J
john winston
Guest
Subject: Something About Diabetes. Dec. 31, 2007.
Here is something that I found about Diabetes.
............................................................
............................................................
Diabetes Type 2 is Curable
Letter Nexus Dec 2006
Dear Duncan: I am writing to encourage everyone to read
two recent NEXUS articles: the obesity article by David
Zeoli (vol. 13, no. 5) and
http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html
"The Deadly Diabetes Deception" by Thomas Smith (vol. 11,
no. 4; also see his website at
http://www. healingmatters .com
I developed diabetes type 2 about two-and-a-half years
ago. I was in a mess.
I saw my GP and then a specialist, who diagnosed me as a
chronic diabetic. I was put on two types of prescription
medication.
I was constantly told by our leading diabetes institution
that diabetes type 2 is incurable. This is not the case.
After putting the facts together and understanding the
problem, you can actually do something about diabetes type
2. I did, and I want to let others know.
Diabetes type 2 isn't a problem of dealing with sugars,
but a problem of dealing with fats and oils. Back in 1920,
only two per 100,000 had this disease.
Now there are 16,000 per 100,000, and this may be a
conservative figure. Back in the 1920s there were plenty of
sugary sweets around, but the oils and fats weren't
engineered. You cooked with lard, butter or dripping.
Instead of submitting to taking these drugs to keep this
disease under control for the rest of my life, I read the
"Diabetes Deception" article in NEXUS and put it into
motion.
I asked my endocrinologist if anyone had cured themselves
of diabetes type 2.
He said "only once", because that person had gone off
their unrelated medication and their diabetes disappeared.
I said I wanted to be the first one to cure it
intentionally. He said I had to pass the blood glucose
tolerance test and had to have blood sugar levels of less
than six for the last three months.
Within eight months, I passed both tests. The
endocrinologist asked how I did it. I told him of Thomas
Smith's research and how nearly anyone can do what I had
just done. He wasn't interested.
I approached Diabetes Australia about my success, and in the meantime got
an
article published in Better Homes and Gardens' Diabetic Living magazine. Of
the
40 or so replies I received, six went on the diet I proposed. Those six were
thrilled with their results.
I find it hard to get the truth out there, that diabetes
type 2 is curable in about 80 per cent of cases. Diabetes
Australia didn't want to publish my article. They believe
that diabetes type 2 is not curable. They believe that once
you have it under control, that's as good as it gets.
I wrote to our Federal Health Minister, telling him about
being able to arrest the diabetes type 2 pandemic we now
have in Australia. I received an email saying how pleasing
it was that I had the disease "under control", and how much
money they were spending on it.
In the USA, Thomas Smith has found the same problems in
getting the word out about successful treatments for
diabetes type 2.
Cheers,Tony Hall,
yvettemhall@optusnet.com.au
John Winston. johnfw@mlode.com
Zyprexa: A Prescription for Diabetes, Disease and Early
D-ath
by Leonard Roy Frank
There were 20 de-ths, including 12 suicides, in the
http://www.whale.to/a/zyprexa_h.html
Shockingly, these deat-s went unreported in the
scientific literature. The deat- cover-ups also took place
in reporting trial results of several other atypical
antipsychotics. These -eaths occurred during very short
trial periods, so the F-A's approval of these d-ugs is
appalling.
On June 8, 2005, Eli Lilly & Co. announced that it had
agreed to pay $690 million to settle some 8,000 lawsuits
filed by people who reported that taking the antipsychotic
dr-g Zyprexa resulted in unwanted weight gain, diabetes,
other metabolic diseases, and de-th.
Zyprexa, Lilly's top-selling drug, is used in the
treatment of schizophrenia and in the short-term treatment
of manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. More
than 2,500 other claimants refused to participate in the
settlement, presumably in the belief that the amount
received by each claimant, $62,500 on average, was
insufficient compensation for the pain and suffering
Zyprexa caused them.
On July 21, Eli Lilly came out with its second-quarter
financial report showing that $1.07 billion was allocated
to cover its liabilities in these lawsuits. That amount
exceeded the $690 million settlement by $380 million.
The additional sum was the company's estimate of its
liability and defense costs for the unsettled claims
[reported in Forbes.com, July 21, 2005]. News of the
settlement may generate more damage claims, in which event
the cost to Eli Lilly may be greater than the $1.07 billion
already set aside.
