Comments on: “The Blasphemy of C-peptide Removal”

By: Type 1

Type 1 — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:34:13 +0000

It doesn’t make sense that proinsulin would cause heart attacks. Diabetics who make NO proinsulin are more likely to get heart attacks than people who produce their own internally.
I think it is more likely that their their test subjects were diabetics, and therefore more likely to get heart attacks anyway. Or maybe the sudden administration of normal levels of proinsulin after its long absence causes heart attacks. Maybe starting c-peptide administration slowly, and increasing to normal levels, is the right way to do it.

In any case, I would like to have normal circulating levels of c-peptide again, because I’ve read the research about what it prevents and fixes, and I don’t want vascular and neurological disease to overtake my body.

I hope Creative Peptides gets approval for a commercial version of c-peptide before I get to that point.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:36:43 +0000

Has anyone heard of type 11’s(non-ketone producers with no history of coma or very high blood sugars-more in the 200-260 range with no treatment) using insulin intermittently to touch up out of control blood sugars for a few days, then stop and use diet, mild fasting, to keep from gaining weight for a few days and just accept an average of the two? The goal being to limit or lose weight with an overall lower insulin load. The two benifits would be to prevent hyperinsulinemia and its growth hormone-like effect on generating atherosclerosis and coronary disease and stroke, as well as weight gain which just increases insulin resistance. On the down side, higher blood sugars are associated with small blood vessel arteriosclerosis, such as affects the eyes, kidneys, nerves, and fine areas of the brain(pre-alzheimers). I would assume the person would still be taking metformin, possibly actos and prandin(short acting before meals), a statin, aspirin, and maintaining a lower than average blood pressure(120/70 range for middle aged) as well as exercising. I think most doctors would disagree or say everything is about controlling the sugars, but a researcher who specializes in diabetes with a lot of type 11’s might be more interested in thinking about it. Any thoughts on this?

By: Lauren

Lauren — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:09:13 +0000

I’m a bit late commenting on this, but I come down squarely on the side of adding C peptide to insulin. There is an association between type 1 and small blood vessel damage, independent of glycemia. I think the missing part of the puzzle is C peptide. In animal models, C peptide replacement has been shown to be protective against neuropathy, for example. C peptide may act to increase endothelial blood flow, which helps keep vessels nourished and healthy. The cellular sodium-potassium pump, which is vital to the proper function of nerves and filtering cells within the kidney, is also assisted by C peptide. C peptide is not biologically inert. My guess is that the body puts its naturally produced C peptide to good use.

Longtime diabetics have trouble with nerves, blood vessels, and kidneys — three parts of the body on which C peptide exerts an effect. I think this is more than coincidence.

I recommend reading journal articles through PubMed for more information on C peptide. I’m still trying to wade through the volume of information available. I have a feeling that by the time I’m done with medical school, I will be a C peptide crusader. I’m fast approaching that point.

By: camille johnson

camille johnson — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:39:50 +0000

Excellent article; both pro and con. I am always a sceptic on pharma motives. On the other hand, new methodologies and new information in general warrants a new look at old opinions so lets get on with the testing.

By: PharmaGazette

PharmaGazette — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:45:06 +0000

Interesting Articles for Week Ending Dec 7

The first week of the last month of the year is over and of course there was a ton of interesting stories thatPharmaGazette just didnt get the chance to cover. So, as usual, Ill list the top 10 or so…

By: Kathy

Kathy — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:32:01 +0000

Maybe there's a reason not to want the c-peptide back?: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071207/obesity-diabetes-linked-to-cancers.htm

By: d2

d2 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:32:18 +0000

Thanks for reporting this fact. All new news is old news happening to people that chose not to read history. Question? why would the body produce this product during insulin production and than “just throw the product away” with no use for the body. Could it be that this is the product that prevents a non-diabetic person from going into insulin shock.

By: Felix Kasza

Felix Kasza — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:42:32 +0000

Hi Allie,

the physiological half-life of C-peptide is actually five or six times that of insulin, a large part of the reason being that just about all of the C-peptide is excreted unchanged through the kidneys, while insulin get destroyed in the liver (fisrt pass) and at the sites of use. Also, the half-life starts not when insulin attaches to a glucose molecule (the GLUT3 pathway doesn’t quite work this way). The half-life starts when the vacuoles which store the “ready-reserve” of insulin disgorge their contents. (The splitting off of the C-chain happens right after secretion, before insulin and C-peptide are stored in granules.)

With those minor items out of the way, the single biggest improvement I can think of short of a complete cure is an insulin infusion pump that delivers insulin directly into the bloodstream, where there is none of the delay to take effect or the nasty tail. Of course, that requires glucagon, extremely reliable and accurate sensors (ideally not just for BG but also for current insulin, glucagon, and activity levels), and dosing increments that are beyond current technology.

Cheers,
Felix.

By: Bernard Farrell

Bernard Farrell — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:45:25 +0000

Amy

Thanks for opening this discussion up to a wider audience.

Clearly there’s no simple answer here. Big pharma won’t make a change unless they’re convinced that they can make a profit. And that makes some sense.

I’d rather have a cure. But I realize that may not happen in my lifetime. So I’d like something, anything, to help me maybe last until a cure is available.

What would it take to get someone interested in producing C-Peptide? Are there companies in Europe who are investigating this?

By: Hannah

Hannah — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:46:33 +0000

I’d rather have a cure than something to prevent complications, but if they can’t find a cure, why not make our lives healthier?

I look at my swelled up ankles, think of my too-quickly-beating heart, and I can’t help but wonder what could have been if we all had C-Peptide in some form all along.

I think what hurts those of us with diabetes the most is the COST involved in researching helpful things and ways to cure us. If research wasn’t so expensive, we all might be a little better off because it would be easier for scientists to make progress.