Economy fears

Is anyone else out there as nervous as I am about this economic disaster as I am?

Last fall I sold my house in an effort to prevent loosing it. I wasn't behind in payments, although I had been a year earlier. I had a lot of debt, but none of it credit cards, and most of it medical, and a big portion as a result of taking care of (some would say bailing out) my adult son. I don't have a great credit history, but I have always paid my debt in full, I have never tried to deal with those I owed, I just paid what was due as I felt I should. (I did have 1 medical bill "disappear" several years ago and I never checked up on it....it was my ex's responsibility but I know he didn't pay it)

So anyway, I sold my house because money had gotten tight and I was feeling like I was paying for a whole lot of house that I didn't need. My house was 7 rooms (3/2) and I only used 4 of them. It was expensive to heat and cool and needed some work....a lot of work. My son still lived with me and once he left I would be down to 3 rooms, less than 1/2 the house....but all except 1 room had to be heated and cooled because of the layout. I also, truthfully, wanted my son to move out.

Because my house needed work and I was unable to get a loan to fix it up, I ended up selling to a nice young man who planned to fix it up and eventually sell it. Most of what it needed was cosmetic, but it also needed big things like windows and a new deck. I was not unhappy with the price I got....not happy, but not unhappy. It was the beginning of the market failure here in NC and I was just glad to get rid of it.

I had another house all lined up, but was unable to get a loan, due mostly to the sub-prime debacle, which was just starting to make the news. I wasn't a holder of a sub-prime loan, but because of the whole issue banks were not happy to loan to people without stellar credit....and mine wasn't. I ended up giving up on the house and moved into an apartment. (I got approved finally the day after I gave up the house, which made me think it was an omen) I'm still in the apartment, and not expecting to be out soon. The housing market here in NC is definitely a buyer's market, but no one is giving loans and there's a change in the wind with work.

OK...so work. The company I work for is the latest in a long list of companies.....the first one that I worked for sold our division, to a company that then sold us to another....and now that company is merging with an even larger company....but this merger is being effected by the financial crisis. The bank that was all set to guarantee the loan involved in the merger is one of the biggies that has recently requested (and denied) assistance from the feds in order to keep their business afloat. So until this is settles, apparently our merger is on hold. Everything has been done....all the paperwork has been approved, all the approvals have been given and all the appropriate hoops have been cleanly jumped through....but without that guarantee the merger will not take place. Oh yea....the building we're in has been sold and no one knows what will happen if we don't merge and move to the new company offices...offices that will not likely be available unless and until the merger takes place.

I am single and live alone....just me and my 2 dogs. I have some significant medical issues which cost a fair amount, but not as bad as many people (and many on much lower incomes). Right now I live close to work so I spend little on gas, but if our office moves my travel will be about 5 times the distance and 10 times the aggravation. I can stop eating out, which really isn't all that often lately.....I can cut back on some food....and I guess I'll have to do with the clothes I have. As long as I have a job, I have no fear that I'll starve or become homeless.

As long as I have a job. That is a scary thing to think of when you're in your mid-50s and not in perfect health. Is my job at risk? I don't think so. Will it be if this financial problem isn't handled right? I don't know. Do I have faith that our government will do it right and fix it properly....well, that I'm not so sure of.

I do NOT understand all of what is going on. I have a fair understanding of how banks and businesses work with borrowing and loaning and depreciating etc, but I am by no means an expert. I have stock, but it's company stock and pretty much just sits there. I also have a little stock related to my retirement, and so far that's holding fairly steady.

But if this isn't done right we can be thrown into a severe recession and possibly even depression. What really scared me was hearing last week a financial expert say that we would only go into a depression if "we really worked at it".....and that if anyone could throw the company into a depression, it would be the guy that is currently in charge!

I hope this is done right....and the next administration is able to do something to get us out from under the massive debt we have incurred over the past 7 years!

Our poor children!

I don't even know what to say about this!