According to Eli Lilly, about 17 million people in 86
countries have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in
1996. Although there is no way of accurately estimating the
number of Zyprexa's victims, it's safe to say that this
d-ug has caused diabetes and other diseases in millions of
people, and that tens of thousands of people have d-ed or
will di- prematurely.
Despite these facts, the media has paid scant attention
to the settlement.
Despite these facts, there hasn't been a single voice of
outrage or protest heard in the halls of C-ngress or on the
evening news. And despite these facts, Eli Lilly has made
no special effort to warn the public of the potentially
disastrous consequences of taking Zyprexa as it continues
to rake in profits from the sale of this dr-g.
Zyprexa, whose generic name is olanzapine, belongs to a
class of psychiatric dru-s known as atypical
antipsychotics. Others in this class are Novartis' Clozaril
(clozapine), Janssen's Risperdal (risperidone),
AstraZeneca's Seroquel (quetiapine), Bristol-Myers Squibb's
Abilify (aripiprazole), and Pfizer's Geodon (ziprasidone).
The first atypical antipsychotic, Clozaril, came on the
market in 1990. The manufacturers hailed these d-ugs as
more effective and safer than the conventional
antipsychotics such as Thorazine (chlorpromazine), Haldol
(haloperidol), and Navane (thiothixene), which have been
available since the 1950s.
Following expensive marketing and promotional campaigns
by the manufacturers of the atypicals, belief in their
unsubstantiated claims became widespread, with the result
that the companies were able to charge much more for the
newer drugs than were being charged for the older ones.
Today, a month's supply of Zyprexa costs about $380, 10-30
times more expensive than a month's supply of a
conventional antipsychotic.
Total worldwide sales for the antipsychotics have grown
from less than $500 million in 1993 (almost all
conventional antipsychotics) to more than $14 billion in
2004 (all but $1 billion of which came from atypical
antipsychotics).
For more than 10 years, the drug companies have
consistently downplayed some of the serious risks
associated with taking atypical antipsychotic dru-s.
Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, a leading proponent of
drug therapy for schizophrenics, has written about one of
the techniques used to mislead physicians and the public:
"Psychiatrists trying to evaluate schizophrenia d-ugs are
not told that the expert who minimizes the side effects of
Zyprexa receives a $10,000 retainer from Eli Lilly and also
owns substantial company stock." American Prospect, July
15, 2002.
Faced with mounting evidence of their harmfulness, the
Food and D-ug Administration (FD-) finally required, in
2003, all manufacturers of the atypicals to place on their
labels a warning about the increased risk of diabetes for
users of these dr-gs.
Hersh and Hersh, a San Francisco law firm representing
some 400 of the claimants in the recent settlement, charged
that Eli Lilly "fraudulently withheld relevant information
from potential users of Zyprexa" before 2003.
Eli Lilly, went the charge, failed to warn doctors and
patients that Zyprexa carried terrible and potentially
lethal risks from weight gain and diabetes, which the
company knew or should have known.
Such warnings might have led doctors to lower dosage
levels in prescribing Zyprexa and to regularly test the
blood-sugar levels of their Zyprexa patients. They might
even have caused some doctors to stop prescribing the dr-g.
Part 1.
John Winston.
Subject: Something About Diabetes. Part 2. Dec. 31, 2007.
You may wonder why I am talking about Diabetes. Most of
you know that I was exposed to Chemtrails about 4 of more
years ago. The doctors treated all my symptoms and got me
pretty well straightened out and within tolerance. Due to
the fact that I take all of these d-ugs to keep me alive it
now appears that I may have diabetes. My glycose level is
now too high and they gave me a glucose retention test and
I read too high on that test. This test consists of having
you fast for about 8 or more hours and then they give you a
blood test to see how much glucose you have in you body.
You then are given a solution that has the equivalent of
about 7 spoonful of glucose, which is a type of sugar.
They then give you another blood test in 2 hours. This
tells how you body is getting rid of glucose. My tests
read a little too high in both tests so I'm now trying to
find out how I can correct this situation.
Now on with my search.
............................................................
