Diabetes Is Hard Quotes

Their house had real hard-cover books in it, and you often saw them lying open on the sofa, the words still warm from being read.

Why Is It So Hard to Lose Weight? Body fat is hard to lose because the body automatically burns the easiest energy source first—blood glucose; when blood glucose gets too low, the body then uses the next easiest source of energy—glycogen in the liver—which converts back to glucose and goes into the bloodstream. Then and only then, after the liver is depleted of glycogen, does the body begin to use body fat. That is why body fat is so hard to get rid of. It’s the last source of energy used and is also a very stable molecule that is hard to break down.   You can gain weight easily simply by putting more glucose in your bloodstream than you need for your current activity or inactivity. But it’s harder to lose weight because body fat is the last source of energy your body uses. This is the very reason that you can gain weight quickly, but losing weight takes longer. 

Wants to set the world on fire, and if it can't happen by tomorrow morning at nine a.m., then life's just unfair and hardly worth living.

Fight the Light at Night Keep artificial light before bedtime from ruining your sleep. Exposure to light in the hours before you go to sleep suppresses melatonin levels. Lower melatonin levels make it hard to fall asleep, decrease sleep quality, and could even increase the risk of high blood pressure and diabetes.

Sitting here in my lab, I can imagine you scratching your head again: Dr. Panda, what’s the big deal? Aren’t we talking about just a few ounces of fat gain after a late-night snack? Won’t my metabolic rhythm come back the next day? Actually, it’s worse than you think. It is hard enough for the body to monitor hormones, genes, and clocks for someone with a strict eating routine. But when eating occurs at random times throughout the day and night, the fat-making process stays on all the time. At the same time, glucose created from digested carbohydrates floods our blood and the liver becomes inefficient in its ability to absorb glucose. If this continues for a few days, blood glucose continues to rise and reaches the danger zone of prediabetes or diabetes. So, if you’ve wondered why diets haven’t worked for you before, timing might be the reason. Even if you were diligently exercising; counting calories; avoiding fats, carbs, and sweets; and piling on the protein, it’s quite likely that you weren’t respecting your circadian clocks. If you eat late at night or start breakfast at a wildly different time each morning, you are constantly throwing your body out of sync. Don’t worry, the fix is equally simple: Just set an eating routine and stick to it. Timing is everything.

There are times that I am doing so well, I stop taking my meds. And suddenly I feel like the light switch has flipped off. And suddenly I feel like I am not better because of my hard work. And suddenly I feel like a fraud. I try to remind myself that the brain is an organ, that this is a disease, that diabetics need insulin and no one thinks of that as cheating. I try to remind myself that this is not a boost, this is a treatment. So I swallow my pride along with my pills and let myself get better.

I know I don’t get it, in the sense that I don’t have diabetes, too, but…maybe I understand it a little, living with something persistent and beyond your control. You can’t take it off or walk away from it or lay it down for awhile. And even when you’ve become accustomed to its reality, when it’s not really bad or good, it just…is, sometimes it’s hard when you’re with others. When you feel that sense of difference and distance from them as you deal with the part of yourself that they don’t understand, that you have to think about in social situations and in your daily life in ways they don’t.

Is their average blood glucose a little bit high? Are they “spiking” above 160 mg/dL more often than I would like? Or could they perhaps tolerate a little bit more carbohydrate in their diet? Not everyone needs to restrict carbohydrates; some people can handle more than others, and some have a hard time sticking to severe carbohydrate restriction. Overall, I like to keep average glucose at or below 100 mg/dL, with a standard deviation of less than 15 mg/dL.[*5] These are aggressive goals: 100 mg/dL corresponds to an HbA1c of 5.1 percent, which is quite low. But I believe that the reward, in terms of lower risk of mortality and disease, is well worth it given the ample evidence in nondiabetics and diabetics alike.