For the first time, an influential doctors group is recommending that some children as young as 8 be given cholesterol-fighting drugs to ward off future heart problems.

Mind you, there is little if any evidence that cholesterol medications prevent heart disease!

It is the strongest guidance ever given on the issue by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which released its new guidelines Monday. The academy also recommends low-fat milk for 1-year-olds and wider cholesterol testing.

Dr. Stephen Daniels, of the academy's nutrition committee, says the new advice is based on mounting evidence showing that damage leading to heart disease, the nation's leading killer, begins early in life.

It also stems from recent research showing that cholesterol-fighting drugs are generally safe for children, Daniels said.

Wow...."generally safe"? Really? Many adults that have been damaged (or died) from statins may disagree. Can we at least have a citation for the "recent research"??

Several of these drugs are approved for use in children and data show that increasing numbers are using them.

Oh well.....if more kids are using them, then I guess it's ok for most kids?

"If we are more aggressive about this in childhood, I think we can have an impact on what happens later in life ... and avoid some of these heart attacks and strokes in adulthood," Daniels said. He has worked as a consultant to Abbott Laboratories and Merck & Co., but not on matters involving their cholesterol drugs.

Drug treatment would generally be targeted for kids at least 8 years old who have too much LDL, the "bad" cholesterol, along with other risky conditions, including obesity and high blood pressure.

For overweight children with too little HDL, the "good" cholesterol, the first course of action should be weight loss, more physical activity and nutritional counseling, the academy says.

Pediatricians should routinely check the cholesterol of children with a family history of inherited cholesterol disease or with parents or grandparents who developed heart disease at an early age, the recommendations say. Screening also is advised for kids whose family history isn't known and those who are overweight, obese or have other heart disease risk factors.

Screening is recommended sometime after age 2 but no later than age 10, at routine checkups.

We've been SOOOOOO successful with adults, now we have to work on the kids!

Read more here and for the New york Times article click here. (Registration required for NYT article.

We have GOT to get some sensible people in charge!

Sign the petition!!

We've got a long way to go to hit the goal!!

Jenny says it best on her blog.

Sign the petition here

I'm Voting Republican!

The video is excellent....but if you can't watch, go here for a text summary.

A new Special Comment from Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann: McCain should know better

Context and decency elude the GOP presidential nominee

SPECIAL COMMENT

By Keith Olbermann

Anchor, 'Countdown'

updated 9:23 p.m. ET, Thurs., June. 12, 2008

Tonight, a Special Comment on Sen. John McCain’s conclusion that it’s "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.

Thoughts, offered more in sorrow, than in anger. For two full days now, the Senator and his supporters have been outraged at what they see as the subtraction of context from this extraordinary remark.

This is, sadly, the excuse of our time, for everything. Still. If the Senator claims truncation, we will correct that, first.

"A lot of people," Matt Lauer began, "now say the surge is working."

"Anybody who knows the facts on the ground say that," the Senator interjected.

"If it’s now working, Senator," Lauer continued, "do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No," answered McCain. "But that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany.

That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw. General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are. But the key to it is we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way. And that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor and victory — not in defeat, which is what Sen. [Barack] Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job. And we are succeeding. And it’s fascinating that Sen. Obama still doesn’t realize it."

And there is the context of what Sen. McCain said. Well, not quite, Senator.

The full context is that the Iraq you see, is a figment of your imagination. This is not a war about "honor and victory," Sir. This is a war you, and the President you support and seek to succeed, conned this nation into.

Yes, sir. You.

Of the prospect of war in Iraq, you said, "I believe that success will be fairly easy –" John McCain., September 24, 2002.

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time –" John McCain, September 29, 2002.

Of the ouster of Saddam and the Baathists: "There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators – " John McCain, March 24, 2003.

Asked, about a long-term commitment in Iraq, "are you talking about something in terms of South Korea, for instance, where you would expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq for decades?"

"No," you answered. "I don’t think decades, but I think years. A little straight talk, I think years. And I hope that we can gradually reduce that presence – " John McCain, March 18, 2004.