............................................................
http://www.healingmatters.com
Alternative_Medical_Treatment
About the Author
http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html
Endnotes
Introduction
If you are an American diabetic, your p-ysician will
never tell you that most cases of diabetes are c-rable. In
fact, if you even mention the "cu-e" word around him, he
will likely become upset and irrational. His medical school
training only allows him to respond to the word
"treatment". For him, the "cur-" word does not exist.
Diabetes, in its modern epidemic form, is a cur-ble disease
and has been for at least 40 years. In 2001, the most
recent year for which US figures are posted, 934,550
Americans d-ed from out-of-control symptoms of this
disease.
Your ph-sician will also never tell you that, at one
time, strokes, both ischaemic and haemorrhagic, heart
failure due to neuropathy as well as both ischaemic and
haemorrhagic coronary events, obesity, atherosclerosis,
elevated blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, elevated
triglycerides, impotence, retinopathy, renal failure, liver
failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, elevated blood sugar,
systemic candida, impaired carbohydrate metabolism, poor
wound healing, impaired fat metabolism, peripheral
neuropathy as well as many more of today's disgraceful
epidemic disorders were once well understood often to be
but symptoms of diabetes.
If you contract diabetes and depend upon orthodox medical
treatment, sooner or later you will experience one or more
of its symptoms as the disease rapidly worsens. It is now
common practice to refer to these symptoms as if they were
separable, independent diseases with separate, unrelated
treatments provided by competing medical specialists.
It is true that many of these symptoms can and sometimes
do result from other causes; however, it is also true that
this fact has been used to disguise the causative role of
diabetes and to justify expensive, ineffective treatments
for these symptoms.
Epidemic Type II diabetes is cur-ble. By the time you get
to the end of this article, you are going to know that.
You're going to know why it isn't routinely being -ured.
And, you're going to know how to c-re it. You are also
probably going to be angry at what a handful of greedy
people have surreptitiously done to the entire orthodox
medical community and to its trusting patients.
The Diabetes Industry
Today's diabetes industry is a massive community that has
grown step by step from its dubious origins in the early
20th century.
In the last 80 years it has become enormously successful
at shutting out competitive voices that attempt to point
out the fraud involved in modern diabetes treatment. It has
matured into a r-ligion. And, like all re-igions, it
depends heavily upon the faith of the believer. So
successful has it become that it verges on blasphemy to
suggest that, in most cases, the kindly high priest with
the stethoscope draped prominently around his neck is a
c-arlatan and a f-aud. In the large majority of cases, he
has never cur-d a single case of diabetes in his entire
m-dical career.
The financial and p-litical influence of this me-ical
community has almost totally subverted the original intent
of our regulatory agencies. They routinely approve
de-th-dealing, ineffective dr-gs with insufficient testing.
Former commissioner of the F-A, Dr Herbert Ley, in
testimony before a US Senate hearing, commented: "People
think the FD- is protecting them. It isn't. What the -DA is
doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as
different as night and day."
The financial and po-itical influence of this medic-l
community dominates our entire me-ical in-urance industry.
Although this is beginning to change, in America it is
still difficult to find employer group medical insurance
to cover effective alternative med-cal treatments. Orthodox
coverage is standard in all states. Alternative medicine is
not. For example, there are only 1,400 licensed
naturopaths in 11 states compared to over 3.4 million
orthodox licensees in 50 states.
Generally, only approved treatments from licensed,
credentialed practitioners are insurable. This, in effect,
neatly creates a special kind of money that can only be
spent within the orthodox medi-al and d-ug industry. No
other industry in the world has been able to manage the
pol-tics of convincing people to accept so large a part of
their pay in a form that often does not allow them to spend
it as they see fit.
The financial and poli-ical influence of this medi-al
community completely controls virtually every diabetes
publication in the country. Many diabetes publications are
subsidised by ads for diabetes supplies. No diabetes editor
is going to allow the truth to be printed in his magazine.
This is why the diabetic only pays about one-quarter to
one-third of the cost of printing the magazine he depends
upon for accurate information. The rest is subsidised by
diabetes manufacturers with a vested commercial interest in
preventing diabetics from cu-ing their diabetes. When
looking for a magazine that tells the truth about diabetes,
look first to see if it is full of ads for diabetes
supplies.
And then there are the various associations that solicit
annual donations to find a cur- for their proprietary
disease. Every year they promise that a c-re is just around
the corner
Here is something that I found about Diabetes.
............................................................
............................................................
Diabetes Type 2 is Curable
Letter Nexus Dec 2006
Dear Duncan: I am writing to encourage everyone to read
two recent NEXUS articles: the obesity article by David
Zeoli (vol. 13, no. 5) and
http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html
"The Deadly Diabetes Deception" by Thomas Smith (vol. 11,
no. 4; also see his website at
http://www. healingmatters .com
I developed diabetes type 2 about two-and-a-half years
ago. I was in a mess.
I saw my GP and then a specialist, who diagnosed me as a
chronic diabetic. I was put on two types of prescription
medication.
I was constantly told by our leading diabetes institution
that diabetes type 2 is incurable. This is not the case.
After putting the facts together and understanding the
problem, you can actually do something about diabetes type
2. I did, and I want to let others know.
Diabetes type 2 isn't a problem of dealing with sugars,
but a problem of dealing with fats and oils. Back in 1920,
only two per 100,000 had this disease.
Now there are 16,000 per 100,000, and this may be a
conservative figure. Back in the 1920s there were plenty of
sugary sweets around, but the oils and fats weren't
engineered. You cooked with lard, butter or dripping.
Instead of submitting to taking these drugs to keep this
disease under control for the rest of my life, I read the
"Diabetes Deception" article in NEXUS and put it into
motion.
I asked my endocrinologist if anyone had cured themselves
of diabetes type 2.
He said "only once", because that person had gone off
their unrelated medication and their diabetes disappeared.
I said I wanted to be the first one to cure it
intentionally. He said I had to pass the blood glucose
tolerance test and had to have blood sugar levels of less
than six for the last three months.
Within eight months, I passed both tests. The
endocrinologist asked how I did it. I told him of Thomas
Smith's research and how nearly anyone can do what I had
just done. He wasn't interested.
I approached Diabetes Australia about my success, and in the meantime got
an
article published in Better Homes and Gardens' Diabetic Living magazine. Of
the
40 or so replies I received, six went on the diet I proposed. Those six were
thrilled with their results.
I find it hard to get the truth out there, that diabetes
type 2 is curable in about 80 per cent of cases. Diabetes
Australia didn't want to publish my article. They believe
that diabetes type 2 is not curable. They believe that once
you have it under control, that's as good as it gets.
I wrote to our Federal Health Minister, telling him about
being able to arrest the diabetes type 2 pandemic we now
have in Australia. I received an email saying how pleasing
it was that I had the disease "under control", and how much
money they were spending on it.
In the USA, Thomas Smith has found the same problems in
getting the word out about successful treatments for
diabetes type 2.
Cheers,Tony Hall,
yvettemhall@optusnet.com.au
John Winston. johnfw@mlode.com
Zyprexa: A Prescription for Diabetes, Disease and Early
D-ath
by Leonard Roy Frank
There were 20 de-ths, including 12 suicides, in the
http://www.whale.to/a/zyprexa_h.html
Shockingly, these deat-s went unreported in the
scientific literature. The deat- cover-ups also took place
in reporting trial results of several other atypical
antipsychotics. These -eaths occurred during very short
trial periods, so the F-A's approval of these d-ugs is
appalling.
On June 8, 2005, Eli Lilly & Co. announced that it had
agreed to pay $690 million to settle some 8,000 lawsuits
filed by people who reported that taking the antipsychotic
dr-g Zyprexa resulted in unwanted weight gain, diabetes,
other metabolic diseases, and de-th.
Zyprexa, Lilly's top-selling drug, is used in the
treatment of schizophrenia and in the short-term treatment
of manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. More
than 2,500 other claimants refused to participate in the
settlement, presumably in the belief that the amount
received by each claimant, $62,500 on average, was
insufficient compensation for the pain and suffering
Zyprexa caused them.
On July 21, Eli Lilly came out with its second-quarter
financial report showing that $1.07 billion was allocated
to cover its liabilities in these lawsuits. That amount
exceeded the $690 million settlement by $380 million.
The additional sum was the company's estimate of its
liability and defense costs for the unsettled claims
[reported in Forbes.com, July 21, 2005]. News of the
settlement may generate more damage claims, in which event
the cost to Eli Lilly may be greater than the $1.07 billion
already set aside.
According to Eli Lilly, about 17 million people in 86
countries have taken Zyprexa since its introduction in
1996. Although there is no way of accurately estimating the
number of Zyprexa's victims, it's safe to say that this
d-ug has caused diabetes and other diseases in millions of
people, and that tens of thousands of people have d-ed or
will di- prematurely.
Despite these facts, the media has paid scant attention
to the settlement.
Despite these facts, there hasn't been a single voice of
outrage or protest heard in the halls of C-ngress or on the
evening news. And despite these facts, Eli Lilly has made
no special effort to warn the public of the potentially
disastrous consequences of taking Zyprexa as it continues
to rake in profits from the sale of this dr-g.
Zyprexa, whose generic name is olanzapine, belongs to a
class of psychiatric dru-s known as atypical
antipsychotics. Others in this class are Novartis' Clozaril
(clozapine), Janssen's Risperdal (risperidone),
AstraZeneca's Seroquel (quetiapine), Bristol-Myers Squibb's
Abilify (aripiprazole), and Pfizer's Geodon (ziprasidone).
The first atypical antipsychotic, Clozaril, came on the
market in 1990. The manufacturers hailed these d-ugs as
more effective and safer than the conventional
antipsychotics such as Thorazine (chlorpromazine), Haldol
(haloperidol), and Navane (thiothixene), which have been
available since the 1950s.
Following expensive marketing and promotional campaigns
by the manufacturers of the atypicals, belief in their
unsubstantiated claims became widespread, with the result
that the companies were able to charge much more for the
newer drugs than were being charged for the older ones.
Today, a month's supply of Zyprexa costs about $380, 10-30
times more expensive than a month's supply of a
conventional antipsychotic.
Total worldwide sales for the antipsychotics have grown
from less than $500 million in 1993 (almost all
conventional antipsychotics) to more than $14 billion in
2004 (all but $1 billion of which came from atypical
antipsychotics).
For more than 10 years, the drug companies have
consistently downplayed some of the serious risks
associated with taking atypical antipsychotic dru-s.
Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, a leading proponent of
drug therapy for schizophrenics, has written about one of
the techniques used to mislead physicians and the public:
"Psychiatrists trying to evaluate schizophrenia d-ugs are
not told that the expert who minimizes the side effects of
Zyprexa receives a $10,000 retainer from Eli Lilly and also
owns substantial company stock." American Prospect, July
15, 2002.
Faced with mounting evidence of their harmfulness, the
Food and D-ug Administration (FD-) finally required, in
2003, all manufacturers of the atypicals to place on their
labels a warning about the increased risk of diabetes for
users of these dr-gs.
Hersh and Hersh, a San Francisco law firm representing
some 400 of the claimants in the recent settlement, charged
that Eli Lilly "fraudulently withheld relevant information
from potential users of Zyprexa" before 2003.
Eli Lilly, went the charge, failed to warn doctors and
patients that Zyprexa carried terrible and potentially
lethal risks from weight gain and diabetes, which the
company knew or should have known.
Such warnings might have led doctors to lower dosage
levels in prescribing Zyprexa and to regularly test the
blood-sugar levels of their Zyprexa patients. They might
even have caused some doctors to stop prescribing the dr-g.
Part 1.
John Winston.
Subject: Something About Diabetes. Part 2. Dec. 31, 2007.
You may wonder why I am talking about Diabetes. Most of
you know that I was exposed to Chemtrails about 4 of more
years ago. The doctors treated all my symptoms and got me
pretty well straightened out and within tolerance. Due to
the fact that I take all of these d-ugs to keep me alive it
now appears that I may have diabetes. My glycose level is
now too high and they gave me a glucose retention test and
I read too high on that test. This test consists of having
you fast for about 8 or more hours and then they give you a
blood test to see how much glucose you have in you body.
You then are given a solution that has the equivalent of
about 7 spoonful of glucose, which is a type of sugar.
They then give you another blood test in 2 hours. This
tells how you body is getting rid of glucose. My tests
read a little too high in both tests so I'm now trying to
find out how I can correct this situation.
Now on with my search.
............................................................
............................................................
http://www.healingmatters.com
Alternative_Medical_Treatment
About the Author
http://www.whale.to/a/smith.html
Endnotes
Introduction
If you are an American diabetic, your p-ysician will
never tell you that most cases of diabetes are c-rable. In
fact, if you even mention the "cu-e" word around him, he
will likely become upset and irrational. His medical school
training only allows him to respond to the word
"treatment". For him, the "cur-" word does not exist.
Diabetes, in its modern epidemic form, is a cur-ble disease
and has been for at least 40 years. In 2001, the most
recent year for which US figures are posted, 934,550
Americans d-ed from out-of-control symptoms of this
disease.
Your ph-sician will also never tell you that, at one
time, strokes, both ischaemic and haemorrhagic, heart
failure due to neuropathy as well as both ischaemic and
haemorrhagic coronary events, obesity, atherosclerosis,
elevated blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, elevated
triglycerides, impotence, retinopathy, renal failure, liver
failure, polycystic ovary syndrome, elevated blood sugar,
systemic candida, impaired carbohydrate metabolism, poor
wound healing, impaired fat metabolism, peripheral
neuropathy as well as many more of today's disgraceful
epidemic disorders were once well understood often to be
but symptoms of diabetes.
If you contract diabetes and depend upon orthodox medical
treatment, sooner or later you will experience one or more
of its symptoms as the disease rapidly worsens. It is now
common practice to refer to these symptoms as if they were
separable, independent diseases with separate, unrelated
treatments provided by competing medical specialists.
It is true that many of these symptoms can and sometimes
do result from other causes; however, it is also true that
this fact has been used to disguise the causative role of
diabetes and to justify expensive, ineffective treatments
for these symptoms.
Epidemic Type II diabetes is cur-ble. By the time you get
to the end of this article, you are going to know that.
You're going to know why it isn't routinely being -ured.
And, you're going to know how to c-re it. You are also
probably going to be angry at what a handful of greedy
people have surreptitiously done to the entire orthodox
medical community and to its trusting patients.
The Diabetes Industry
Today's diabetes industry is a massive community that has
grown step by step from its dubious origins in the early
20th century.
In the last 80 years it has become enormously successful
at shutting out competitive voices that attempt to point
out the fraud involved in modern diabetes treatment. It has
matured into a r-ligion. And, like all re-igions, it
depends heavily upon the faith of the believer. So
successful has it become that it verges on blasphemy to
suggest that, in most cases, the kindly high priest with
the stethoscope draped prominently around his neck is a
c-arlatan and a f-aud. In the large majority of cases, he
has never cur-d a single case of diabetes in his entire
m-dical career.
The financial and p-litical influence of this me-ical
community has almost totally subverted the original intent
of our regulatory agencies. They routinely approve
de-th-dealing, ineffective dr-gs with insufficient testing.
Former commissioner of the F-A, Dr Herbert Ley, in
testimony before a US Senate hearing, commented: "People
think the FD- is protecting them. It isn't. What the -DA is
doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as
different as night and day."
The financial and po-itical influence of this medic-l
community dominates our entire me-ical in-urance industry.
Although this is beginning to change, in America it is
still difficult to find employer group medical insurance
to cover effective alternative med-cal treatments. Orthodox
coverage is standard in all states. Alternative medicine is
not. For example, there are only 1,400 licensed
naturopaths in 11 states compared to over 3.4 million
orthodox licensees in 50 states.
Generally, only approved treatments from licensed,
credentialed practitioners are insurable. This, in effect,
neatly creates a special kind of money that can only be
spent within the orthodox medi-al and d-ug industry. No
other industry in the world has been able to manage the
pol-tics of convincing people to accept so large a part of
their pay in a form that often does not allow them to spend
it as they see fit.
The financial and poli-ical influence of this medi-al
community completely controls virtually every diabetes
publication in the country. Many diabetes publications are
subsidised by ads for diabetes supplies. No diabetes editor
is going to allow the truth to be printed in his magazine.
This is why the diabetic only pays about one-quarter to
one-third of the cost of printing the magazine he depends
upon for accurate information. The rest is subsidised by
diabetes manufacturers with a vested commercial interest in
preventing diabetics from cu-ing their diabetes. When
looking for a magazine that tells the truth about diabetes,
look first to see if it is full of ads for diabetes
supplies.
And then there are the various associations that solicit
annual donations to find a cur- for their proprietary
disease. Every year they promise that a c-re is just around
the corner