It is a scandal at the level of Semmelweis, an early nineteenth century Viennese physician. To reduce the incidence of puerperal fever (infection after childbirth), Semmelweis suggested that physicians wash their hands after performing autopsies and before delivering babies. They refused; it was too much trouble. But it was the nineteenth century before the germ theory was established and that’s some kind of excuse. It’s hard to know how we will describe the actions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) who believe that for people with diabetes: “Sucrose-containing foods can be substituted for other carbohydrates in the meal plan or, if added to the meal plan, covered with insulin or other glucose-lowering medications.” [9]

And there were other neural implants being developed back then, including retinal implants, chips that enable a stroke patient to control his computer from his brain, an artificial hippocampus for boosting short-term memory, and many others. If you apply the approximately 30 million–fold increase in capability and over 100,000-fold shrinking in size that has occurred in the past quarter century, we now have much more capable devices that are the size of blood cells. Reader: Still, it’s hard to imagine building something the size of a blood cell that can perform a useful function. Terry2034: Actually, there was a first generation of blood cell–size devices back in your day. One scientist cured type 1 diabetes in rats with a blood cell–size device. It was an excellent example of nanotechnology from

Do: Mentally prepare yourself Controlling diabetes is more like a marathon than a sprint. You can go as hard as you can for a short period, but then it all stops. Prepare yourself mentally that the changes you are making are for life! If you're not ready, any changes you make are not going to be sustainable.

So how can we improve the educational system? We should probably first rethink school curricula, and link them in more obvious ways to social goals (elimination of poverty and crime, elevation of human rights, etc.), technological goals (boosting energy conservation, space exploration, nanotechnology, etc.), and medical goals (cures for cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc.) that we care about as a society. This way the students, teachers, and parents might see the larger point in education and become more enthusiastic and motivated about it. We should also work hard on making education a goal in itself, and stop confusing the number of hours students spend in school with the quality of the education they get. Kids can get excited about many things (baseball, for example), and it is our challenge as a society to make them want to know as much about Nobel laureates as they now know about baseball players. I am not suggesting that igniting a social passion for education is simple; but if we succeed in doing so, the value could be immense.

Our conception of Christ colours our whole life; it informs everything that we touch with its spirit; it makes us what we are. Nothing could be more untrue than the often-repeated statement that we all worship the same God; or that other, that whatever we worship the result is the same. Nothing matters more than having a true knowledge of Christ. We become what our conception of Christ is: God made us in His own likeness, but we have an extraordinary power of changing ourselves into the likeness of the idols we make, of those caricatures of God which we set up on the altars of our egoism and worship. In the degree of the falseness of our conception of God, we restrict and narrow our interests and sympathies; we grow in intolerance and hardness or in a flabbiness which turns to a rot of sweetness like a diabetes of the soul.

EFT for Blood Sugar Levels By Kate Flegal Oh, my goodness! I just had the most amazing experience with EFT. I have type I diabetes (aka juvenile diabetes), and recently my blood sugars have been running very high, often close to 300 mg/dl, which is in the danger zone for things like diabetic ketoacidosis and long-term complications like blindness and kidney failure if the level stays elevated for long periods. It finally occurred to me to try tapping for my blood sugar this morning. Guess what? My blood sugar is back down to 115—in the good range! I started out by saying, “Even though my blood sugar is high, I deeply and completely love, accept, and forgive myself.” And then I did the full routine several times, focusing on the phrase “blood sugar.” It probably took a total of 5 minutes, and it didn’t take time away from my job; I tapped as I worked. It’s such a huge relief to have my blood sugar back to normal, and not just physically; the emotional toll of high blood sugar is big, too. It’s hard not to feel like a failure when you can’t keep your blood glucose in a good range. I’m confident that with EFT and healthy behavior, I can keep my blood sugars normal. Whew! You can bet I’ll keep using EFT for all of my life, which will be much longer and healthier now that I know how to use EFT to help control my diabetes!

I can't let myself hate it, because it is a part of me. A part that I work so hard to maintain. And I will not allow one single part of me to root into a toxic panic that bores its way into m psyche. I am living with diabetes. And I will continue to live successfully for as long as I can.