You were asked about the troops, and the future.

"I would hope that we could bring them all home. I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff."

"…I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence. And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be – " John McCain, January 31, 2005.

When a speaker at your town hall, five months ago, referenced the President’s forecast that we might stay in Iraq for 50 years, you cut him off.

"Make it a hundred! We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine by me … – " John McCain, January 3, 2008.

And your forecast of your hypothetical first term.

"By January, 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq war has been won – " John McCain, May 15, 2008.

That, Sen. McCain, is context.

You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not that important.

That, Sen. McCain, is context.

And that, Sen. McCain, is madness.

The Government Accountability Office just released a study Tuesday that concludes that one out of every ten soldiers sent to Iraq, takes with them medical problems "severe enough to significantly limit their ability to fight."

In five years, we have now sent 43-thousand of them to war even though, they were already wounded.

And when they come home, is not that important.

Jalal al Din al Sagir, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Ali al Adeeb, of the rival Dawa Political Party, gave a series of interviews last week about the particulars of this country’s demand for a "Status of Forces," agreement with Iraq, a treaty which Mr. Bush does not intend to show Congress before he signs it.

The Iraqi politicians say the treaty demands Iraq’s consent to the establishment of nearly double the number of U.S. military bases in Iraq,from about 30, to 58, and from temporary, to permanent.

Those will be American men and women who must, of necessity, staff these bases - staff them, in Mr. McCain’s MCEscher dream world in which our people can all come home while they stay there for a hundred years but they’ll be back by 2013.

And when they come home, is not that important.

Last year, a 20-year old soldier from the Bronx, on the day of his re-deployment to a second tour in Iraq, said he just couldn’t face the smell of burning flesh again. So, Jonathan Aponte paid a hit man 500 dollars... to shoot him in the knee.

Mount Sinai Hospital in New York reported treating a patient identifying himself as another Iraq-bound soldier, who claimed he had accidentally swallowed a pen at the bus station. No one doubted his story until examinations proved there was a second pen in his stomach bearing the logo of Greyhound Bus Lines.

In 2006, says his sister, a 24-year old Army Specialist from Washington State, on the eve of his second deployment, strapped a pack full of tools to his back, and then jumped off the roof of his house, injuring his spine.

And when they come home or more correctly all those like them who did not risk death or disability to avoid going back, when they come home, is not that important.

You’ve sold them all out, Senator. You.

You, whose sacrifice for this country was as all-encompassing and as horrible as the rest of us can only imagine in our darkest moments.

You, who survived, so that you could make America a better place where young men did not have to go and die in pointless wars or be maimed or be held prisoner or have to hire hit-men to shoot them in the knee because that couldn’t be worse.

You, who should know better.

Where, Senator, is the man who once said "veterans hate war more than anyone else, because veterans know, because veterans know these brave Americans, and others, know, that there is nothing more painful than the loss of a comrade."

Where is he, Sir? Where is the man who described that ineffable truth?

Oh, so long ago you touched the essence of the reality of Iraq. Your comments about your lost comrades, yesterday.

The men and women in Iraq, today, Senator, they are your comrades, too.

And you are condemning them to die.

To die, for your misdirection, for Mr. Bush’s lies, for whoever makes the money off building 58 permanent American bases and all the weapons and all the bullets and all the wiring so costly and so slip-shod that it electrocutes our comrades as they step, not to fight freedom’s enemies, but into the shower at the base.

That, Senator, that is context.

It is an easy thing to dismiss Sen. McCain as a sad and befuddled figure, already challenging for some kind of campaign record for malaprops.

Just yesterday in Philadelphia he answered Sen. Obama, not by defending or explaining his own "not that important" remark, but by seizing upon Obama’s "bitter" remark - or trying to.

Obama had foolishly said that some, in despair, in small towns, cling to their religion and their guns.

Sen. McCain vowed he’d go to those towns and tell them, "I don’t agree with Senator Obama that they cling to their religion and the Constitution because they’re bitter."

