Thanks BadMoon for clarifying this. I suspected that perhaps the people in the purported study were taking TZDs, notorious for causing heart attacks. I remember reading that Avandia was taken off the market for that very reason, although I think Actos another problematic drug is still being prescribed. Perhaps taking large amounts of insulin to cover large amounts of carbs in the diet might also have a deleterious affect on the cardiovascular system.
There is huge fraud and corruption in the FDA and its relationship with drug companies and medical groups, definitely profits before people.I have a healthy suspicion toward "sanctioned medical protocols". Because it's my son I want to be doubly sure that I am thinking clearly on the issues.
The sad thing is that the original conclusion, that an A1C < 7 is dangerous, lives on and patients are being told not to try for tight control, because it's dangerous. This despite the study having been thoroughly repudiated.
I don't know how I didn't seen this discussion before. This topic has been a sore spot for many of us as our doctors make claims that lowering HbA1c is dangerous. Back in 2009 the lead researcher made the following statement:
Endochrine Today "ACCORD: Intensive glucose control not to blame for excess mortality", June 10, 2009 on the ADA 69th Scientific session
“HbA1c was associated with hypoglycemia but not in the relationship we expected,” said Denise Bonds, MD, MPH, project officer for ACCORD at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health.
Severe hypoglycemia was associated with higher risk for death in both treatment groups but a lower risk in the intensive group vs. standard group (HR=1.28 vs. HR=2.87). Further, risk for hypoglycemia was lower in the intensive control group who achieved the target goal faster compared with the standard group (HR=0.86 vs. HR=0.72). Importantly, hypoglycemia did not account for overall mortality findings.
“Hypoglycemia was felt to play no role in most deaths,” Bonds said. Few deaths occurred within 90 days of a documented episode of severe hypoglycemia.
Just because you repeat a lie doesn't make it true.
I've seen no compelling evidence that normal blood sugars are dangerous (just saying that makes me think I must be stupid).
and me! i want to die with all of my parts attached and in good working order. if i have to test ten times a day, then so be it.
I think they are misconstruing "goal" as something you shoot at and replacing it with their paradigm of "something your doctor tells you to do and, if you don't do it, you are bad." If A1C goal is 6.5 or whatever, the target is hard to hit so the conclusion is that should be the lowest goal. This overlooks that in aiming at 6.5 A1C, you are pretty likely to accept a lot of blood sugars that are going to be higher than a "straight" person without diabetes. I think that's a problem and that we should aim lower and, if we don't hit it, you don't beat us up, you use the data accumulated in experiments to figure out how to get us there. Maybe it's easier said that done but there's quite a few folks doing it pretty actively here and I'm not sure why the medical industry ignores us and refuses to support us because of their institutionalized stupidity.
I aim for something like 5.8 and I accept a lot of blood sugars that would almost never be found in a person without diabetes.
Remember, DCCT considered "intensive management" pumps or MDI with 3-4 shots, and at least 4 BG tests per day.
They used regular insulin too.
I guess a low A1C had more risks of undetected hypo than today.
Today we have analog insulins, "flat" basals, more sticks and CGM. If money was not a problem it would be time for a DCCT 2.0 ......