Foster children are much more likely than other children with similar problems to be prescribed multiple medications that will have no impact on their symptoms. These medications, particularly the so-called atypical antipsychotics (medications like Risperdal, Abilify, and Seroquel) can shorten life and have severe side effects, like weight gain great enough to increase risk for diabetes. The over prescribing and inappropriate prescribing of such medications to children in foster care has been so dramatic that the Government Accountability Office has issued a special report condemning it. Both the federal government and several states have sued Big Pharma for targeting foster care children, resulting in multi-million-dollar settlements. In the last few years, attention to these issues by legal groups, such as the National Center for Youth Law in Oakland, the press (an excellent example can be seen in the online series from the Mercury News by Karen de Sa), and advocacy groups such as Foster Youth in Action, has increased awareness of this problem. These investigations and advocacy are leading to some positive changes. For example, California passed legislation to monitor prescribing to children in foster care. But sadly, rather than joining in or even leading efforts to improve the quality of care for foster and adopted youth, most medical and psychiatric groups have resisted or even openly opposed these efforts. Change is hard, and it is hardest for those with the most to lose. As Annette Jackson and I wrote in 2014, “the academic or interest group most threatened by the innovations which challenge their existing frame of reference or perspective, will be the most vocal and hostile to the new ideas.

Let me describe how that same thought applies to the world of education. I recently joined a federal committee on incentives and accountability in public education. This is one aspect of social and market norms that I would like to explore in the years to come. Our task is to reexamine the “No Child Left Behind” policy, and to help find ways to motivate students, teachers, administrators, and parents. My feeling so far is that standardized testing and performance-based salaries are likely to push education from social norms to market norms. The United States already spends more money per student than any other Western society. Would it be wise to add more money? The same consideration applies to testing: we are already testing very frequently, and more testing is unlikely to improve the quality of education. I suspect that one answer lies in the realm of social norms. As we learned in our experiments, cash will take you only so far—social norms are the forces that can make a difference in the long run. Instead of focusing the attention of the teachers, parents, and kids on test scores, salaries, and competition, it might be better to instill in all of us a sense of purpose, mission, and pride in education. To do this we certainly can't take the path of market norms. The Beatles proclaimed some time ago that you “Can't Buy Me Love” and this also applies to the love of learning—you can't buy it; and if you try, you might chase it away. So how can we improve the educational system? We should probably first rethink school curricula, and link them in more obvious ways to social goals (elimination of poverty and crime, elevation of human rights, etc.), technological goals (boosting energy conservation, space exploration, nanotechnology, etc.), and medical goals (cures for cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc.) that we care about as a society. This way the students, teachers, and parents might see the larger point in education and become more enthusiastic and motivated about it. We should also work hard on making education a goal in itself, and stop confusing the number of hours students spend in school with the quality of the education they get. Kids can get excited about many things (baseball, for example), and it is our challenge as a society to make them want to know as much about Nobel laureates as they now know about baseball players. I am not suggesting that igniting a social passion for education is simple; but if we succeed in doing so, the value could be immense.

The sad truth is that most of the advice we are now bombarded with varies from neutral to damaging. In some cases it can be potentially very damaging indeed. Advising people with diabetes to eat a low fat, high carbohydrate diet, for example. As a piece of harmful idiocy, this really could hardly be bettered.

controlling diabetes is hard, but once you figure it out, everything else in your life becomes easier. Everything else gets better.

