The blog has slowed down a bit, just like most aspects of my life have, for the same reason: I’m not seeing as well, with a marked decrease in vision even from one month ago. My rested, strongest vision doesn’t last under much exertion, and real functional time I have is even more limited. More disabled, you could say. Even as I have completed and/or pared down my responsibilities, more things have arisen from those that remain to have kept me busier with less ability.
With the accounts of low and high blood sugar done, I am proceeding with the next phase of direction for the blog, matters of diet. The forthcoming posts will focus on both diabetic and general population diet, how those things can be incompatible, and things diabetics specifically need to keep ion mind, most of which can be useful for non-diabetics to know.
I do thank those who are known to me and strangers who have been keeping up with the blog. I’m limping along through life right now. When I have adjusted to my once again newly diminished status quo, I’m hoping to deal with issues of the blondness more directly, and hopefully with touched of humor that many readers look forward to.
In the meantime, I do hope the forthcoming dietary issues offer information of value to the general readership and those who stumble upon the blog through other sites and sources.
Showing posts with label These Tags Defined. Show all posts
Showing posts with label These Tags Defined. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Pharmaceutical Monopoly
Millions of people take prescriptions that are more than what they need or are not what they need, period.
TV viewers must endure ads that sell them not only on drugs, but on diseases. Those types of ads are not allowed in non- ultra-capitalist countries.
We lazy Americans don’t even have to leave out armchairs to receive diabetic supplies and catheters . We have a choice of companies who will ship them for free, "remind us" when we need more (catheter users need reminding?!), and will bill Medicare directly.
A Google search of the very general term "biggest lobbyist" has two first-page hits with "pharmaceutical" or "health care" in the page excerpts.
"Pharmaceutical Monopoly" is one of my blog tags because more awareness needs to be made to this problem. The pharmaceutical companies are pursuing profits, not patient best interest. The health coverage plan sponsored by President Obama gutted provisions that might have interfered with those companies’ profits.
The best way to see drastic cuts to our endangered Medicare program would be to severely limit the reach of pharmaceutical companies.
It seems only one big corporation with a contradictory plan to the profit path can stand up to another. I can think of no other reason why Wal-Mart switched away from Eli Lilly and Company as the manufacturer of ReliOn insulin after only two years. As the big guy who brought down older favorites such as Ames and Caldor and local, smaller stores, and continues to be a serious threat to others such as K-Mart, Wal-Mart is the target of scorn. People want to root for the underdog and poke at the big dogs.
Wal-art does not threaten the economy and health the way pharmaceuticals do. The pharmaceuticals develop or discover drugs, then sometimes create syndromes or diseases to create a target audience. Their lobbying has decreased test time of new products that get pushed on the unwary doctors and patients then pulled a few years later when longer-term and often fatal side effects are discovered.
Thanks to the glut of Type 2’s, diabetics are seen as a lucrative growing market. The pharmaceuticals are the biggest donors to the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and other organizations "for" diabetics.
Diabetics using the ReliOn insulin will need to watch themselves in the weeks and months following the change from Eli Lilly’s "Humulin" and Novo Nordisk’s "Novolin." There are differences in the insulin. I’ve been a user of Wal-Mart’s generics since the late 1990’s and it has worked fine for me. There has to be some difference in each brand and trade name of insulin to avoid violating existing patents and to protect new patents. There is much more of a stir about changing insulin with this change to Wal-Mart’s generic than there had been when Eli Lilly began manufacturing it in 2010. Don’t think that is not also to scare your dollars into Lilly’s pockets. Lilly would have you switch to their non-generic equivalent of the product they labeled for Wal-Mart because that is "safer" than switching brands and manufacturers. That is not true, but the change should be monitored with more than average attention.
In circling back to the interrupted topic of blood sugar testing, the manufacturers of the lancets and test strips free meters also have your best dollars in mind, not your best interests. Those free meters are akin to casinos that offer free drinks to people on the gambling floors. They don’t need to make anything off the meter because they’ll make their money off you from the testing supplies, even while they bury patents for equipment that could test your sugar without the need for lancets and chemical test strips.