It was hard not to dismiss with a laugh, Sen. McCain, or any Republican, for even accidentally implying that he’s clung to the Constitution, not after the last seven years.

It was hard, the day before, not to become almost bemused when the Senator tried to say he would veto every single bill with ear-marks, but wound up, instead, vowing "I will veto every single beer."

It was hard, this week, not to laugh at how Sen. McCain could offer any serious defense against the accusation that he is running for President Bush’s third term, when a 2006 interview suddenly surfaced in which McCain said he would consider Dick Cheney for a position in a McCain administration.

"I don’t know if I would want him as Vice President. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah."

These are all very funny, in a macabre yet unthreatening way.

And then one remembers Sen. McCain’s inability to separate Sunni and Shia, or his insistence that Iran is training Al Qaida for service in Iraq, and then being corrected about it, and then saying the same thing again anyway.

And then one is, inevitably, drawn back again to the overlooked substance of yesterday’s remark...

"If (the surge) is now working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?"

"No."

No?

The surge is working and even that still tells Sen. McCain nothing about when we can ransom our soldiers?

Wasn’t that the ultimate purpose of the surge? To get them out?

If we cannot tell, if McCain cannot even guess, doesn’t that, by definition, mean... the surge isn’t working?

And ultimately we are drawn back to the "not... too... important" remark, in its full context:

The context of the kaleidoscope of confused rhetoric, and endless non sequitur, and mutually exclusive conclusions—and what they add up to: a veritable tragedy, a microcosm of the American tragedy that is Iraq, a tragedy of a man who himself will never understand… "the context."

Your tragedy, Sen. McCain?

No. I’m sorry.

This tragedy is of Justin Mixon of Bogalusa, Louisiana. And it’s of Christopher McCarthy of Virginia Beach. It’s of Quincy Green of El Paso, and Joshua Waltenbaugh of Ford City, P.A. The tragedy is of Shane Duffy of Taunton Mass, and Jonathan Emard of Mesquite, Texas. It’s of Cody Legg of Escondido in California, and David Hurst of Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The tragedy is of Thomas Duncan the 3rd of Rowlett, Texas, and Tyler Pickett of Saratoga, Wyoming.

And who are they, Senator?

They are ten Americans, who have died in Iraq since the first of this month. There are four more. The Defense Department has not yet identified the others.

And while you, Senator, may ask for all the context you can get, those ten men... will never know any of it.

Because the true context here, is that if you could ask those American war heroes, or the family and the friends that loved them, if they have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq…

They could rightly say, "No. But that’s… not… too… important."

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25126582/

My RA/PRA diagnosis

This blog is mainly about low carb eating and living what I consider to be a truly healthful lifestyle. I also (since it's mine and I make the decisions) posted a few times on political issues and other topics unrelated (seemingly at least) to low carb. This is one of those posts. I'm posting thing for several reasons. First off, I feel like have almost have an obligation to my readers (there aren't many of you, but you seem to be faithful) to explain what's been going on in my life and preventing me from posting as much as I'd like.

There are many other reasons for this post, including wanting to get some links out there for people that may stumble on this. I have found online support extremely important for me since I started following a lob carb lifestyle. I only have 1 close friend and no family near me as I live in NC and they all live in New England, about 700 miles away. Finding the online support I have found with low carb makes me believe that this can be helpful for all kinds of issues.

About two to two and a half years ago I started having trouble with joints being very painful. There were times my ring finder on my left hand would ache, then a day later that was fine and my right shoulder would hurt. A few days later it would be my right ankle, or my left knee, or my left ankle....or my toes, or shoulders, hips, etc. Each time the pain would be moderate to severe, but only last for a day, maybe a day and a half. There were times when the pain seemed to travel from one joint to the next, other times it would go away and I'd be fine for weeks. At this point there was never any redness, swelling, or signs of inflammation, just pain (5-8 on a scale of 10).