If you’re like most people, a string of nerve-racking incidents keeps you in fight-or-flight response—and out of homeostasis—a large part of the time. Maybe the car cutting you off is the only actual life-threatening situation you encounter all day, but the traffic on the way to work, the pressure of preparing for a big presentation, the argument you had with your spouse, the credit-card bill that came in the mail, the crashing of your computer hard drive, and the new gray hair you noticed in the mirror keep the stress hormones circulating in your body on a near-constant basis. Between remembering stressful experiences from the past and anticipating stressful situations coming up in your future, all these repetitive short-term stresses blur together into long-term stress. Welcome to the 21st-century version of living in survival mode. In fight-or-flight mode, life-sustaining energy is mobilized so that the body can either run or fight. But when there isn’t a return to homeostasis (because you keep perceiving a threat), vital energy is lost in the system. You have less energy in your internal environment for cell growth and repair, long-term building projects on a cellular level, and healing when that energy is being channeled elsewhere. The cells shut down, they no longer communicate with one another, and they become “selfish.” It’s not time for routine maintenance (let alone for making improvements); it’s time for defense. It’s every cell for itself, so the collective community of cells working together becomes fractured. The immune and endocrine systems (among others) become weakened as genes in those related cells are compromised when informational signals from outside the cells are turned off. It’s like living in a country where 98 percent of the resources go toward defense, and nothing is left for schools, libraries, road building and repair, communication systems, growing of food, and so on. Roads develop potholes that aren’t fixed. Schools suffer budget cuts, so students wind up learning less. Social welfare programs that took care of the poor and the elderly have to close down. And there’s not enough food to feed the masses. Not surprisingly, then, long-term stress has been linked to anxiety, depression, digestive problems, memory loss, insomnia, hypertension, heart disease, strokes, cancer, ulcers, rheumatoid arthritis, colds, flu, aging acceleration, allergies, body pain, chronic fatigue, infertility, impotence, asthma, hormonal issues, skin rashes, hair loss, muscle spasms, and diabetes, to name just a few conditions (all of which, by the way, are the result of epigenetic changes). No organism in nature is designed to withstand the effects of long-term stress.

Medicine and society have entered into a folie a deaux regarding medicine's importance in gigantic population ills. We believe that genetics and pills and enzymes bring us health. We wait for the dementia cure (the obesity cure, the diabetes cure) rather than changing our society to decrease incidence and severity. We slash social welfare programs and access to GPs and ignore the downstream effect this will have on future generations. To reduce non-communicable disease, the actions we need to take are societal: make it easier for people to move and eat well, strengthen education, promote community participation and meaningful work. Our collective delusion is that we can have all the benefits such a society would bring without the structural supports necessary to bring it into being, that we can attain health by inventing and buying drugs. It is hard to know which is the more utopian vision: magic pills or a society serious about prevention.

At the Harvard Symposium for Hard Problems in Social Science , Emily Oster presented a very simple, elementary problem: almost all people with type-2 diabetes who are overweight can be cured by losing a little bit of weight. They are made aware of it, yet they usually gain weight a�er diagnosis (she mentioned "Atkins" among the options, so it was not just AMA low-fat.). It is so obvious that we know what to do yet do not carry the action because thinking can be largely ornamental. The proof of the sterility of (a significant class of) knowledgesterility of (a significant class of) knowledge was right there (among the obvious evidence that the population has been gaining weight in spire of technological and educational progress). Yet the others social scientists kept exalting the value of "education" in spite of this simple devastating evidence. Someone even suggested teaching more "critical thinking". This is the great sucker problem: people who teach truly think that teaching, or, worse, preaching, cures.

He's morbidly obese. He's unusually bloated. There are needle marks on his abdomen and thighs that indicate he's an insulin-dependent diabetic. His diet was fast food and Skittles. Collier looked skeptical. "So Harding conveniently slipped into a diabetic coma during the middle of a death match?

Optimizing efficiency is not always a priority. One glaring example is that classic holiday event: the canned food drive. Such events help people feel involved, especially children. They raise awareness about hunger. But these are their only benefits. They are a terrible way to feed the hungry. Cans are heavy and hard to ship. Some canned, boxed and jarred food is healthy, but much is not. According to Feeding America, 58 percent of families who use food pantries nationwide have someone with hypertension, and more than 30 percent have someone with diabetes. Beefaroni, Kraft mac and cheese, and Vienna sausages are not part of the solution.

