Did Lipitor CAUSE my Type 2 Diabetes?

dubscribe

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/drug-giant-faces-flood-of-lawsuits-over-lipitor-30494717.html?

IRISH INDO this morning: "Drug giant faces flood of lawsuits over Lipitor"

HAVE YOU BEEN AFFECTED?

I started taking Lipitor in 2010. I'm now on a generic equivalent.
In 2013 I was diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2.
There's no history of diabetes in my family and in my case, it developed rapidly.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO?

calfmuscle

dubscribe wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/drug-giant-faces-flood-of-lawsuits-over-lipitor-30494717.html?

IRISH INDO this morning: "Drug giant faces flood of lawsuits over Lipitor"

HAVE YOU BEEN AFFECTED?

I started taking Lipitor in 2010. I'm now on a generic equivalent.
In 2013 I was diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2.
There's no history of diabetes in my family and in my case, it developed rapidly.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO?

What's your height and weight? What's your diet like? How much exercise do you do?

dubscribe

What's that got to do with what I asked?

gctest50

probably loads by the looks of it ?


http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/10/1924?ijkey=bb84477ea9e9e751c274d490054c566f6f385aa0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha&linkType=ABST&journalCode=diacare&resid=32/10/1924&atom=/bmj/346/bmj.f2610.atom

calfmuscle

dubscribe wrote: »

What's that got to do with what I asked?

Because these are the factors that predispose ppl to type two diabetes. If you had no risk factors it would be unusual to develop diabetes.

dubscribe

I'm aware of that, and yes I could have been considered as being predisposed. However, that's not my question.

I'm trying to establish if there are large numbers of people in Ireland who also may have this connection ie Lipitor and Diabetes Type 2.

Until this morning's article I never made a connection, however I have always been confused as to why it seemed to develop so quickly, ie within 6 months, because I was having my bloods checked regularly because of my high cholesterol.

gctest50

U S Food and Drug Administration :

People being treated with statins may have an increased risk of raised blood sugar levels and the development of Type 2 diabetes.


“Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,” says Egan. But what this means for patients taking statins and the health care professionals prescribing them is that blood-sugar levels may need to be assessed after instituting statin therapy,” she says.

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm293330.htm

calfmuscle

dubscribe wrote: »

I'm aware of that, and yes I could have been considered as being predisposed. However, that's not my question.

I'm trying to establish if there are large numbers of people in Ireland who also may have this connection ie Lipitor and Diabetes Type 2.

Until this morning's article I never made a connection, however I have always been confused as to why it seemed to develop so quickly, ie within 6 months, because I was having my bloods checked regularly because of my high cholesterol.

You won't get an objective answer to your question. The majority of ppl on stains are over weight and do not do enough exercise. These ppl are are at risk of comorbidities such as type two diabetes.
Yes there will be a majority of type two diabetics who take statins but that does not mean the statins caused the diabetes.

dubscribe

This report you posted gctest50 also states:

"A small increased risk" of raised blood sugar levels and the development of Type 2 diabetes have been reported with the use of statins."

That's the thing - is it in fact a very large increase in the risk and was this played down by Pfizer?
I suspect that's why all these lawsuits have been filed.
And perhaps the number of incidences in Ireland, proportionally to the population size is equally as large.

smcgiff

Before this article what did you put your type 2 diabetes down to?

dubscribe

It would be interesting to see calfmuscle though if the numbers in Ireland stack up proportionally to those in the US.

Maybe Pfizer played down the risk factor in order to get clearance from the FDA.

Not uncommon you know.

ford2600

smcgiff wrote: »

Before this article what did you put your type 2 diabetes down to?

Given your high cholesterol, diet your diet have a very low fat content and by collorary a high carbohydrate intake?

I'd expect a large c r oss over in people on statins with diabetes, whether it is cause or not.

gctest50

just dumping stuff for you to read :

Do statins cause diabetes? The short answer is yes

• Dysregulation of cellular cholesterol leading to impaired insulin secretion caused by disrupted voltage-gated calcium channel function in pancreatic β cells resulting in attenuated fusion of insulin granules with the cell membrane

• Disruption of mitochondrial function in the myocyte , adipocyte , and pancreatic β cell resulting in diminished insulin secretion and increased peripheral insulin resistance

• Decrease in expression of adipocyte insulin-responsive glucose transporter (GLUT4)leadingto increased peripheral insulin resistance

• Induction of muscle fatigue and reduced energy culminating in diminished exercise potential and decreased activity

• Perpetuation of the sarcopenia (skeletal muscle wasting) of aging leading to increased insulin resistance


( from attached file )

calfmuscle

dubscribe wrote: »

It would be interesting to see calfmuscle though if the numbers in Ireland stack up proportionally to those in the US.

