Diabetes Talking

Question:

I’m not a left-wing socialist, in most cases I lean much more toward the libertarians.  BUT – I disagree that the legal and state language should be ignored.  If you begin your argument from an incorrect position – such as the position that driving is a right – then the rest of the argument can not be justified.  If you wish to argue against a potential new law, then you must start from the current law, because I guarentee your opponents will. As to the age old question of personal rights vs. the common good – well, that is an argument that will continue as long as we have great countries like the U.S. where we are priviledged enough to have the right to openly debate the question. Finally, let us not forget that in many states during the time that horses were the primary means of travel, I had the right to shoot someone (and their horse) who came charging at me on the road.  The only excuse I needed to give was:  "He needed killin’."  So, yeah, I guess you can have the right to drive whenever, wherever, and however you please, as long as I have the right to mount a 16 gigawatt plasma rifle on the roof of my car so I can vaporize you and your car if you threaten my right to drive whenever, wherever, and however I please. — Jeff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – this is a state mandated privilege wait just a darn minute did we need a license to ride a horse – no did we need a license to drive a horse and buggy – no (see where I’m going yet???) so now, because the GOV’T must keep us safe from ourselves we need their permission to drive? They (the state) have the RIGHT to withhold an operators license for many GOOD and VALID reasons – BUT this is a RIGHT and not a privilege. for the safety of others (the masses – the majority) they can keep me off the road with good cause because my right becomes a public nuisance or worse privilege my ass – let’s keep the legal language and state BS out of this my RIGHT to drive is the correct wording and I’m not a right wing conservative by any means – just keep the gov’t out of my area print the money – defend the coast – resolve issues between borders – and leave local issues local – my 2 cents Doug

Response:

this is a state mandated privilege wait just a darn minute did we need a license to ride a horse – no did we need a license to drive a horse and buggy – no (see where I’m going yet???)

I don’t think you could get a horse and buggy up to 73 mph nor would horses run into each other if one of the driver’s were unconscious. my RIGHT to drive is the correct wording and I’m not a right wing conservative by any means – just keep the gov’t out of my area print the money – defend the coast – resolve issues between borders – and leave local issues local

What do you mean by leave local issues local?  If not state government, you can’t mean cities, so do you mean that everyone should determine for themselves if they should have a license without laws?  Right. I think you should try life in a country other than the United States so you can see how many rights we do have, maybe you will learn the difference between a right and a priviledge. Bet your shoulder must hurt from lugging that chip around for so long

Response:

  They (the state) have the RIGHT to withhold an operators license   for many GOOD and VALID reasons – BUT   this is a RIGHT and not a privilege.  This may be how it should be (debatable), but that’s not how it  is.

Response:

         And hypos do NOT always happen slowly. There are many factors      involved so nothing can be stated categorically about hypos.      Anyone one with diabetes can have a hypo that comes on fast,      even if that has never happened to you before.     Sad but true, In another part of this thread I mentioned and got flamed for it   too a few facts I’ll repost here  This time with cites (I think I posted them   the last time too)  (I reword here)     Per the DCCT, when practicing tight control you stand over 300% greater chance   of a "Serious Hypo"  They defined a "Serious Hypo" as one requiring outside   intervention (IE: EMS) not one you can head off yourself.  I think more specificly, it was patients in the tight control group  were 3 times more likely to have severe hypos. This is a subtle but  important difference.  In my opinion, if one is having frequent hypos, then by defination  one is not in tight control. Tight control group in the DCCT had  a target HA1c of 7.0 (I think the acheived an actual HA1c of 7.5  or 7.6). I don’t think and never have thought that HA1c should be  the only determing or defining factor "good control."  If one is keep bG’s close to or in the normal range (i.e. good control),  then one is having few or no hypos.   3: No warning (Hypo unawareness)  Even with hypo unwareness, there are still *some* symptoms, albeit  subtle. Absolutly symptom free hypos are pretty rare. One might not  realize there were symptoms until after the fact, but one can train  to be more aware of the subtle symptoms. One can also take precautiuons  to avoid hypos while driving once they are aware that they they may  hypo unaware.   Of these reasons I don’t think 2 is all that common.  Most folks know about 1   soon as they push the plunger so this leaves option 3, Hypo unawareness     According to assorted studies including one conducted by Dr Arthur.Teuscher   (Copied his name right out of my address book) there is a far higher incidence   of hypo unawareness for folks using "Human" than for those using   "Animal-Source"  Dr. Teuscher compared "Human" to "Beef" and the difference   was staggering, SIX to ONE,  That is 36% of the "Human" users had serious   hypos and only SIX percent of the animal-source ones.  Well, I haven’t read the study, but other factors play into hypo  unawareness. Frequency of hypos and how long one has been diabetic  are probably the biggest factors. Did he control for these other  factors? How was this done?  I know that if I have frequent hypos, I loose a signifcant amount  of awareness. But when I go a long time between hypos, most, if not  all of my awareness returns.  [snip]   So Lilly has discontinued all production of animal-source insulin in the U.S.   and only remaining stock is being sold……     Something is wrong here.  Criminally wrong in my opinion.  You loose me here. Sounds like a conspriracy theory. The safe  operation of the a motor vehicle is the driver’s responsibiliity,  and there *are* precautions diabetics can and should take.  I do think animal source insulin should continue to be made  available, but that is a *far* cry from making Lily and Novo  criminally responsible.