Carrying too much fat—30 percent or more of your total—is called obesity, and it puts a person at risk for serious medical conditions including heart disease, diabetes, and even certain types of cancer.

You’d have to be living under a rock not to know that we are getting fatter and fatter every year despite all the information sold to us about how to stay slim and trim. You’d also be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t know about our soaring rates of type 2 diabetes. Or the fact that heart disease is our number one killer, trailed closely by cancer.

In young people, [these chemical antidepressants] increase the risk18 of suicide. There’s a new Swedish study showing that it increases the risk of violent criminal behavior,” Irving continued. “In older people it increases the risk of death from all causes, increases the risk of stroke. In everybody, it increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. In pregnant women, it increases the risk of miscarriage [and] of having children born with autism or physical deformities. So all of these things are known.” And if you start experiencing these effects, it can be hard to stop—about 20 percent of people experience serious withdrawal symptoms.19

On the other end of the spectrum are high-glycemic carbs, possessing a high dose of sugar, likely refined sugar at that, and little to no fiber. These foods, sometimes labeled “bad” carbs, trigger spikes in blood sugar levels, making it hard for your body’s insulin to metabolize so much quick sugar at once. Over time, this exhausts your pancreas, causing insulin resistance. Insulin resistance inflames your body and its systems, posing a risk factor for metabolic disorders, diabetes, and heart disease. It can also harm estrogen production, the last thing anyone needs. Great examples of high-glycemic carbs aren’t just the obvious ones like packaged treats, sugary cookies, commercial pastries, and candies.

Others follow medical instructions to the letter, yet never ask questions of their doctors nor provide any feedback to them. The latter group may get a handle on their blood sugar levels, but are so miserable it hardly matters.

My Yiayiá was exactly the sort of friend I’d liked as an adult, someone with an endless supply of hard-luck stories and no desire to ever write a book.

we learn to eat before we walk or speak and it is hard to change the building blocks before they fall.

Diabetes is unique, in that way, with complications often viewed as a result of the patient not working hard enough when in fact they are the result of diabetes.

When insulin is chronically elevated, more problems arise. Fat gain and ultimately obesity are merely one symptom of this condition, known as hyperinsulinemia. I would argue that they are hardly even the most serious symptoms: as we’ll see in the coming chapters, insulin is also a potent growth-signaling hormone that helps foster both atherosclerosis and cancer. And when insulin resistance begins to develop, the train is already well down the track toward type 2 diabetes, which brings a multitude of unpleasant consequences.

If your long path is short-circuited by stress, and your brain is using the short path instead, you might be so alarmed at the mere thought of a shark that you have a panic attack just thinking about taking a swim in the ocean. All the body’s machinery of FFF then gets engaged by this imaginary threat, just as if you were nose to nose with Jaws. Your gut clenches, your heart races, your breathing becomes fast and shallow, and your focus narrows to the point where you can’t think about anything other than the threat. This takes a huge biological toll on the body. High adrenaline produces dramatic reductions in life span. Stressed people have much more disease and live much shorter lives than unstressed people. Whatever form stress takes—depression, anxiety, or PTSD—correlates with higher rates of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The deficits in the life spans of stressed people are measured in decades rather than years. In meditators, the amygdala is quiet. It becomes even quieter with practice. The difference in amygdala activation between the longest-term meditators and their less-experienced peers has been measured. The adepts show 400% less reactivity to stressful events. But even in novices who practice mindfulness for 30 hours over 8 weeks, decreased amygdala activity is found. Other structures within the midbrain or limbic system work together with the hippocampus and amygdala. One of them, the thalamus, is like a relay station. Close to the corpus callosum, it identifies information coming in from the senses like touch, hearing, and taste, and directs it to the consciousness centers of the prefrontal cortex. The thalamus typically becomes more active during meditation, as it works harder to suppress sensory input (like “that buzzing mosquito” or “this chair is too hard”) that pulls us out of Bliss Brain. With the hippocampus regulating emotion, the thalamus regulating sensory input, and the long path in good working order, stress-inducing signals aren’t sent to the amygdala. In turn, all the body’s FFF machinery remains offline. This produces corresponding biological benefits. Heart rhythm is even. Respiration is deep and slow. Digestion is effective. Immunity is high. That’s why so many studies show pervasive health and longevity benefits among meditators.