One day my right foot started bothering me....the outer ankle area. It rapidly progressed to the point where I had trouble walking. I slept little that night and had a lot of trouble just getting to the bathroom. I had a Percocette, so I took it and was able to sleep, but the pain was constant. The next day I went to Urgent care (didn't have a Primary Care doctor, PCP, at that time) and when I got there, discovered the ankle was now red, hot and swollen, very swollen. The first doc told me it was gout, then the second doc (his supervisor) decided it was just inflammation from an injury I didn't realize I'd had and it should be fine in a few days. That night the pain went away almost as quickly as it came on. The next day I was able to finally get an appointment with a new PCP, but still had to wait a couple of months. During that time, the joint pains continued to come and go.

The worst is the shoulders....did you know it's tough to move without moving your shoulders? The wrist and hand isn't good either....cooking, typing, getting dressed is difficult when every movement hurts. Eventually I started seeing more and more signs of obvious inflammation. I'd wake up and my right index finger would be swollen to almost twice it's size. I'd be fine and out of the blue my shoulder would start hurting, eventually getting to the point of tears. I had no idea what was going on, but of course started to look up symptoms online, having Rheumatoid in the back of my mind, but finding what I could to "prove" that I didn't have RA! RA hits joints on both sides of the body....some of my joints hurt on both sides, but hardly ever at the same time....and often only the joint on one side would hurt.

Well, eventually I had my appointment with my PC, but of course had no symptoms that day. I told him about it and he sounded concerned, but didn't know what it was. He told me to call and try to come back if I had any obvious signs of inflammation. I did, about 2 weeks later. When I went in with symptoms, he immediately told me I needed to see a specialist, had a bunch of blood drawn and set up an appointment with a Rheumatologist.

I went to see the Rheumatologist, who had my blood work and was told I had an autoimmune disease, Palindromic Rheumatoid Arthritis. The "rheumy" explained that PRA moves from joint to joint, sometimes shows signs of inflammation but sometimes doesn't, and comes and goes erratically. Wow! That was exactly what I had! He also explained that, like RA, they really didn't know the cause, so they treat it like RA and sometimes get good results. He also ordered more blood work, including a second RA factor, and added a few more tests.

When I went back to see him a couple of months later, he ordered Plaquenil for me, but I was unable to tolerate it. In January I finally called and got an early appointment and when I saw the doc I asked for something else, as well as some pain medication. I was prescribed Doxycycline and Oxycodone. I filled both prescriptions January 18th and started taking the Doxy that night. Over the next few weeks, things didn't change, pains came and went, sometimes swelling, but mostly not. Then the pain got more severe, more frequent, and lasting longer in each joint. And then after a few weeks the....um..."intestinal side effects" kicked in. Oh man, I felt like I'd been on a bender....and I don't even drink very often (um, like 2-3 times a year!). Eventually I figured out it was the Doxy and stopped taking it. Apparently this stuff destroys a good amount of the "good" bacteria that live in our guts and you need to take probiotics on a regular basis to keep from having side effects.

Right around this time I found a couple of sites about RA and PRA that have information about autoimmune diseases as well as support forums. The sites aren't "official" sites, but are set up by people that are themselves living with one of more of these diseases. All of the "official" sites have the same info. If you go to Web MD or Prevention, or any of the RA organization sites you basically see the same information. There is almost no information about natural, nutritional, or alternative treatments. Antibiotic treatment is apparently not widely accepted, but being found to have excellent results in some people.

Eventually, with the help of probiotics, and the wonderful people on the support boards, I was able to tolerate the antibiotic....somewhat. I still have to stop it from time to time, but all in all I'm doing well with it. Now, I don't know if it's working or not....it can take 3-6 months or more before you know if it's working or not. The beginning of March I gave in and asked (begged) my doc for steroids and that has helped a lot.....but it's also now wearing off and the symptoms are coming back.