Response:

    Should diabetics catagorically be treated differently? No, I   don’t think so. Should the risk be taken into account? Absolutly!     Well I only get a 3 year drivers licence and THAT’S dependent on a   medical report at each renewal time, plus it’s not uncommon for   diabetics to have higher insurance premiums, so the risks aren’t only   taken into account, but we PAY for the risk increase.  Yes, you’re right. If we are going to be assesed on a case by  case basis, then of course we are being treated differently. My  question should have been should diabetics be catagorically  *denied* a license? And the answer, IMHO, is no.  Beav, keeping on my toes…

Response:

   What in the world is insulin withdrawal??? That one is easy, It’s a term the idiots in the press room made up to scare people into taking away diabetics driving licenses and, if at all possible, locking them all up for their own good so they won’t scare nice little children and the like. I mean every body knows those nasty diabetics use syringes right, and everybody knows those who use syringes (outside of doctors and hospitals and the like) are addicts right, and everybody knows addicts go through withdrawal when they stop using right, So it must have been insulin withdrawal right. May those reporters who wrote that bit receive their eternal reward, AND SOON! (Note to many, Study the "Curse" above, Good one isn’t it, Lets GOD decide what said reward is so if you actually throw it at a good person, It’s a blessing, not a curse) "Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business" Using a Java script enabled browser go to:  http://go.compuserve.com/diabetes Anyone can read, Members can post, If you join Compuserve mention 73455,43 Chermin medical dictionary: OUTPATIENT- A person who has fainted Net-Tamer V 1.08X – Registered

Response:

   And hypos do NOT always happen slowly. There are many factors    involved so nothing can be stated categorically about hypos.    Anyone one with diabetes can have a hypo that comes on fast,    even if that has never happened to you before. Sad but true, In another part of this thread I mentioned and got flamed for it too a few facts I’ll repost here  This time with cites (I think I posted them the last time too)  (I reword here) Per the DCCT, when practicing tight control you stand over 300% greater chance of a "Serious Hypo"  They defined a "Serious Hypo" as one requiring outside intervention (IE: EMS) not one you can head off yourself. Now there are three reasons why you might need outside help dealing with a hypo. 1: You seriously over medicated…. Ie: My morning dose of insulin is 40 L and 4 R.  If I try to take 40 R I have a safety device that warns me (I use a pen that maxes at 36) but not all do that.  And if I shot 40 R in the morning, Well I’m going to have a problem, trust me on that one 2: Sudden onset, VERY sudden onset  As in you have warning, but only a few seconds not enough time to stop the car 3: No warning (Hypo unawareness) Of these reasons I don’t think 2 is all that common.  Most folks know about 1 soon as they push the plunger so this leaves option 3, Hypo unawareness According to assorted studies including one conducted by Dr Arthur.Teuscher (Copied his name right out of my address book) there is a far higher incidence of hypo unawareness for folks using "Human" than for those using "Animal-Source"  Dr. Teuscher compared "Human" to "Beef" and the difference was staggering, SIX to ONE,  That is 36% of the "Human" users had serious hypos and only SIX percent of the animal-source ones. Others (IE: Lilly and Novo) have compared "human" to pork.  The result here is questionable.  Lilly and Novo say "No difference" however the raw data says twice as many "Human" users had serious hypos.  The science of statistics allows them to say "No Difference" (And yes, I understand how this works, I’ve had training in statistics) But if you take a 3x+ likely hood of serious hypo with Human and couple it with a 6x chance that Dr. Teuscher found you get about 20x chance. So Lilly has discontinued all production of animal-source insulin in the U.S. and only remaining stock is being sold…… Something is wrong here.  Criminally wrong in my opinion. "Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business" Using a Java script enabled browser go to:  http://go.compuserve.com/diabetes Anyone can read, Members can post, If you join Compuserve mention 73455,43 I have always been crazy, but it kept me from going insane. Net-Tamer V 1.08X – Registered

Response:

this is a state mandated privilege wait just a darn minute did we need a license to ride a horse – no did we need a license to drive a horse and buggy – no (see where I’m going yet???) so now, because the GOV’T must keep us safe from ourselves we need their permission to drive? They (the state) have the RIGHT to withhold an operators license for many GOOD and VALID reasons – BUT this is a RIGHT and not a privilege. for the safety of others (the masses – the majority) they can keep me off the road with good cause because my right becomes a public nuisance or worse privilege my ass – let’s keep the legal language and state BS out of this my RIGHT to drive is the correct wording and I’m not a right wing conservative by any means – just keep the gov’t out of my area print the money – defend the coast – resolve issues between borders – and leave local issues local – my 2 cents Doug – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not going to comment on you or anyone else’s ability to drive. However, I will relay something told to me by every state (California) sponsored traffic school I have been in.  And believe me, with my heavy foot, I’ve been to my share.  It was made very clear that in California driving is *not* a right – it is a privilege granted to you by the state, and as such, revocable.  Too many tickets?  Lose your privilege to drive.  Too many shots of tequila?  Lose your privilege to drive.  Failing eye sight, coordination, judgement?  Lose your privilege to drive. — Jeff "Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.  Then when you do criticize them, you will be a mile away and have their shoes."  Jack Handy Recently a spate of old drivers were in accidents in the Chicago area ( one idiot somehow turned onto a bike path drove up it, then turned around and drove down it ). When these happened , I advocated the death penalty for these drivers, and others of their kind. In this regard my opinion hasn’t changed. Having said that I now go on to say this. If I am in an accident, the person on that road who has the highest probability of getting injured or killed is me. If or when my health reaches a point where I am a risk to myself or others I will not drive. At present, I can allways tell when I will have a problem ( there have been times when I’ve been sleepy on the road and pull over to nap ) in time to pull over. The symptoms of my hypos are well defined and they progress slowly. As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people simply bacause they are diabetic. In fact the day they stop me from driving because of diabetes, is the day they pull my car keys from my cold dead fingers.

