When Talking About SMBG – Researchers Rig Results

To contact us Click HERE

When I was diagnosed with type 2diabetes, I wondered what was ahead. Experiences in my life have beenvaried, but in my research on self-monitoring of blood glucose(SMBG), I experienced something unlike anything else. I did notrealize that whole industries and governments rely on and participatein funding studies fabricating false and misleading information todemean and direct fraudulent intent at a group of people with type 2diabetes on no medications or oral medications.
These fabricated studies have beenreported in trusted reviews, belying the truth in the way the studieswere assembled and carried out. The editor of leading diabetescommunity website Diabetes.co.uk, Benedict Jephcote states: “Thereare a number of problems with the way results are presented withinthe Cochrane review. For instance, in the UK, there are manypeople with type 2 diabetes that are actively interested inself-testing and significant numbers of these people have to buy teststrips from their own income. Studies which exclude these peoplecannot therefore give a fair representation of people with type 2diabetes in the UK."
Cracks along the above line are alreadyshowing evidence to prove just that. In addition, in the future,researchers that are more honest will begin to refute these falsestudies. What is astounding is that the US Government hasparticipated in this cover-up of studies that are done to showpatients with type 2 diabetes do not need to self-monitor their bloodglucose levels. The National Institute of Health leads the way andthe Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services follows by cuttingtesting supplies for people needing them. By not educating Medicareand Medicaid patients about the value of self-monitoring of bloodglucose and showing them how and when to test, they can support manystudies proving that people with type 2 diabetes do not need thetesting supplies.
This study by Roche shows that when astudy is properly organized and follows the Structured TestingProtocol (SteP) standards, the results are more accurate and SMBGdoes help people with type 2 diabetes and not on insulin obtain lowerA1c's and better glycemic control without harming the quality oflife.
Other writers proclaim that the studiesare right and say that the results beyond a year do not hold up. Ican understand this because these study participants are no longergiven the supplies with which to self-monitor blood glucose. Many ofthe study participants probably are unable to afford the testingsupplies and therefore without them the results would be expected tonot hold up. That is one reason to have long-term studies of threeto five years.
The key in studies is the educationwhich I blogged about here. Whom do you think will obtain the bestresults? Those just handed a meter and testing supplies and told totest are not likely to understand the results or possibly even care? My bet would be on people that were handed a meter and testingsupplies and required to attend classes where they learn when totest, the reasons for testing, how to interpret the test results, andthe overall benefits in watching for trends. Better results andlonger-term results will be obtained when additional education isdone to reinforce good habits and find and attempt to eliminate badhabits.
Although it would be great to havephysicians trained at the same time, patients that are educated intesting and have learned the value of managing diabetes for betterhealth will in the long-term be able to do this without physicianassistance. With physician assistance, they will do even better.