Re: [IPk] Re: honeymoon period
- To: email @ redacted
- Subject: Re: [IPk] Re: honeymoon period
- From: Diana Maynard <email @ redacted>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:07:58 +0000
- Reply-To: email @ redacted
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
That makes sense - I wasn't implying that the C-peptide was a waste of time
generally. It can be certainly be useful in determining whether someone is
type I or II, which can be an important distinction to make.
Congratulations on the birth of your grandchildren.
Nanette Chana Freedman wrote:
> I agree with you that there is not much point in knowing whether
> initial use of insulin is low because of a honeymoon period or because
> this individual is currently very sensitive to insulin for whatever
> reasons. Either way the situation can change without warning! such is
> life with DM!
> In my case, I had a C-peptide test in order to check how much if any
> residual insulin synthesis was occurring, since had there been
> significant insulin synthesis, I might have been eligible (after
> undergoing several more tests) for a clinical trial of a new vaccine
> which had given good results in initial trials that was supposed to
> prevent further destruction of pancreatic beta cells, thus preserving a
> at least a 'cushion' of physiological insulin synthesis. In my case,
> the C-peptide test indicated there were none to preserve, but did
> indeed tell me that I was not in honeymoon, but simply someone who is,
> and so far, 6 years later, has remained, quite sensitive to insulin.
> Nanette -
> who has just spent a day with our eldest daughter who gave birth
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe/change list versions,