Maybe Pfizer played down the risk factor in order to get clearance from the FDA.

Not uncommon you know.

So it's all a big conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with poor diet and not enough exercise?

endacl

calfmuscle wrote: »

So it's all a big conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with poor diet and not enough exercise?

Sssssshhhhhh..... :mad:

Gru

In my experience the FDA do not allow people to get away with anything. They are now more than ever exceptionally pedantic. So I sincerely doubt pfizer could play down any major side effects.

dubscribe

smcgiff wrote: »

Before this article what did you put your type 2 diabetes down to?

smcgiff, I couldn't account for developing it and especially so quickly

dubscribe

Gru wrote: »

In my experience the FDA do not allow people to get away with anything. They are now more than ever exceptionally pedantic. So I sincerely doubt pfizer could play down any major side effects.

Well, I guess it depends on whether these lawsuits are successful. Afterall, it would take major evidence to prove their case.

Cantstandsya

gctest50 wrote: »

just dumping stuff for you to read :

According to this, statins might account for 5 - 6 cases per 1,000 cases of Type 2 Diabetes with the effects seemingly most potent among women, the elderly, and Asians.

I don't know the figures but can someone tell me how many cases per 1,000 of type 2 diabetes are caused by obesity, poor diet and sedentary lifestyle? I'm guessing it's more than 5 or 6.

There might be something in this, as it doesn't look like there are long term studies on it as yet, but it does seem to me that people are, generally, overly anxious to abandon the notion that they might have had some hand in their own affliction.

dubscribe

gctest50 wrote: »

just dumping stuff for you to read :

I'm not disputing that. What I'm trying to establish if the number of people are statistically much more than what could be considered to be a "small risk" and if, as the article states, women are especially disadvantaged.

Gru

dubscribe wrote: »

Well, I guess it depends on whether these lawsuits are successful. Afterall, it would take major evidence to prove their case.

It does, however with the Americans there is a culture of sueing the big companies as they are likely to settle out of court in order to save time/money rather than have to deal with loads of lawsuits. The claiments may not have anything more than anecdotal evidence as to their onset of diabetes. Someone/something to blame for their own misfortune.

dubscribe

calfmuscle wrote: »

So it's all a big conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with poor diet and not enough exercise?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm simply interested in finding out if statistically the risk, especially to women is significantly higher than is acceptable in this particular drug.

There are many kinds of statins on the market. I'm interested in particular in Lipitor.

dubscribe

Gru wrote: »

It does, however with the Americans there is a culture of sueing the big companies as they are likely to settle out of court in order to save time/money rather than have to deal with loads of lawsuits. The claiments may not have anything more than anecdotal evidence as to their onset of diabetes. Someone/something to blame for their own misfortune.

Time will tell. The first case goes to court next July. I'll be following its progress.

dubscribe

Cantstandsya wrote: »

According to this, statins might account for 5 - 6 cases per 1,000 cases of Type 2 Diabetes with the effects seemingly most potent among women, the elderly, and Asians.

I don't know the figures but can someone tell me how many cases per 1,000 of type 2 diabetes are caused by obesity, poor diet and sedentary lifestyle? I'm guessing it's more than 5 or 6.

There might be something in this, as it doesn't look like there are long term studies on it as yet, but it does seem to me that people are, generally, overly anxious to abandon the notion that they might have had some hand in their own affliction.

OR is it a case that the medicating culture of doctors in fact does more harm than good?

Dr Nic

calfmuscle wrote: »

What's your height and weight? What's your diet like? How much exercise do you do?

Do we have the answer to this question?

gctest50

dubscribe wrote: »

OR is it a case that the medicating culture of doctors in fact does more harm than good?

It's often weighing up the risks of one thing versus the other

Cantstandsya

dubscribe wrote: »

OR is it a case that the medicating culture of doctors in fact does more harm than good?

That depends, I'd be against medicating the healthy, however, that's not the issue here. This relates to people being placed on Lipitor for cholesterol in relation to CVD. Often (usually) in such cases a doctor is confronted with someone who is evidently incapable of or unwilling to take care of their own health, hence why they are there in the first place.