The good thing about having PR is that there usually isn't any joint damage like you see with RA. The bad thing is the degree of pain! I'm told that PR pain is worse than any other....and I sure won't argue with that. I cannot believe how much this can hurt!!

So...that's where I am now, and what I've been going through the past few months. Right now I have sore joints and occasionally one will flare up to the point where I want to take a pain med. I am trying to not take them unless I have no choice.....but that's not always possible. I'm still taking the antibiotic, and still hoping it is helping. I imagine when I see my doc this week he'll order more blood work, and hopefully that will show an improvement.

I want to post a couple of sites for those with RA, PR and other auto-immune (AI) diseases:
International Palindromic Rheumatism Society: An excellent site that has been created by a man with PR. There is a ton of info on there and even a support forum.
Tender joints R.A.I.S.E.D. (Rheumatoid Arthritis Information, Support, & Educated Determination): a forum for those with various AI diseases.

Kimkins video

Video of interview about the Kimkins fraud.

"You drink the Kool-Aid"

Ex-Drug Sales Rep Tells All

To sell their drugs, pharmaceutical companies hire former cheerleaders and ex-models to wine and dine doctors, exaggerate the drug's benefits and underplay their side-effects, a former sales rep told a Congressional committee this morning

Shahram Ahari, who spent two years selling Prozac and Zypraxa for Eli Lily, told a Senate Aging Committee chaired by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., that his job involved "rewarding physicians with gifts and attention for their allegiance to your product and company despite what may be ethically appropriate."

Ahari claims that drug companies like hiring former cheerleaders and ex-models, as well as former athletes and members of the military, many of whom have no background in science.

"On my first day of sales class, among 21 trainees and two instructors, I was the only one with any level of college-level science education," Ahari told ABCNews.com on Tuesday.

During their five-week training class, Ahari claims that instructors teach sales tactics, including how to exceed spending limits for important clients, being generous with free samples to leverage sales, using friendships and personal gifts to foster a "quid pro quo" relationship, and how to exploit sexual tension.

"The nature of this business is gift-giving," says Ahari. He claims that he's heard stories about sales reps helping to pay the cost of a doctor's swimming pool and another doctor who was routinely taken to a nightclub where a hostess was paid to keep him company.

Drug reps develop a positive view of their drug and a negative view of the competitors, according to Ahari. "You drink the Kool-Aid. We were taught to minimize the side effects and how to use conversational ploys to minimize it or to change the topic.

According to Ahari, the benefits could be lucrative for sales reps, who tended to earn more than researchers. On top of a base salary for starting reps of $50,000, "there were four quarterly bonuses, an annual bonus, stock options, a car, 401K, great health benefits, and a $60,000 expense account."

Read the rest here.

Preaching to the choir, I know....but maybe it will bring about some changes!

Recent Diabetes study in the news

Recent Diabetes study in the news.

I'm sure plenty of you have seen the articles in the news about the study to lower blood sugar was partially stopped due to increased deaths in 1 group.

"Among the study participants who were randomly assigned to get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal, there were 54 more deaths than in the group whose levels were less rigidly controlled. The patients were in the study for an average of four years when investigators called a halt to the intensive blood sugar lowering and put all of them on the less intense regimen." according to the NY Times.

Now, of course the medical industry is explaining, even tho the data hasn't been analyzed, what this means:

“It’s confusing and disturbing that this happened,” said Dr. James Dove, president of the American College of Cardiology. “For 50 years, we’ve talked about getting blood sugar very low. Everything in the literature would suggest this is the right thing to do,” he added.

and:

“It will be similar to what many women felt when they heard the news about estrogen,” Dr. Hirsch said. “Telling these patients to get their blood sugar up will be very difficult.”

At the very end, there is this:

It might be that patients suffered unintended consequences from taking so many drugs, which might interact in unexpected ways, said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Ya think?!?!?!

Keep in mind, not only was this group subjected to a program designed to "get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal", they were also aggressively treated for high BP and/or elevated cholesterol levels. And how were they treated? With high doses of multiple medications!