Response:

Same thing here. You can lose your driving privileges for numerous things including having hypo’s when you’re NOT driving. If you have a serious hypo and need hospital treatment for it, then the hospital can (and often do) report this to the DVLA (Licensing authourity) and when you come up for your next renewal, it’s an uphill struggle!

Beav, Thanks for pointing this out.  Americans (me included) take so much for granted that it helps to see how easy we do have it in some things.   Marilyn

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What in the world is insulin withdrawal??? Happens when your insulin connection is in Colombia visiting relatives and you can’t score. Results in an insatiable desire to rape and kill, followed by an attempt to leap large objects in a pickup truck. regards m

gee mike, i thought it was when you inadvertently put your cat in the microwave because you had sudden uncontrollable food urgings…. boy, things are different in the USA k <g Burton… my apologies in advance

Response:

What in the world is insulin withdrawal???

Happens when your insulin connection is in Colombia visiting relatives and you can’t score. Results in an insatiable desire to rape and kill, followed by an attempt to leap large objects in a pickup truck. regards m

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And hypos do NOT always happen slowly. There are many factors involved so nothing can be stated catagorically about hypos. Anyone one with diabetes can have a hypo that comes on fast, even if that has never happened to you before. As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people simply bacause they are diabetic. I agree. I don’t think one should be excluded *simply* because one has diabetes. Other factor should be taken in to account as well. I do not agree with your subject line. Driving is *not* a right, at least not in any state in the US that I know of. I’m not sure about other countries. Tere, Not to be a nit-picker, but if, as you say, ANY diabetic can have a reaction come on fast (presumably too fast to do anything about) how can you then, in the next sentence too, oppose the idea of excluding diabetic drivers? Maybe I’m being blind here, but it seems to me that you’re arguing on both sides of the same fence. Good point, Beav. But… I never said "too fast to do anything about." That was not the argument I was making.

OK. Understood. I think if you are aware of the true risks of a hypo, you can take precautions. Testing before, and for long trips, during the drive (please pull over to do this , making sure you’ve eaten within 2 hrs prior to driving, perhaps even eating snack of slow acting foods, like peanuts, while driving (as long as it is not a distraction).

Absolutely. In fact this is the argument I put forward a while ago when another thread developed regarding an accident involving another diabetic driver. But if one thinks they will never have a hypo that doesn’t have symptoms or doesn’t come on slowly, then one is NOT aware of the true risks of a hypo.

Agreed. The other point that there is really no way to *completely* eliminate the risk that a diabetic will has a hypo while driving. But there is also no way to completely eliminate the risk that *any*one will have a sudden heart attack while driving either.

So long as all diabetic drivers aren’t tarred with the same brush as the one who DOES lose it and crash, things should remain as they are, and a careful diabetic presents no more of a risk than any other driver IMHO. Should diabetics catagorically be treated differently? No, I don’t think so. Should the risk be taken into account? Absolutly!

Well I only get a 3 year drivers licence and THAT’S dependent on a medical report at each renewal time, plus it’s not uncommon for diabetics to have higher insurance premiums, so the risks aren’t only taken into account, but we PAY for the risk increase. I think if one has *any* medical history that puts then at risk, restrictions should be considered. But I think that consideration should be done on an individual basis. And I think the acceptable level of risk and the process of evaluating the risk is open for debate.

It’s definitely a "Per case" system of "consideration" over here for T1 diabetics. The ability to operate a motor vehicle on public roads is NOT guaranteed by any law in the US (corrections requested). It is a privlege that is granted by the state. The *criteria* for granting that privlege is specific and codified, not arbitrary, but driving is NOT a right.

Same thing here. You can lose your driving privileges for numerous things including having hypo’s when you’re NOT driving. If you have a serious hypo and need hospital treatment for it, then the hospital can (and often do) report this to the DVLA (Licensing authourity) and when you come up for your next renewal, it’s an uphill struggle! Thanks for helping me to clarify that, Beav.

I’ll bet Beav

Response:

What in the world is insulin withdrawal???

Yeah, that is precisely what I was wondering.  That’s why I was looking in the papers for an explanation.  There was obviously some misinformation in what my husband "heard", since it didn’t make it into the reports. Gwen

Response:

