidence of causation you cannot conclude that “insulin causes death.” Thanks for confirming that you either didn’t read the full study (you linked to the abstract, not the entire study) or don’t understand the results.

        • http://gaia-health.com/ Heidi Stevenson

          You pick at nits. If giving insulin results in double the rate of death, then doing so clearly causes the rate of death of double. To suggest that it doesn’t is truly bizarre.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marg13 Margaret Hollis

    As a diabetes educator, RN, MSc, I need more than one study to prove this. Also, please note that it states that there were less deaths, etc in people treated with Metformin, which is the first drug of choice for people with type 2 diabetes. And, sulphonylurea drugs are very rarely prescribed these days. I would also be interested to know how many references the researchers used and how old these were.

Search Gaia Health

Subscribe to the Gaia Health
Newsletter

Don't miss breaking Gaia Health articles.
Rest assured that your e-mail address will never be sold or shared.

newsletter software