The doctor then has two choices - 1) do nothing, advising the person to sort out their weight etc, knowing full well that the statistics/ his own experience show that person most likely won't do this or 2) prescribe the quick fix statin that, while controversial to an extent, has been shown to lower the risks.

I don't think there are many doctors in a litigious and quick fix culture that would opt for the former.

smcgiff

dubscribe wrote: »

smcgiff, I couldn't account for developing itand especially so quickly

Really? Why were you on Lipitor in the first place? Do you know how type 2 diabetes develops?

I'm asking this question as the bold part of your answer to my question is not plausible.

GerardKeating

gctest50 wrote: »

It's often weighing up the risks of one thing versus the other

As with two articles I read recently;

One mentions a daily low dosage aspirin protects against a few different cancers,

The other says it causes an increased risk of stroke.

So i sit here, with an aspirin in my hand, thinking, which do I want, the cancer or the stroke..႒

graflynn

I remember reading a research article in the past year about how statins seemed to increase blood glucose levels. I'm a Type 1 Diabetic so I was concerned about this because my doctor is watching my cholesterol (now that I'm "that" age:o) and I wasn't looking forward to having my diabetes be more difficult to control.

So it's not a stretch for me to believe that if there were a lot of people with T2 who were borderline diabetes and on Lipitor, that they would have been diagnosed diabetic.

dubscribe

Dr Nic wrote: »

Do we have the answer to this question?

I'm 5'2", I'm 12st, I've lost 2st since being diagnosed, through changing my diet and exercising more.

The thing is - the damage is done, my doctor insists I can never loose Diabetes 2, once you've got it, you've got it for life. But I've read other literature that says eventually, it can go away!

I don't know.

dubscribe

gctest50 wrote: »

It's often weighing up the risks of one thing versus the other

Exactly. But what if the risks were downplayed???

Doctors can only prescribe according to the information they are given by the drug manufacturers.

locum-motion

dubscribe wrote: »

Did Lipitor CAUSE my Type 2 Diabetes?

Highly unlikely, and impossible to answer exactly.

Let's say diabetes affects, as a round figure, 10% of the population.

So, take 100,000 people at random from the general population. 10,000 of them will have diabetes.

One of the other posters linked to a study which estimated a relative risk of 1.13 for diabetes for patients taking statins (the family of medicines to which Lipitor belongs).

So, if that study is right, if you take a random sample of 100,000 patients who are taking Lipitor, 11,300 of them will have diabetes. But here's the crucial bit: 10,000 would have got diabetes anyway, simply because they belong to the general population.
1,300 of them will have got it because they took Lipitor.

So that's 1,300 out of 100,000 people who take Lipitor will get diabetes because of it: That's 1.3%.

So, as I said, it's highly unlikely.

I also said that it's impossible to answer the question exactly. This is because, if you take any single one of the 11,300 people, it is impossible to know whether that person is one of the 1,300 who got diabetes because of Lipitor, or one of the 10,000 who would have got it anyway.

suds1984

locum-motion wrote: »

Highly unlikely, and impossible to answer exactly.

Let's say diabetes affects, as a round figure, 10% of the population.

So, take 100,000 people at random from the general population. 10,000 of them will have diabetes.

One of the other posters linked to a study which estimated a relative risk of 1.13 for diabetes for patients taking statins (the family of medicines to which Lipitor belongs).

So, if that study is right, if you take a random sample of 100,000 patients who are taking Lipitor, 11,300 of them will have diabetes. But here's the crucial bit: 10,000 would have got diabetes anyway, simply because they belong to the general population.
1,300 of them will have got it because they took Lipitor.

So that's 1,300 out of 100,000 people who take Lipitor will get diabetes because of it: That's 1.3%.

So, as I said, it's highly unlikely.I also said that it's impossible to answer the question exactly. This is because, if you take any single one of the 11,300 people, it is impossible to know whether that person is one of the 1,300 who got diabetes because of Lipitor, or one of the 10,000 who would have got it anyway.

And the fact that those that are taking Lipitor are getting repeat prescriptions from their doctor. They should be at least getting annual blood tests done so diabetes should be picked up quicker than another person who may not need to attend their doctor as often.

gctest50

.

locum-motion

locum-motion wrote: »

Highly unlikely, and impossible to answer exactly.

Let's say diabetes affects, as a round figure, 10% of the population.