  And hypos do NOT always happen slowly. There are many factors   involved so nothing can be stated catagorically about hypos.   Anyone one with diabetes can have a hypo that comes on fast,   even if that has never happened to you before.     As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people   simply bacause they are diabetic.     I agree. I don’t think one should be excluded *simply* because one   has diabetes. Other factor should be taken in to account as well.     I do not agree with your subject line. Driving is *not* a right, at   least not in any state in the US that I know of. I’m not sure about   other countries.         Tere,     Not to be a nit-picker, but if, as you say, ANY diabetic can have a   reaction come on fast (presumably too fast to do anything about) how can   you then, in the next sentence too, oppose the idea of excluding   diabetic drivers?     Maybe I’m being blind here, but it seems to me that you’re arguing on   both sides of the same fence.  Good point, Beav. But…  I never said "too fast to do anything about." That was not the  argument I was making. I think if you are aware of the true  risks of a hypo, you can take precautions. Testing before,  and for long trips, during the drive (please pull over to  do this , making sure you’ve eaten within 2 hrs prior to  driving, perhaps even eating snack of slow acting foods, like  peanuts, while driving (as long as it is not a distraction).  But if one thinks they will never have a hypo that doesn’t have  symptoms or doesn’t come on slowly, then one is NOT aware of  the true risks of a hypo.  The other point that there is really no way to *completely*  eliminate the risk that a diabetic will has a hypo while driving.  But there is also no way to completely eliminate the risk that  *any*one will have a sudden heart attack while driving either.  Should diabetics catagorically be treated differently? No, I  don’t think so. Should the risk be taken into account? Absolutly!  I think if one has *any* medical history that puts then at risk,  restrictions should be considered. But I think that consideration  should be done on an individual basis. And I think the acceptable  level of risk and the process of evaluating the risk is open for  debate.  The ability to operate a motor vehicle on public roads is NOT  guaranteed by any law in the US (corrections requested). It is  a privlege that is granted by the state. The *criteria* for  granting that privlege is specific and codified, not arbitrary,  but driving is NOT a right.  Thanks for helping me to clarify that, Beav.

Response:

  Limited to me being the sole cause of the accident. THe calculations   iif there are other factors and deciding probably responsibility get   too complicated.     On Freeway:   Well, if I cause an accident then there are about a hundred cars that    might be involved, but at most three or four are . That is the odds   are 3-4% that any single person will be involved. On the other hand   the odds are 100% that I will be involved. That means that in order   for any person to have a greater chance of injury then me the odds   that they get injured has to be ~20 times mine. Add to that the fact   that a medical condition of mine caused the whole thing, which means   I’m the least alert person on the road, and it becomes virtually   incredible that anyone has a higher probability of injury then me.  But if you are on the freeway, the chances of involving *some* other  vehicle are close to 100%. And, as you yourself point out, it may  involve as many as 3-4 cars.  So the probablitly of you injuring someone else is nearly 100%.  It’s not quite 100% because single car accidents are possible, but  it’s pretty close.   On Street:   Oh you get the iderra. Same basic arguement, different numbers.  A multi car accident is less likely on a street than a freeway, but  still significant. And, even in a single car accident, passangers  and pedestrian involvement is a distinct possibilty.  If you have an accident, you have a very high probability of injuring  someone else, certainly much more the 3-4%.

Response:

As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people simply bacause they are diabetic. In fact the day they stop me from driving because of diabetes, is the day they pull my car keys from my cold dead fingers.

I’d like to point out that driving is a *privilege*, not a right.  While I agree that DM should not be an obstacle to driving, provided that one is in good control, if someone develops a history of accidents or erratic driving resulting in multiple citation *because they cannot maintain control without going hypo*, then the privilege of driving should be withdrawn, just as it is (or should be) from someone who cannot abstain from alcohol while driving. — James Handsfield Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Centers for Disease Control  and Prevention, the United States Public Health Service, or the Department of Health and Human Services.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] If I am in an accident, the person on that road who has the highest probability of getting injured or killed is me. If or when my health [snip] I don’t understand this. Can you explain what you mean? Why would you be the most likely injured? And should that make a difference when assessing one’s driving capability? [snip] The symptoms of my hypos are well defined and they progress slowly. Perhaps for you, but this is not the case for all diabetics. Some have few or no symptoms. And hypos do NOT always happen slowly. There are many factors involved so nothing can be stated catagorically about hypos. Anyone one with diabetes can have a hypo that comes on fast, even if that has never happened to you before. As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people simply bacause they are diabetic. I agree. I don’t think one should be excluded *simply* because one has diabetes. Other factor should be taken in to account as well. I do not agree with your subject line. Driving is *not* a right, at least not in any state in the US that I know of. I’m not sure about other countries.

Tere, Not to be a nit-picker, but if, as you say, ANY diabetic can have a reaction come on fast (presumably too fast to do anything about) how can you then, in the next sentence too, oppose the idea of excluding diabetic drivers? Maybe I’m being blind here, but it seems to me that you’re arguing on both sides of the same fence. Beav

Response:

[snip] If I am in an accident, the person on that road who has the highest probability of getting injured or killed is me. If or when my health [snip] I don’t understand this. Can you explain what you mean? Why would you be the most likely injured? And should that make a difference when assessing one’s driving capability?

Limited to me being the sole cause of the accident. THe calculations iif there are other factors and deciding probably responsibility get too complicated. On Freeway: Well, if I cause an accident then there are about a hundred cars that  might be involved, but at most three or four are . That is the odds are 3-4% that any single person will be involved. On the other hand the odds are 100% that I will be involved. That means that in order for any person to have a greater chance of injury then me the odds that they get injured has to be ~20 times mine. Add to that the fact that a medical condition of mine caused the whole thing, which means I’m the least alert person on the road, and it becomes virtually incredible that anyone has a higher probability of injury then me. On Street: Oh you get the iderra. Same basic arguement, different numbers.

Response:

What in the world is insulin withdrawal??? Happens when your insulin connection is in Colombia visiting relatives and you can’t score. Results in an insatiable desire to rape and kill, followed by an attempt to leap large objects in a pickup truck.

