[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [IP] To be or not to be

Sometimes I don't express myself well, I'm certainly no shakespeare. Here I have re-expressed my ideas. I've left the responses in. The response to the last question had a lot in it that was good. I only included the part I wish had been left out.  I need to remember that I am loved too, so no more attacks please, well delivered or not.

>I'm sory if my questions are disturbing but I'm trying to think through pump therapy. 

Gosh, you must be a quick study...  and somehow I sense an agenda somewhere in 
the text here...  

>"poor man's pump" therapy is more flexible than NPH.

After several years of this therapy I was taking six to eight shots a day and still having problems with unpredictable highs and lows...   Of course I was only on it for about twelve

> The claims of pump accuracy seem meaningless to my needs.

And some of it leaks back out when you remove the needle... so the accuracy can 
vary considerably...  and you forgot about the band-aids for the needles.  I've 
ruined many shirts from injection sites in my arms or stomach...  

> Ultralentin is supposed to have no peak and it seems to work that way for me.

Designed for and actually having are the problems here - U does have a 
pronounced peak at around 7 to 8 hours.   Problem is that the onset varies 
between 5 and 10 hours - and you'd better have either a pre-programmed life to 
handle the schedule or a big box of sugar tabs handy.

> How is the pump better?

It works - you can set your basal rates to match your actual requirements.  You 
can vary those basal rates as needed to match your activity level.  You can 
bolus very discretely in very small increments - try to get that 1/10th unit in 
a syringe or pen injection device.

> Multiple basal rates is a big deal but I can't accept the "accuracy" concept.

Non-sequitor here - accuracy is part of the "pump forte" because it works.  You 
cannot include accuracy with a needle either because you cannot control 
absorption rates, backflow leakage and burrs on the needle...

> I calculate 2% accuracy with syringes and that would be good enough. The big change with a pump is all those small doses. What if I miss one during the day?

Sounds like you need to go into politics because these statistics don't 
apply...  a missed pulse "error" cannot be spread over three hours - it is a 
missed event and not a statistical probability.  If you remove the pump you 
"pre" or "post" load by taking a small bolus...  Also if you use the Disetronic 
the stats are different because of the difference in the way it delivers the 
insulin.  Missing a pulse isn't a 17% error - it's a missed event that should 
either be corrected for or ignored.  Ignoring a 1/10 unit pulse doesn't cause 
that big of an effect.  Removing the pump for a few hours does, and people have 
developed strategies to handle these events...

> Would the pump really make my diabetes more predictable?

So you'd rather go with multiple unknowns instead of a single variable?  
It looks like you are trying to build some kind of pseudo-medical/technical 
case against the pump.  Don't waste your time on it.  If you are happy with 
what your are doing and are one of the .1% of people with diabetes who can 
maintain perfect control and maintain flexibility with six shots a day go for 
it...  just don't try to build a case against those of us who tried it and 
found that it just didnt' work.   if you don't like a pump, don't want a pump, or
otherwise  have an axe to grind then you really don't have to have a pump.  

Insulin-Pumpers website http://www.insulin-pumpers.org/