So, take 100,000 people at random from the general population. 10,000 of them will have diabetes.

One of the other posters linked to a study which estimated a relative risk of 1.13 for diabetes for patients taking statins (the family of medicines to which Lipitor belongs).

So, if that study is right, if you take a random sample of 100,000 patients who are taking Lipitor, 11,300 of them will have diabetes. But here's the crucial bit: 10,000 would have got diabetes anyway, simply because they belong to the general population.
1,300 of them will have got it because they took Lipitor.

So that's 1,300 out of 100,000 people who take Lipitor will get diabetes because of it: That's 1.3%.

So, as I said, it's highly unlikely.

I also said that it's impossible to answer the question exactly. This is because, if you take any single one of the 11,300 people, it is impossible to know whether that person is one of the 1,300 who got diabetes because of Lipitor, or one of the 10,000 who would have got it anyway.

Addition to my own post quoted above:-

I've just thought of something else.

I said above that the answer to the question "Did Lipitor CAUSE my Type 2 Diabetes?" is "Highly Unlikely" and I put a figure of 1.3% on that likelihood.

However, I realised 2 things afterwards:

A. The figure of 1.3% isn't the answer to the question that was asked.
It is the answer to the question "If I start taking Lipitor, what is the chance that it will give me Diabetes?" The reason for this is that - before you start - you don't know if you'll be:-

• one of the 1,300 who get Diabetes because of the Lipitor
• one of the 10,000 who would have got it anyway
• one of the 88,700 who don't get Diabetes.

The question "Did Lipitor CAUSE my Diabetes?" implies that the asker already has Diabetes, and so we know that that person doesn't belong to the third category above, but are one of the 11,300 who do have diabetes. So therefore the question becomes "Out of 11,300 people, am I one of the 1,300 or one of the 10,000?" and the answer is "There is a {(1300/11300)x100}% chance that Lipitor caused your Diabetes". That equates to 11.5%

B. All of the figures I quoted refer to 'Diabetes', undifferentiated into Types 1 or 2. The OQ specified Type 2. So my figures will be off because I was answering slightly different questions from the one asked. However, I'm not going to set out to research it all again, so my answers will just have to do.

dubscribe

locum-motion wrote: »

Highly unlikely, and impossible to answer exactly.

Brilliant. Completely agree with your figuring of the stats, especially with the growing issue of obesity facing the Western world.

So, if it is that simple to disprove, I wonder what strategy the lawyers are planning on presenting???

locum-motion

dubscribe wrote: »

...
So, if it is that simple to disprove, I wonder what strategy the lawyers are planning on presenting???

The lawyers' strategy will be:

a. To decide on a monetary value that compensates a person for getting a disease that cuts 10 years off their lifespan.

b. To add on a punitive element to that amount*

c. To concede that there's an 88.5% chance that each litigant individually would have got diabetes anyway, and that it is impossible to decide which litigants are in which group.

d. To settle on the steps of the court, for a figure of 11.5% of the amount decided at a. and b. above, for each and every one of the litigants.

e. To take (at least) a third of that in fees.






*This part of the strategy should fail; the company were probably not reckless or negligent, and they warned the patients that diabetes might occur, so the patients accepted a level of risk when they took the drug. However, if it is found that the company had deliberately fudged figures, understated risks, etc, then punitive damages are back on the table.

locum-motion

dubscribe wrote: »

I'm 5'2", I'm 12st, I've lost 2st since being diagnosed, through changing my diet and exercising more

Sorry to say, but your BMI was about 36 at diagnosis.
You were at serious risk of developing Diabetes before you started the Lipitor. Reinforces the argument that you're in the 88.5%, not the 11.5%, but of course we can't know.

Cantstandsya

locum-motion wrote: »

The lawyers' strategy will be:

a. To decide on a monetary value that compensates a person for getting a disease that cuts 10 years off their lifespan.

b. To add on a punitive element to that amount*

c. To concede that there's an 88.5% chance that each litigant individually would have got diabetes anyway, and that it is impossible to decide which litigants are in which group.

d. To settle on the steps of the court, for a figure of 11.5% of the amount decided at a. and b. above, for each and every one of the litigants.

e. To take (at least) a third of that in fees.

*This part of the strategy should fail; the company were probably not reckless or negligent, and they warned the patients that diabetes might occur, so the patients accepted a level of risk when they took the drug. However, if it is found that the company had deliberately fudged figures, understated risks, etc, then punitive damages are back on the table.