Shame on you for making me laugh (so hard I lost some body part and fell on the floor) about someone’s misfortune and another’s inaccurate description. Marilyn <who feels that those real-life video programs are so funny – but hates it that she laughs at other’s misfortunes

Response:

I’m not going to comment on you or anyone else’s ability to drive.  However, I will relay something told to me by every state (California) sponsored traffic school I have been in.  And believe me, with my heavy foot, I’ve been to my share.  It was made very clear that in California driving is *not* a right – it is a privilege granted to you by the state, and as such, revocable.  Too many tickets?  Lose your privilege to drive.  Too many shots of tequila?  Lose your privilege to drive.  Failing eye sight, coordination, judgement?  Lose your privilege to drive. — Jeff "Before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.  Then when you do criticize them, you will be a mile away and have their shoes."  Jack Handy

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Recently a spate of old drivers were in accidents in the Chicago area ( one idiot somehow turned onto a bike path drove up it, then turned around and drove down it ). When these happened , I advocated the death penalty for these drivers, and others of their kind. In this regard my opinion hasn’t changed. Having said that I now go on to say this. If I am in an accident, the person on that road who has the highest probability of getting injured or killed is me. If or when my health reaches a point where I am a risk to myself or others I will not drive. At present, I can allways tell when I will have a problem ( there have been times when I’ve been sleepy on the road and pull over to nap ) in time to pull over. The symptoms of my hypos are well defined and they progress slowly. As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people simply bacause they are diabetic. In fact the day they stop me from driving because of diabetes, is the day they pull my car keys from my cold dead fingers.

Response:

My husband saw the results of a tragic accident where the driver of a pickup truck was speeding and lost control and flipped over through a cement fence and the driver was killed.  He had heard from somewhere the driver was diabetic and was suffering insulin withdrawal.  But the papers skipped over that detail. Scared me good.

What in the world is insulin withdrawal??? Laura

Response:

 Gwen –  What is insulin withdraw? Do yo mean low blood sugar, a.k.a. insulin  reaction?  Good luck with your driving. Keep being so conscientious. A lot of  people depend on it.  Take care.

  My husband saw the results of a tragic accident where the driver of a pickup   truck was speeding and lost control and flipped over through a cement fence and   the driver was killed.  He had heard from somewhere the driver was diabetic and   was suffering insulin withdrawal.  But the papers skipped over that detail.   Scared me good.

Response:

 [snip]   If I am in an accident, the person on that road who has the highest   probability of getting injured or killed is me. If or when my health  [snip]  I don’t understand this. Can you explain what you mean? Why would  you be the most likely injured? And should that make a difference  when assessing one’s driving capability?  [snip]   The symptoms of my hypos are well defined   and they progress slowly.  Perhaps for you, but this is not the case for all diabetics. Some  have few or no symptoms.  And hypos do NOT always happen slowly. There are many factors  involved so nothing can be stated catagorically about hypos.  Anyone one with diabetes can have a hypo that comes on fast,  even if that has never happened to you before.   As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people   simply bacause they are diabetic.  I agree. I don’t think one should be excluded *simply* because one  has diabetes. Other factor should be taken in to account as well.  I do not agree with your subject line. Driving is *not* a right, at  least not in any state in the US that I know of. I’m not sure about  other countries.

Response:

I am a school bus driver and I make my living driving.  My first question to my doctor after he said the word "diabetes" was, How will this affect my driving career?   I love driving.  This job would be perfect if it weren’t for the kids and the other drivers in the city.  I would be out of work if I couldn’t drive.  I value it highly.  I always keeps a roll of lifesavers in my pocket when I drive to ward off any hypos while driving.  So far I haven’t had a hypo while behind the wheel, praise God. And the lifesavers are still there. My husband saw the results of a tragic accident where the driver of a pickup truck was speeding and lost control and flipped over through a cement fence and the driver was killed.  He had heard from somewhere the driver was diabetic and was suffering insulin withdrawal.  But the papers skipped over that detail. Scared me good. Gwen

Response:

Recently a spate of old drivers were in accidents in the Chicago area ( one idiot somehow turned onto a bike path drove up it, then turned around and drove down it ). When these happened , I advocated the death penalty for these drivers, and others of their kind. In this regard my opinion hasn’t changed. Having said that I now go on to say this. If I am in an accident, the person on that road who has the highest probability of getting injured or killed is me. If or when my health reaches a point where I am a risk to myself or others I will not drive. At present, I can allways tell when I will have a problem ( there have been times when I’ve been sleepy on the road and pull over to nap ) in time to pull over. The symptoms of my hypos are well defined and they progress slowly. As such I oppose any attempt to limit drivers licenses to people simply bacause they are diabetic. In fact the day they stop me from driving because of diabetes, is the day they pull my car keys from my cold dead fingers.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ‘ For the life of me, I have never seen anything like it. Here’s a typical post of his illogic: "Here are a bunch of statistics. They are all facts, trust me. If you don’t believe me, call your mom. If you flame me, I can say I told you I was right. If you prove I was wrong, you must be from another country. There, yous see, I told you I was right! By simply saying I am right and you are wrong, I have proven that I am right and you are wrong." The above, of course, is my interpretation of John’s posts. There may be some who do not interpret them the same way. In fact, I would love to hear from anyone who perceives this differently. Well I thought it WAS a John post, never mind an interpretation

Since I’m on a roll, how about this….whom does this sound like: "That was a good question. I don’t know anything about the subject but I will try to answer……I would post the URL showing the information you requested, but I don’t have it here…….I can’t look it up because I don’t know how to use deja.com and my time is more valuable than yours…..Let me tell you  a story about my job which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic, diabetes, or anything else…." Ah. I feel so much better now. Randy