, not fat utilization. When insulin is chronically elevated, more problems arise. Fat gain and ultimately obesity are merely one symptom of this condition, known as hyperinsulinemia. I would argue that they are hardly even the most serious symptoms: as we’ll see in the coming chapters, insulin is also a potent growth-signaling hormone that helps foster both atherosclerosis and cancer. And when insulin resistance begins to develop, the train is already well down the track toward type 2 diabetes, which brings a multitude of unpleasant consequences.

So how can we improve the educational system? We should probably first rethink school curricula, and link them in more obvious ways to social goals (elimination of poverty and crime, elevation of human rights, etc.), technological goals (boosting energy conservation, space exploration, nanotechnology, etc.), and medical goals (cures for cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc.) that we care about as a society. This way the students, teachers, and parents might see the larger point in education and become more enthusiastic and motivated about it. We should also work hard on making education a goal in itself, and stop confusing the number of hours students spend in school with the quality of the education they get.

You need a little bit of fat—even the saturated kind—to maintain normal anabolic hormone levels. When you eat pure carbs and no fat, this can also aggravate blood sugar problems in those who are susceptible, develop into metabolic syndrome, and eventually lead to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Eating healthy fat (and fiber) slows digestion, which helps control blood sugar and insulin more effectively. This makes fats especially important for people who are carb intolerant. Most surprising to many, eating nothing but nonfat, high-carb meals can sabotage your fat-loss goals by increasing hunger. After eating carbs without fiber or fat, your blood sugar peaks and quickly crashes, leaving you with that shaky, empty I-have-to-eat-now-or-I’m-going-to-pass-out feeling. It’s more than an emotional craving for a specific food; it’s physical hunger and it’s hard to resist. Cutting out all fat is not the answer. You need to eat fat.

Mark longs for the days when his father was a farmer. Things were hard, but life was good. Easier somehow. He’s conveniently forgetting the farm crisis of the ’80s in order to justify his worldview. In reality, there was never a time when people didn’t engage in a relentless battle with the earth. There was never a time when it wasn’t hard to be a farmer, or a time when all families were good and moral and Christian. Even the belief in the wholesome rural community is ill-founded. According to Rural People and Communities in the Twenty-First Century, rural residents are “more likely to experience chronic or life-threatening illnesses.”5 They are more likely to have cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and mental illness. While rates of drug and alcohol use overall are slightly higher in metro areas, use among young people in rural areas is significantly higher than among their urban peers. Additionally, according to the Rural Health Information Hub, “A 2010 report to Congress from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)6 states that the incidence for all categories of maltreatment was higher in rural counties than in urban counties, with rural children being [two] times more likely to experience harm or endangerment.”7

The paper subsequently written by Amos with Redelmeier* showed that, in treating individual patients, the doctors behaved differently than they did when they designed ideal treatments for groups of patients with the same symptoms. They were likely to order additional tests to avoid raising troubling issues, and less likely to ask if patients wished to donate their organs if they died. In treating individual patients, doctors often did things they would disapprove of if they were creating a public policy to treat groups of patients with the exact same illness. Doctors all agreed that, if required by law, they should report the names of patients diagnosed with a seizure disorder, diabetes, or some other condition that might lead to loss of consciousness while driving a car. In practice, they didn’t do this—which could hardly be in the interest even of the individual patient in question. “This result is not just another manifestation of the conflict between the interests of the patient and the general interests of society,” Tversky and Redelmeier wrote, in a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “The discrepancy between the aggregate and the individual perspectives also exists in the mind of the physician. The discrepancy seems to call for a resolution; it is odd to endorse a treatment in every case and reject it in general, or vice versa.” The point was not that the doctor was incorrectly or inadequately treating individual patients. The point was that he could not treat his patient one way, and groups of patients suffering from precisely the same problem in another way, and be doing his best in both cases. Both could not be right. And the point was obviously troubling—