I'd imagine they'll want to establish negligence, causation etc. before they consider damages at all. The case against the pharmaceutical company will need to be water tight before they will accept liability on one of the most widely taken drugs on earth and if they are to accept liability it most certainly won't be on the steps of the court as I doubt there are many potentially multi billion dollar lawsuits settled outside. Admitting liability here would have massive implications, this isn't a whiplash case.

People took the drug for a specified reason, some of these people might have gotten diabetes because of the drug. Can the plaintiffs show that Lipitor caused their diabetes? Impossible.

Was the pharmaceutical company reckless in not knowing about this risk? Did they know and purposely suppress the information? Maybe, but we don't know that yet and I'd imagine there will need to be some serious proof of this if any case is to stand, especially if any punitive damages are to be involved.

What does the MIMS say about Lipitor? Does it mention diabetes risk?

locum-motion

Cantstandsya wrote: »

I'd imagine they'll want to establish negligence, causation etc. before they consider damages at all. The case against the pharmaceutical company will need to be water tight before they will accept liability on one of the most widely taken drugs on earth and if they are to accept liability it most certainly won't be on the steps of the court as I doubt there are many potentially multi billion dollar lawsuits settled outside. Admitting liability here would have massive implications, this isn't a whiplash case.

People took the drug for a specified reason, some of these people might have gotten diabetes because of the drug. Can the plaintiffs show that Lipitor caused their diabetes? Impossible.

Was the pharmaceutical company reckless in not knowing about this risk? Did they know and purposely suppress the information? Maybe, but we don't know that yet and I'd imagine there will need to be some serious proof of this if any case is to stand, especially if any punitive damages are to be involved.

What does the MIMS say about Lipitor? Does it mention diabetes risk?

I was outlining what the strategy of the plaintiffs' attorneys would be, not saying what would actually happen!!

locum-motion

Cantstandsya wrote: »

...What does the MIMS say about Lipitor? Does it mention diabetes risk?

MIMS? The most irrelevant publication ever!

The SPC and PIL mention it. That's what matters!

Cantstandsya

locum-motion wrote: »

MIMS? The most irrelevant publication ever!

The SPC and PIL mention it. That's what matters!

Apologies, I'm not familiar with medicines/pharmaceuticals I just knew that the MIMS lists possible side effects.

So, both of those links point out that there is a risk of a rise in blood sugar levels with the first one saying:

"Diabetes Mellitus
Some evidence suggests that statins as a class raise blood glucose and in some patients, at high risk of future diabetes,
may produce a level of hyperglycaemia where formal diabetes care is appropriate. This risk, however, is outweighed by
the reduction in vascular risk with statins and therefore should not be a reason for stopping statin treatment. Patients at
risk (fasting glucose 5.6 to 6.9 mmol/L, BMI>30kg/m2, raised triglycerides, hypertension) should be monitored both
clinically and biochemically according to national guidelines."


Surely people going onto Lipitor in the first place are, generally and certainly in the case of the OP, "at high risk of future diabetes".

I'm not sure how, based on the information available now, the makers of Lipitor are liable?

It reads like any other medication with side effects. Yes the side effects are potentially bad but the risks of not taking them are worse.

TheChizler

locum-motion wrote: »

Sorry to say, but your BMI was about 36 at diagnosis.
You were at serious risk of developing Diabetes before you started the Lipitor. Reinforces the argument that you're in the 88.5%, not the 11.5%, but of course we can't know.

That's before we knew they were at risk, the above would apply only if they were an average person, or a perfectly random sample. The increased risk would make that 88.5% figure significantly larger.

The_Conductor

locum-motion wrote: »

Addition to my own post quoted above:-

I've just thought of something else.

I said above that the answer to the question "Did Lipitor CAUSE my Type 2 Diabetes?" is "Highly Unlikely" and I put a figure of 1.3% on that likelihood.

However, I realised 2 things afterwards:

A. The figure of 1.3% isn't the answer to the question that was asked.
It is the answer to the question "If I start taking Lipitor, what is the chance that it will give me Diabetes?" The reason for this is that - before you start - you don't know if you'll be:-

• one of the 1,300 who get Diabetes because of the Lipitor
• one of the 10,000 who would have got it anyway
• one of the 88,700 who don't get Diabetes.