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ‘ For the life of me, I have never seen anything like it. Here’s a typical post of his illogic: "Here are a bunch of statistics. They are all facts, trust me. If you don’t believe me, call your mom. If you flame me, I can say I told you I was right. If you prove I was wrong, you must be from another country. There, yous see, I told you I was right! By simply saying I am right and you are wrong, I have proven that I am right and you are wrong." The above, of course, is my interpretation of John’s posts. There may be some who do not interpret them the same way. In fact, I would love to hear from anyone who perceives this differently. Well I thought it WAS a John post, never mind an interpretation Since I’m on a roll, how about this….whom does this sound like: "That was a good question. I don’t know anything about the subject but I will try to answer……I would post the URL showing the information you requested, but I don’t have it here…….I can’t look it up because I don’t know how to use deja.com and my time is more valuable than yours…..Let me tell you  a story about my job which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic, diabetes, or anything else…."

You missed out "Car 54, where are you" Beav

Response:

   I read the file to which you pointed me. I have pasted below a    portion of it. It is quite clear to me that it is unclear to what    the 36% refers. In fact, if it were not for you quoting the figure,    it would appear to me that the 36% referred to all in the study,    not merely those using human.    "The study proceeds to examine 315 patients 206 on human    (Novo, Lilly, Nordisk) and 109 on beef/porcine or Porcine (Novo,    Nordisk) between 9/86 and 2/87. 176 patients (of the 206 on human)    were transferred between 1983 and 1987 and 30 had been started on    human. 36% of the patients reported a loss of adrenergic early    warning symptoms." Seems rather clear to me since the portion of the article you quoted spells it out in so many words. Sorry, this discussion has now ended since you are now posting the very cites you say I have not provided, Based on the pointers I gave you Now, the reason I point you to the cite, instead of quoting it myself I am a paid, professional, paranoid (and I’m not kidding there, Though paranoia is not, in so many words, part of my job description, the symptoms are part of the orders under which I work)  And thus I tend not to be the most trusting person in the world.  Thus I will take just one line of the text you Well you get the picture, If I post the cites myself I can post anything I like, If I post the SOURCE and make you go there, You now know I have not "Edited" the text in any way, mean or form. Now personally, I would never edit a cite (Outside of a post like this one where I clearly indicated I did so) but you have no way of knowing that so I would much rather send you on the quest for knowledge than hand it out on a sliver platter.  Of course, When I go on the quest I’m constantly surprised by the amount of stuff I learn on the way, And I do quest. I do not, however, have a decent system for archiving the results of those quests.  Many reports are printed and lying about, But they are not filed for easy access.  MEMORY is the primary storage.  It is not perfect, but that too is part of why I point you to the source instead of quoting from it. The primary reason however is best explained in a joke. Not only am I a paid professional paranoid, I’m skitzo as well (Mildly, I deal with it)  What does this mean.  Well, It means I don’t trust anyone, Including (half the time) Myself. Fact is you do not believe me… But now that you have done the research for yourself you have to accept I typed the truth, YOU confirmed it, You verified it and now YOU have learned it.  If you can’t understand it, That is not my fault and there is nothing more I can do for you. "Nothing adds excitement like something that is none of your business" Using a Java script enabled browser go to:  http://go.compuserve.com/diabetes Anyone can read, Members can post, If you join Compuserve mention 73455,43 Also visit http://members.tripod.com/diabetics_world/ for still more info. Life is sweet.  Ask any Diabetic? Net-Tamer V 1.10  - Registered

Response:

1) I hate lying, I am no good at it, I always get caught. 2) I would hate having every other reader of this newsgroup laugh at me the way they must be at jfd. Well if it’s any use Randy, I get tears in my eyes and a crick in my neck watching Johns twists and turns! Beav

Sadly, I do not believe he understands what you or Mike or I have been saying. Even more sadly, I don’t think he is doing any of the thinking himself. I am convinced that every day Dave Groves tells him exactly how to respond. For the life of me, I have never seen anything like it. Here’s a typical post of his illogic: "Here are a bunch of statistics. They are all facts, trust me. If you don’t believe me, call your mom. If you flame me, I can say I told you I was right. If you prove I was wrong, you must be from another country. There, yous see, I told you I was right! By simply saying I am right and you are wrong, I have proven that I am right and you are wrong." The above, of course, is my interpretation of John’s posts. There may be some who do not interpret them the same way. In fact, I would love to hear from anyone who perceives this differently. Randy

Response:

1) I hate lying, I am no good at it, I always get caught. 2) I would hate having every other reader of this newsgroup laugh at me the way they must be at jfd. Well if it’s any use Randy, I get tears in my eyes and a crick in my neck watching Johns twists and turns! Beav Sadly, I do not believe he understands what you or Mike or I have been saying.

I’m SURE he doesn’t. Even more sadly, I don’t think he is doing any of the thinking himself. I am convinced that every day Dave Groves tells him exactly how to respond.

I could live with that. At least with Groves it was a fairly consistent argument, not one that argues both sides of the fence on alternate days. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -For the life of me, I have never seen anything like it. Here’s a typical post of his illogic: "Here are a bunch of statistics. They are all facts, trust me. If you don’t believe me, call your mom. If you flame me, I can say I told you I was right. If you prove I was wrong, you must be from another country. There, yous see, I told you I was right! By simply saying I am right and you are wrong, I have proven that I am right and you are wrong." The above, of course, is my interpretation of John’s posts. There may be some who do not interpret them the same way. In fact, I would love to hear from anyone who perceives this differently.