The diet and lifestyle changes for the Tokelauans who immigrated to New Zealand were abrupt and even more dramatic. Bread and potatoes replaced breadfruit in their diets; meat replaced fish; they hardly ate any coconuts. Sugar consumption skyrocketed, as did physical activity: the men went to work as manual laborers in the forest service or on the railway, and the women got jobs in electrical assembly plants or clothing factories, or they cleaned offices during the evening hours, walking miles to and from work. In both populations, a similar pattern of chronic diseases erupted with the Westernization of the diet. Between the late 1960s and early 1980s, diabetes prevalence shot upward, particularly among the immigrants. By 1982, almost 20 percent of the immigrant women and 11 percent of the immigrant men—one in five and one in nine, respectively—were diabetic. Hypertension, heart disease, and gout also increased significantly, particularly in the migrant population (the migrants were nine times as likely to get gout as those remaining behind on the atolls). Obesity, unsurprisingly, also increased: Both men and women gained, on average, between twenty and thirty pounds. Children, too, got fatter.

In the Adaptive Markets framework, complexity means we don't have a good narrative for the system. The solution is obvious: we need to get smarter. Complexity can sometimes be reduced by developing a deeper understanding of the underlying structure of the system. For example, now that we understand the potential for liquidity spirals in statarb portfolios, thanks to August 2007, we can better prepare for them. But the Adaptive Markets framework points to a second problem with complexity, which is the potential divisiveness of special knowledge and the potential for conflict. If the financial system becomes so complex that only a small number of elites truly understand its function and proper maintenance, this knowledge divides the population into those who know and those who don't. Of course, this situation arises with any piece of unique information - I know how to make scallion pancakes in a particular way so they're crispy on the outside but soft and chewy on the inside, and you probably don't. But that piece of knowledge is hardly worth keeping a secret, and the fact that you don't have that knowledge isn't going to get you too upset. But suppose I know how to cure diabetes and you don't. Or I know how to prevent cancer by avoiding certain common foods and you don't. Or I know how to price mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps and you don't. In these cases, the knowledge I possess confers a certain power and status to me. Complexity creates the need for better narratives and those who have those narratives will become the high priests of complex systems, the gatekeepers of critical, life-altering knowledge. And the difficulty in joining the priesthood - earning an MD/Ph.D. in molecular biology and having twenty year of work experience at biotech and pharmaceutical companies, in the case of curing diabetes - coupled with the societal values of the special knowledge will determine the divisiveness of this elitism.

DMSO has been used with excellent results in transporting antibiotics to areas of the body that are hard to reach like the bone marrow and brain. DMSO can leave a virus unprotected by dissolving the virus protein coating with its nucleic acid exposed to the immune system.

From growing up in poverty to developing drugs that fight diabetes, seizures, and cancer, Dr. Frank L. Douglas has lived a life based on values, hard work, and self-control. Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream is a reflection on the events and people that made him into the man he is. In 1963, the year of the murder of Medgar Evers, Civil Rights marches, and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, twenty-year-old Douglas arrived in the United States. A Fulbright scholar from British Guiana, Douglas studied engineering at Lehigh University, received his Ph.D. and M.D. from Cornell University, and did his Residency in Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins.

One recent study performed by the American Medical Association and published in the _Archives of Internal Medicine_ in January 2012 demonstrated an astounding 48 percent increased risk of diabetes among women taking statin medications. This study involved big numbers -- more than one hundred sixty thousand postmenopausal women -- making it hard to ignore its significance and gravity. Recognizing that type 2 diabetes is a powerful risk factor for Alzheimer's disease, a relationship between statin drugs and cognitive decline or cognitive dysfunction is certainly understandable. ~ David Perlmutter, M.D., _Grain Brain_