The question "Did Lipitor CAUSE my Diabetes?" implies that the asker already has Diabetes, and so we know that that person doesn't belong to the third category above, but are one of the 11,300 who do have diabetes. So therefore the question becomes "Out of 11,300 people, am I one of the 1,300 or one of the 10,000?" and the answer is "There is a {(1300/11300)x100}% chance that Lipitor caused your Diabetes". That equates to 11.5%

B. All of the figures I quoted refer to 'Diabetes', undifferentiated into Types 1 or 2. The OQ specified Type 2. So my figures will be off because I was answering slightly different questions from the one asked. However, I'm not going to set out to research it all again, so my answers will just have to do.

Hi Locum-motion

I'd just like to clarify (having set up a number of statistical studies in the past)- the likelyhood of a random member of the population getting diabetes is 11.4- however, the population taking Lipitor are not random members of the public- they are a subset of the population- with a vastly higher risk of diabetes (before they ever consider taking Lipitor or any other medication).

Its not an unreasonable assumption- that anyone taking Lipitor might have a 80% chance of developing diabetes- given the factors that drive them to seek Lipitor in the first instance.

It is also not an unreasonable assumption- that of this subset of the population- those who do take Lipitor, and clean up their lifestyles- very possibly lower their risk of developing diabetes to less than 10%.

The OP in this case- would have been at a very high probability of developing diabetes (with a sedentary lifestyle and a BMI of 36)- before he or she ever took Lipitor.

Lipitor- and other statins- have a very relevant role in what they do- but they are not magical bullets- you can't take them, change your lifestyle- and imagine that 'hey' I'm not going to get diabetes- you may still develop it- despite all of this. This does not mean that the Lipitor caused the diabetes by any means- it means that the contributing factors were such that the person had a preponderance to develop diabetes, come what may (though loosing 2 stone is quite an achievement and they are to be commended on it).

OP- regarding Type 2 diabetes and whether it can be cured or not........

The difference between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes- is Type 1's don't produce insulin (as their autoimmune system has destroyed their pancreas).

Type 2 diabetics- still produce insulin- however, they develop a resistance to the insulin, particularly in the muscular areas, and have difficulty utilising it (despite it normally still being present).

Everyone is different- it depends on the person- but some type 2s can exercise some control over their condition through diet and exercise regimens- others- cannot. It depends on the person- there is no rough and ready rule.

So- if 11.4% of the general population is at risk of developing diabetes- unfortunately- those seeking out Lipitor in the first instance- may in fact have an 80% probability of developing diabetes (I'm using this as an example)- and for someone who takes Lipitor and subsequently goes on to develop diabetes to blame the Lipitor- is a joke of the highest order.

Unfortunately people are looking for someone to blame- and here is a drug company- sure they have bags of money.......

Someone who takes Lipitor- does not have an 11.4% risk of developing diabetes- its a multiple of this risk- we have to remember we are not dealing with random members of the population- we are dealing with a specific subset.

locum-motion

The_Conductor wrote: »

Hi Locum-motion

I'd just like to clarify (having set up a number of statistical studies in the past)- the likelyhood of a random member of the population getting diabetes is 11.4- however, the population taking Lipitor are not random members of the public- they are a subset of the population- with a vastly higher risk of diabetes (before they ever consider taking Lipitor or any other medication)...

Thanks, you are of course right. I think that the general thrust of my answering still stands, though!

cocker5

dubscribe wrote: »

I'm 5'2", I'm 12st, I've lost 2st since being diagnosed, through changing my diet and exercising more.

The thing is - the damage is done, my doctor insists I can never loose Diabetes 2, once you've got it, you've got it for life. But I've read other literature that says eventually, it can go away!

I don't know.

This is completely untrue, my father developed Type 2 after a stroke 12 years ago... he was 5 foot 5, 15 stone.... he is now 10 stone, off all diabetes medication and has been told through diet he has reversed T2.... it may come back but for now he has reversed it... so your doctor is incorrect when saying once you get T2 there is no going back.

IMO doctors in ireland are useless when it comes to Diabetes, especially type 1.

http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/features/reversing-type-2-diabetes

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal.htm

dubscribe

cocker5 wrote: »

This is completely untrue, my father developed Type 2 after a stroke 12 years ago... he was 5 foot 5, 15 stone.... he is now 10 stone, off all diabetes medication and has been told through diet he has reversed T2.... it may come back but for now he has reversed it... so your doctor is incorrect when saying once you get T2 there is no going back.

]

Many thanks for sharing cocker5