Well I thought it WAS a John post, never mind an interpretation Beav

Response:

   "The study proceeds to examine 315 patients…on beef… (Novo,    Nordisk) between 9/86 and 2/87. 176 patients… reported a loss of adrenergic early    warning symptoms."

Proving that 56% of beef users develop hypo unawareness. This will likely be my last post to you. You selectively snip out the portions of my posts with questions, and dance around everything else.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Randy, you gotta learn how to select just the info that supports your position and ignore the rest. If jfd can learn the trick from dg, you can do it, too. CCfTiD

Response:

   "The study proceeds to examine 315 patients…on beef… (Novo,    Nordisk) between 9/86 and 2/87. 176 patients… reported a loss of adrenergic early    warning symptoms." Proving that 56% of beef users develop hypo unawareness. This will likely be my last post to you. You selectively snip out the portions of my posts with questions, and dance around everything else. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Randy, you gotta learn how to select just the info that supports your position and ignore the rest. If jfd can learn the trick from dg, you can do it, too.

I like your style. The above presupposes, however, that I have no integrity. I could never do those things for 2 reasons: 1) I hate lying, I am no good at it, I always get caught. 2) I would hate having every other reader of this newsgroup laugh at me the way they must be at jfd.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    "The study proceeds to examine 315 patients…on beef… (Novo,    Nordisk) between 9/86 and 2/87. 176 patients… reported a loss of adrenergic early    warning symptoms." Proving that 56% of beef users develop hypo unawareness. This will likely be my last post to you. You selectively snip out the portions of my posts with questions, and dance around everything else. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Randy, you gotta learn how to select just the info that supports your position and ignore the rest. If jfd can learn the trick from dg, you can do it, too. I like your style. The above presupposes, however, that I have no integrity. I could never do those things for 2 reasons: 1) I hate lying, I am no good at it, I always get caught. 2) I would hate having every other reader of this newsgroup laugh at me the way they must be at jfd.

Well if it’s any use Randy, I get tears in my eyes and a crick in my neck watching Johns twists and turns! Beav

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Only a small fraction of diabetics have what is called "hypo   Unawareness"  One study showed that with "Human" insulins the   figure may be as high as 36%   May we have a cite please?   other studies have shown far lower figures   cites please   (and all studies show lower figures   with animal-source insulin, Though in some they say "The same" in   their  conclusions, Beef gives the lowest unawareness figures)   cites please Is that all you can say.  Ok For the far lower figures look at Lilly and Novo’s submissions to the FDA for approval of their "Human" insulins, These conclude "no difference" (Can’t get much lower than that) however the raw data tells a different story (2 to 1 for one of them, I’m not sure which)

This is your typical approach. You list study after study without cites. When the believability grows close to zero and you are asked for cites to back up your dubious data, you assign homework. For the study that showed 36 percent ask Dr._Tuescher  You will find his study cited, if memory serves, in the file HINS.TXT which can be downloaded from http://go.compuserve.com/diabetes   (click on files, then 5: Orals and insulin  then look for the file by name) This is a legal brief coming up on 20 years old. But it lists a lot of cites for studies showing the difference in hypo unawareness between the different insulins.

I read the file to which you pointed me. I have pasted below a portion of it. It is quite clear to me that it is unclear to what the 36% refers. In fact, if it were not for you quoting the figure, it would appear to me that the 36% referred to all in the study, not merely those using human. "The study proceeds to examine 315 patients 206 on human (Novo, Lilly, Nordisk) and 109 on beef/porcine or Porcine (Novo, Nordisk) between 9/86 and 2/87. 176 patients (of the 206 on human) were transferred between 1983 and 1987 and 30 had been started on human. 36% of the patients reported a loss of adrenergic early warning symptoms." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   This is a bit like alcohol consumption.  Only a small percentage   of drivers  who consume alcohol on occasion will ever become drunk   and a hazard.   I do not know what percentage of drinkers are drunks (Unlike   diabetics who are  hypo unaware, there I do not know the real   percentage, just that it’s less  than 36) however it is a fact   that your driving ability is affected long  before you qualify as   drunk.   cites American Automobile Assn can provide you with this information.  Assorted anti drunk driving television commercials have touted it as well. Call your local AAA (If in the U.S.) CAA (Canada) or whatever the automobile association is called in your country for cites on this one please

Your point once again is lost if you dispatch all your readers to do their own homework. It is a definite sign of not having a legitimate point to begin with. AS I said, I do not know the precise percentages here.   And they say one in every six drivers is drunk   who is they? See above  (AAA)

Ditto   How many diabetics that you know of have been thrown in jail   because they did not have the choice to not drive? Lilly has never   forced, to my knowledge, any diabetic to get behind the wheel when   their blood sugar was plummeting.   Did you not once claim that you studied logic? Actually, in this country, The choice not to drive is not always there.

No one ever forced me to get behind the wheel, much less to do so while I was impaired. If I ever had been forced (e.g. a carjacking) I certainly wouldn’t blame Lilly or my doctor for it. But in any case you are changing the subject,  I did not ever claim that they did not have that choice, I claimed and they stated that they had earlier problems, They discussed this with their doctors and were assured by said doctors it was safe for them to continue driving.  IN short they gave consideration to not driving in the two cases I am most familiar with and were told BY THEIR DOCTORS, that this decision was unnecessary, They could continue to drive and were safe to drive.  As it turns out the doctors were WRONG.

