site map



Health news:
June 2010 - Dec 2013

Minimizing breast cancer risk

May 2010

Time to move beyond salt ?

Salt hypothesis vs. reality

Is sodium bad?

April 2010

Salt studies: the latest score

From Dahl to INTERSALT

Salt hypothesis' story

March 2010

Salt war

Do bone drugs work?

Diabetes vs. drugs, 3:0?

February 2010

The MMR vaccine war: Wakefield vs. ?

Wakefield proceedings: an exception?

Who's afraid of a littl' 1998 study?

January 2010

Antibiotic children

Physical activity benefits late-life health

Healthier life for New Year's resolution


December 2009

Autism epidemic worsening: CDC report

Rosuvastatin indication broadened

High-protein diet effects


November 2009

Folic acid cancer risk

Folic acid studies: message in a bottle?

Sweet, short life on a sugary diet


October 2009

Smoking health hazards: no dose-response

C. difficile warning

Asthma risk and waist size in women


September 2009

Antioxidants' melanoma risk: 4-fold or none?

Murky waters of vitamin D status

Is vitamin D deficiency hurting you?


August 2009

Pill-crushing children

New gut test for children and adults

Unhealthy habits - whistling past the graveyard?


July 2009

Asthma solution - between two opposites that don't attract

Light wave therapy - how does it actually work?

Hodgkin's lymphoma in children: better alternatives


June 2009

Hodgkin's, kids, and the abuse of power

Efficacy and safety of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's:
behind the hype

Long-term mortality and morbidity after conventional treatments for pediatric Hodgkin's


May 2009

Late health effects of the toxicity of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel's true 5-year chances with the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection or medical oppression?

April 2009

Protection from EMF: you're on your own

EMF pollution battle: same old...

EMF health threat and the politics of status quo

March 2009

Electromagnetic danger? No such thing, in our view...

EMF safety standards: are they safe?

Power-frequency field exposure

February 2009

Electricity and health

Electromagnetic spectrum: health connection

Is power pollution making you sick?

January 2009

Pneumococcal vaccine for adults useless?

DHA in brain development study - why not boys?

HRT shrinks brains


Bookmark and Share

February 2008

Diabetes drugs, side effects

ACCORD study - Diabetes 2 drugs - Other drugs - Conclusion

Drugs used in diabetes two treatment, just like any other drug, have possible adverse side effects. Those used in the ACCORD study were insulin, older diabetes drug Glucophage, as well as new diabetes drugs, Avandia and Actos. Here is the summary of what was known beforehand about the risks associated with them.

It is known that insulin injections produce only temporary benefit in diabetics, due to related weight gain and increase in insulin resistance. In order to keep insulin injection beneficial, the dose has to be constantly increasing. The consequence is significant weight gain, one of the major cardiovascular risks. Participants in the intense arm of the study were receiving

up to four shots of insulin a day,

compared to a standard single shot.

Avandia and Actos both have long history of suspicions and warnings of causing increased cardiovascular risk. Starting with the very beginning,

1999: the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, was accused of trying to intimidate doctor questioning Avandia's safety (New York Times),

2002: internal FDA memo warning about post marketing reports of the two drugs causing heart failure (Public Citizen),

2003: government-sponsored research finding that all three, Glucophage, Avandia and Actos were inappropriately and increasingly prescribed to patients with heart failure (JAMA),

2006: recommendation of then FDA drug safety supervisor Dr. Rosemary Johann-Liang to add black box warning to Avandia and Actos (not only the recommendation was ignored, Dr. Johann-Liang was punished, which resulted in her resignation),

2007: meta-study by Nissen finding that Avandia increases heart attack risk by 43%, with the subsequent FDA's own research confirming it.

This - finally - resulted in a formal official request to add appropriate black box warning for both, Avandia and Actos.

Unlike Actos, Avandia has been found to increase cardiovascular risk even more in those with diabetes. It is probably due to it being more frequently causing fluid retention. Both drugs have weight gain as a common side effects. In addition, their interactions with various cardiovascular drugs are a suspect risk-wise, and still fairly obscured.

Metformin alone did show the capability to reduce cardiovascular risk. At list in part, it can be attributed to it, unlike the other two drugs, not causing weight gain. However, for safety reasons it is not prescribed to those having acute symptoms of cardiovascular disease, and its possible negative interactions with other drugs are not well understood. It is known that when combined with some anti-hypertension drugs (e.g. calcium channel blockers) it can produce hyperglycemia, even loss of glycemic control. Also, it can be dangerous for those with compromised liver and/or renal function.

And, keep in mind,

this is all for standard doses of these medications.

Adverse effects typically increase exponentially with the dose, and participants in the intense arm of the ACCORD study have been receiving

two to three times higher doses of blood glucose lowering drugs
than usual.

Evidently, diabetes II medications, even in standard doses have the history of potentially significant adverse health effects. That is more than sufficient reason to be wary of possible - and probable - harm to study participants from significantly higher doses of these medications. More so in combination with high doses of anti-hypertension and cholesterol drugs.

For some reason, the professionals in charge of conceiving, designing, approving end carrying out this study ignored this glaringly obvious risk factor.

Continues: High blood pressure and cholesterol drugs