As one blogger pointed out, there are so many different drugs used, in so many different combinations, and so many different doses that it will be impossible to come up with any statistical reason for the deaths. And remember too, these people were also treated, often with multiple drugs for 1-2 other conditions....that we know of! How many drugs were these people taking for other conditions? (Not to mention their smoking status, their weight, activity level, gender, age, etc etc etc!)

Please, at least at this point in time, ignore these articles and continue to do what you've been doing!! All recent and past evidence indicates that the tighter the control and the closer to normal, the better the outcomes!

Back in the 70s, when all that was available, besides diet, was insulin and a handful of oral meds (designed only to stimulate the pancreas to produce more insulin) we saw fewer complications than we do today. We could predict sometimes which patients would do well, simply by how tightly controlled they were. Those that followed the diet (which was not ketogenic, but much lower carb than today's diet) and took their meds didn't have too many problems. But those that didn't take their meds, or stick with their diet, got all kinds of complications!

I seriously am starting to question the medical profession in the care of diabetics. I just don't understand how they can continue to encourage, no push, a high carb diet and then just keep adding meds! These statements are, in my opinion, criminal!

There are blogs all over the place about this subject and different takes on why we should continue what we're doing and ignore the advice of "experts". Here are links to a couple:
Dave Dixon's take at The Spark Of Reason,
Regina Wilshire's at The Weight of The Evidence, and
Jenny's at Diabetes Update.

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment Regarding FISA

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment Regarding FISA
By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC Countdown

Thursday 31 January 2008

And finally, as promised, a Special Comment - of FISA and the telecoms.

In a presidency of hypocrisy - an administration of exploitation - a labyrinth of leadership - in which every vital fact is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma hidden under a claim of executive privilege supervised by an idiot - this one… is surprisingly easy.

President Bush has put protecting the telecom giants from the laws… ahead of protecting you from the terrorists.

He has demanded an extension of the FISA law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - but only an extension that includes retroactive immunity for the telecoms who helped him spy on you.

Congress has given him, and he has today signed a fifteen-day extension which simply kicks the time bomb down the field, and has changed nothing of his insipid rhetoric, in which he portrays the Democrats as 'soft on terror' and getting in the way of his superhuman efforts to protect the nation… when, in fact, and with bitter irony, if anybody is 'soft on terror' here… it is Mr. Bush.

In the State of the Union Address, sir, you told Congress, "if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger."

Yet you are willing to weaken that ability!

You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger.

This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand: If Congress approves a new FISA act without telecom immunity and sends it to your desk and you veto it - you, by your own terms and your own definitions, you will have just sided with the terrorists.

Ya gotta have this law, or we're all gonna die. But you might veto this law!

It's bad enough, sir, that you are demanding an ex post facto law which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans, under the flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you then demanded again, during the State of the Union address, that Congress retroactively clear the Verizons and the AT&T's, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared!

"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed?

Don't you know?

Does the endless hair-splitting of your presidential fine print, extend even here?

If you, sir, are asking Congress, and us, to join you in this shameless, breathless, literal, textbook example of fascism - the merged efforts of government and corporations who answer to no government - you still don't have the guts to even say the telecom companies did assist you, in your efforts?

Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything?

Even the stuff you claim to believe in?

Silly me.

Of course Mr. Bush is going to say "believed."

Yes, it sounds dumber than if he had referred to himself as "the alleged president," or had said today was "reportedly Thursday," or had claimed "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

But the moment he says anything else, any doubt that the telecoms knowingly broke the law, is out the window, and with it, any chance that even the Republicans who are fighting this like they were trying to fend off terrorists using nothing but broken beer bottles and swear words couldn't consent to retroactively immunize corporate criminals.

Which is why the Vice President probably shouldn't have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday.

Sixth sentence out of Mr. Cheney's mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, "retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States."

Oops.

Mr. Cheney is something of a loose cannon, of course.

But he kind of let the wrong cat out of the bag there.