You have stated this as fact many times. I disbelieve it. I am not calling you  a liar, but I think you are assuming far too many facts not in evidence. Were you in the exam room when the doctor told the patient, "you will never go hypo, do not test, ignore your schedule, feel free to drive whenever you like." Where did the doctors get their info.. Why Ely Lilly, who says there is no problem with hypo unawareness out of one side of their mouth while putting warnings about it in every package of insulin.  Sounds a bit two faced to me.

Assumptions without facts. And yes, I did study logic,  What’s that got to do with it?  Logically I would say they did everythign that they could to insure they were safe behind the wheel, They did everythign required.  And they were given bad information by their doctors.

Assumptions without facts or proof. And logically I’d say the drunk, who had had many previous drunk driving accidents and who had been told by the state to stay away from the driver’s seat (As I’ve been known to tell troopers "Based on this status, He should not even sit in the front seat") but who disregards not only the advice of the judge but the legal order of both the judge who ordered him revoked and the state who revoked him.  Logically I’d say this man assumes FULL responsibility for his actions.  He was acting with full reckless disregard for the safety of others. He was doing NOTHING to insure he was safe.

Question: 2 scenarios….in one, the diabetic is told "you have HGU, you should always be careful behind the wheel of a car," in the other the diabetic is told "your human insulin is the same as your beef insulin was. All diabetics may develop HGU in time, but you have nothing to worry about now." Do you see a difference in how culpable either would be for missing lunch, and crashing into a pedestrian killing him/her? So why did he get months where Justin got years?  logically this does not make sense (Unless, of course, I assume that the judge and jury are all drinkers, but not diabetics and thus they gave a break to "one of their own")

Why do people caught with an ounce of pot get more hard time then rapists? Life isn’t fair. Randy

Response:

   I read the file to which you pointed me. I have pasted below a    portion of it. It is quite clear to me that it is unclear to what    the 36% refers. In fact, if it were not for you quoting the figure,    it would appear to me that the 36% referred to all in the study,    not merely those using human.    "The study proceeds to examine 315 patients 206 on human    (Novo, Lilly, Nordisk) and 109 on beef/porcine or Porcine (Novo,    Nordisk) between 9/86 and 2/87. 176 patients (of the 206 on human)    were transferred between 1983 and 1987 and 30 had been started on    human. 36% of the patients reported a loss of adrenergic early    warning symptoms." Seems rather clear to me since the portion of the article you quoted spells it out in so many words.

If what I posted below is what you meant for me to read and interpret, it completely and totally does NOT support your previous point of view. So what if 36% of diabetics in an unsubstantiated 20 year old non peer reviewed study developed hypoglycemic unawareness! I was told 32 years ago that this might happen to me. If you choose to believe "Nick & Tony’s basement" study, it proves nothing. All diabetics should learn from the outside regardless of their insulin regimen that HGU is something that might occur. Sorry, this discussion has now ended since you are now posting the very cites you say I have not provided, Based on the pointers I gave you

This will likely be my last post to you. You selectively snip out the portions of my posts with questions, and dance around everything else. Here are examples of the homework assignments you gave: "For the far lower figures look at Lilly and Novo’s submissions to the FDA for approval of their "Human" insulins" "American Automobile Assn can provide you with this information" "Call your local AAA (If in the U.S.) CAA (Canada) or whatever the automobile association is called in your country for cites on this one please" The above are not valid cites and you damn well know it. You spout off what you want everyone to hear, you insist it is all factual, and in an effort to determine its truth you set up roadblocks. It sure appears to me like you have made all your numbers up, or more likely, Dave has made them up and told you when and where to post them. Now, the reason I point you to the cite, instead of quoting it myself I am a paid, professional, paranoid (and I’m not kidding there, Though paranoia is not, in so many words, part of my job description, the symptoms are part of the orders under which I work)  And thus I tend not to be the most trusting person in the world.  Thus I will take just one line of the text you Well you get the picture, If I post the cites myself I can post anything I like, If I post the SOURCE and make you go there, You now know I have not "Edited" the text in any way, mean or form.

I don’t get the picture because my mind works in a logical fashion. I never asked you to quote the cites, merely give me a book title and author, or a URL, or someting other than call Tony at Nick and Tony’s basement lab. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now personally, I would never edit a cite (Outside of a post like this one where I clearly indicated I did so) but you have no way of knowing that so I would much rather send you on the quest for knowledge than hand it out on a sliver platter.  Of course, When I go on the quest I’m constantly surprised by the amount of stuff I learn on the way, And I do quest. I do not, however, have a decent system for archiving the results of those quests.  Many reports are printed and lying about, But they are not filed for easy access.  MEMORY is the primary storage.  It is not perfect, but that too is part of why I point you to the source instead of quoting from it. The primary reason however is best explained in a joke. Not only am I a paid professional paranoid, I’m skitzo as well (Mildly, I deal with it)  What does this mean.  Well, It means I don’t trust anyone, Including (half the time) Myself. Fact is you do not believe me… But now that you have done the research for yourself you have to accept I typed the truth, YOU confirmed it, You verified it and now YOU have learned it.  If you can’t understand it, That is not my fault and there is nothing more I can do for you.

You have just gone on and on and on about I don’t know what. I asked for cites. Instead of giving them to me, you sent me on a wild goose chase. Now you wrap up your multi-screen message with a: "you see, I told you I was right!" ending. You have just proven to me and everyone else who has read your messages how phony you are. Have a nice day.

Response: