Metformin is an Endocrine Disruptor and Threat to Humankind

a reply to: M4ngo

Re-read what I wrote exactly.

I did not say that Big Pharma funded the study.

I said that Big Pharma "could" have funded the study.

You know, like the language in your study that metformin "could" "potentially" "might have"

Its just one of those situations that I provided as an alternative to show that scientists often have motivations that are unknown to us.

But hey - why don't you go ahead and prove to be that Big Pharma does not fund the University of Wisconsin.

I'd like to chime in here. In January of this year, I was diagnosed with type-2 diabetes. And yes, I was put on Metformin (twice a day -- one before each meal). For those saying Metformin "doesn't work," you are INCORRECT. It prevents my blood sugar from spiking, every time. It is effective. I have had 0 side effects with it; there just are none. The whole point of Metformin isn't to "cure" diabetes, but to simply keep your blood sugar from skyrocketing. And it does a phenomenal job at achieving that. Can't remember the last time my blood sugar was too high. And until something else comes along as a "better," everyday alternative, I won't be quitting taking it. Virtually ALL medications have a warning label. Metformin is no different. But in my case, and thousands others, it's been positive/effective thus far. I believe the positives far outweigh the over-hyped "cons," when it comes to Metformin.

a reply to: M4ngo

This warrants a re-read.

Just my 2 cents. If all this metformin is entering the drinking water and buiding as time goes by, then in a few decades there will be no need for it as everyone will get a large daily dose.

originally posted by: brutus61
Just my 2 cents. If all this metformin is entering the drinking water and buiding as time goes by, then in a few decades there will be no need for it as everyone will get a large daily dose.

This just makes me sad, because isn't 95% of type 2 diabetes preventable by living a healthy lifestyle?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: brutus61
Just my 2 cents. If all this metformin is entering the drinking water and buiding as time goes by, then in a few decades there will be no need for it as everyone will get a large daily dose.

This just makes me sad, because isn't 95% of type 2 diabetes preventable by living a healthy lifestyle?

Not if it's hereditary -- healthy or not.

originally posted by: Kromlech

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: brutus61
Just my 2 cents. If all this metformin is entering the drinking water and buiding as time goes by, then in a few decades there will be no need for it as everyone will get a large daily dose.

This just makes me sad, because isn't 95% of type 2 diabetes preventable by living a healthy lifestyle?

Not if it's hereditary -- healthy or not.

And what percent of people with T2D are hereditary?

I wonder if the OP had any medical or pharmaceutical qualification???

a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't know the numbers off hand but, I've read that if one or both parents were T2 then one would have a 50% chance of developing it as well even if you try to reduce your risk.
For example there have been studies linking gene mutations to being at a higher risk.
High blood pressure, high cholesterol and family history can all be a precursor to T2 and, yes, living a healthy lifestyle can perhaps hold it off. My children's father has it and had checked most of the boxes for the precursors however was never obese (quite the opposite) and was very active physically.
So all in all if one can know that they may be at risk and make lifestyle changes to prevent the disease from developing to begin with that would be ideal.

a reply to: TNMockingbird

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of T2D is due to lifestyle. Too many people are overweight, too many people are sedentary, too many people eat awful diets. I'm also pretty sure that the incidents of T2D would go down dramatically if everyone would live a healthier lifestyle.

UGH my dad was just diagnosed with Diabetes and hes in his mid 50s. They said he will be on metaformin soon......... I'm begging him to seek other options but also..... I don't wanna lose my dad to something so silly. This aggravates me.

-Alee

Maybe the OP should be attacking the main cause of T2D? Sugar... Tackle the source not the medication. Doing that will dramatically reduce the use of metformin.

a reply to: kaylaluv

You really really don't know about diabetes.

An active healthy lifestyle can delay the time before a diabetic has to take medication. But as I mentioned in an earlier post. Diabetes is a progressive disease. There comes a time when there is not enough hours to exercise in a day and the person can't eat enough food to do the exercise.

Medication is a necessity.

a reply to: Cropper

Nobody knows what causes diabetes. Its an autoimmune disease. Like asthma.


There is carbohydrate in all food except protein and fats. Are you suggesting that diabetes should limit their food intake to meat and oils? What about vitamins and miconutrients?

a reply to: NerdGoddess

There is nothing silly about diabetes. You are the silly one allowing scare studies to influence your choice of medication. Metformin is extremely effective for Type 2 diabetes.

Get your father into regular daily exercise. Its a better use of your energy than worrying about metformin

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It's a fact that there are a lot more diabetics now than there ever was - and it's happening at younger and younger ages. The time of not accepting self blame is over.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It is not a fact that there is more and more diabetes.

In 1998, the definition of what diabetes is was changed and created an instant epidemic by setting the criteria for a fasting blood sugar at a lower level.

www.aafp.org...

www.who.int...

When you compare the number of diabetics post 1998 to pre 1998, you are comparing apples and oranges.

People are being diagnosed and treated for diabetes today, when in the past, these people would merely have been told that they were at "risk" of diabetes.

Further, intensive efforts were made to increase screening so that more people would be diagnosed.

I don't know if this action had positive results in the treatment of diabetes and the prevention of side-effects of diabetes (amputations, blindness, kidney disease, high blood pressure, heart attacks etc)

However, I do know that you can't compare the two time periods and claim incidence of diabetes is increasing.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Blaming diabetics for their disease is a great propaganda tool. You can sue Big Soda and Big Cookie for making people sick. You can get paid as a lobbiest to run campaigns to prevent diabetes. And as I mentioned earlier, all of this self-blame # is especially lucrative if there is actually no problem to solve.

And it can all be supported by fake science (epidimiology) where statistics is used to lie lie lie to the public.

There are 600 lb people who eat sugar like it is going out of style and don't have diabetes. There are healthy weight people who are active that do have diabetes.

How does your little theory of self blame explain the discrepancy?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Do you not remember the lessons of the great "Fat is bad for you" campaign?

For 40 years, people were told that they had caused their own diseases by eating a high fat diet. Billions upon billions of dollars were spent on breeding low fat animals and changing food products to low fat versions. Eat margarine (a fake lab produced food) but not natural butter.

We all fell for it.

Forty years later, turn out that the scientific evidence against fat was really rather weak and shady.

Some scientists think that by changing our diet on demand, our bodies were affected by the loss of the mico-nutrients in heathy oils and that in fact, the low fat fad may the actual cause of diabetes.

Now public health is going to repeat the costly low fat fiasco by blaming sugar for everything that they used to blame fat for.

How many times are you going to fall for the same scam?