Because Mr. Bush - and the corporations he values more than people - didn't want anybody to verify what Mark Klein says.

Mark Klein is the AT&T whistleblower who appeared on this newscast last November, who explained, in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all of AT&T's circuits - everything carrying every phone call, every e-mail, every bit of web browsing - into a secure room…

…Room Number 641-A, at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco - where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it; not just the international part of it; certainly not just the stuff some truly patriotic and telepathic spy might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything.

Every time you looked at a naked picture, every time you bid on eBay, every time you phoned-in a donation to a Democrat.

"My thought was 'George Orwell's 1984,'" Mr. Klein told me, reflecting back, "and here I am, being forced to… connect the Big Brother machine."

You know, Mr. Bush, if Mr. Klein's "Big Brother Machine" - the one the Vice President conveniently just confirmed for us - if it was of any damn use at all at actually finding anything, you could probably program it to find out who started that slanderous e-mail about Barack Obama.

Use Room 641-A to identify that E–assassin, sir, and I'll stand up and applaud you.

Yeah, I'm holding my breath on that one, too.

But of course, sir, this isn't about finding that kind of needle in a haystack. This isn't even about finding a haystack. This is about scooping up every piece of hay there ever was, and laying the groundwork for the next little job which you have to outsource to AT&T and Verizon.

It was your Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, letting this one out of the same bag.

The need for Homeland Security to stave off cyber-attacks against the government's computer networks.

And how do they do that, sir?

By constantly monitoring the internet - the whole internet.

And who actually, physically, does that, Mr. Bush?

Right. The same telecom giants for whom you want immunity - Quickly. So quickly, you wouldn't believe it.

Because this previous domestic spying, and this upcoming policing of the internet - they may be completely evil, indiscriminate, unlawful. So you have to dress it up, as something just the opposite.

It isn't evil… it's "to protect America."

It isn't indiscriminate… it's "the ability to monitor terrorist communications."

It isn't unlawful… it's just the kind of perfectly legal thing, for which you happen to need immunity!

There's yet another level to this, and here we move from Big Brother… to Sleazy Son.

Mr. Bush's new Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey, the one who has already taken four different positions on water-boarding, and who may yet tie that record on this subject of telecom immunity - he has a very personal stake in this.

There happens to be a partner in the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani, named Marc Mukasey. And Bracewell and Giuliani and the Attorney General's son Marc, just happen to represent… Verizon.

You know, Verizon - Telecom Giant.

And all of a sudden this is no longer just a farce in which "protecting the telecoms" is dressed up for us as, 'protecting us from terrorist conference calls.'

Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich trying to protect the Krupp Family industrial giants by literally re-writing the laws for their benefit.

And we know how that turned out: Alfried Krupp and eleven of his directors were convicted of War Crimes at Nuremburg.

Nevertheless.

For those of us watching a President demanding this very specific law (the one the Germans had was called the "Lex Krupp") there is one surprising bit of comfort in all this:

Clearly, Mr. Bush is at his hyperbolic worst here.

Consider how his former chief of staff Andy Card came on and scolded Chris Matthews and me after the State of the Union address.

"The President's address tonight was very important," Card said, "because it really was a sobering call to reality for us.

"And the reality is, we have an enemy who wants to hurt us. The primary job of the president to protect us.

"He talked about protecting us. He talked about the needs to have the tools to protect us."

Indeed, Mr. Bush.

The primary job of any president is to protect us.

Not just those of us who own Internet and Telephone companies - All of us.

And even you, sir, with your intermittent grasp of reality… even with your ego greater than a 100-percent approval rating… even with your messianic petulance - even you could not truly choose to protect the corporations instead of the people.

I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame.

Even if it's you throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Mr. Bush, it still means we can safely conclude… there is no baby!

This is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or protecting the people from terrorists, sir.

It is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or pretending to protect the people from terrorists.

Sorry, Mr. Bush. The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.

Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason… but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible.

Good night and good luck.