The patient shouldn’t worry about neuropathy or other effects of the testing; they’re probably working on drugs for that now.
TV viewers must endure ads that sell them not only on drugs, but on diseases. Those types of ads are not allowed in non- ultra-capitalist countries.
We lazy Americans don’t even have to leave out armchairs to receive diabetic supplies and catheters . We have a choice of companies who will ship them for free, "remind us" when we need more (catheter users need reminding?!), and will bill Medicare directly.
A Google search of the very general term "biggest lobbyist" has two first-page hits with "pharmaceutical" or "health care" in the page excerpts.
"Pharmaceutical Monopoly" is one of my blog tags because more awareness needs to be made to this problem. The pharmaceutical companies are pursuing profits, not patient best interest. The health coverage plan sponsored by President Obama gutted provisions that might have interfered with those companies’ profits.
The best way to see drastic cuts to our endangered Medicare program would be to severely limit the reach of pharmaceutical companies.
It seems only one big corporation with a contradictory plan to the profit path can stand up to another. I can think of no other reason why Wal-Mart switched away from Eli Lilly and Company as the manufacturer of ReliOn insulin after only two years. As the big guy who brought down older favorites such as Ames and Caldor and local, smaller stores, and continues to be a serious threat to others such as K-Mart, Wal-Mart is the target of scorn. People want to root for the underdog and poke at the big dogs.
Wal-art does not threaten the economy and health the way pharmaceuticals do. The pharmaceuticals develop or discover drugs, then sometimes create syndromes or diseases to create a target audience. Their lobbying has decreased test time of new products that get pushed on the unwary doctors and patients then pulled a few years later when longer-term and often fatal side effects are discovered.
Thanks to the glut of Type 2’s, diabetics are seen as a lucrative growing market. The pharmaceuticals are the biggest donors to the American Diabetes Association and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and other organizations "for" diabetics.
Diabetics using the ReliOn insulin will need to watch themselves in the weeks and months following the change from Eli Lilly’s "Humulin" and Novo Nordisk’s "Novolin." There are differences in the insulin. I’ve been a user of Wal-Mart’s generics since the late 1990’s and it has worked fine for me. There has to be some difference in each brand and trade name of insulin to avoid violating existing patents and to protect new patents. There is much more of a stir about changing insulin with this change to Wal-Mart’s generic than there had been when Eli Lilly began manufacturing it in 2010. Don’t think that is not also to scare your dollars into Lilly’s pockets. Lilly would have you switch to their non-generic equivalent of the product they labeled for Wal-Mart because that is "safer" than switching brands and manufacturers. That is not true, but the change should be monitored with more than average attention.
In circling back to the interrupted topic of blood sugar testing, the manufacturers of the lancets and test strips free meters also have your best dollars in mind, not your best interests. Those free meters are akin to casinos that offer free drinks to people on the gambling floors. They don’t need to make anything off the meter because they’ll make their money off you from the testing supplies, even while they bury patents for equipment that could test your sugar without the need for lancets and chemical test strips.
The patient shouldn’t worry about neuropathy or other effects of the testing; they’re probably working on drugs for that now.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Sugar Coating
The A1C test is a blood test that reports levels of sugar in the blood over a two to three month period. Blood hemoglobin has a memory for this.
Hemoglobin in a protein in red blood cells. Sugar in the blood will coat some of the hemoglobin cells. The A1C measures the percentage of hemoglobin cells with the sugar coating. An A1C of 5 means 5% of the cells are coated, and A1C at 15% (not desirable) means 15% are coated.
The numbering can be confusing because home testing of blood sugars work with numbers usually ranging from 100 to 600. Home monitors and A1C tests are measuring very different things. The home test tells you were you are at that moment while A1C gives an average. For being an average, the A1C can be skewed by temporary but extreme highs and lows in daily blood sugar levels.
High A1C from a "non-diabetic" can be the basis of a diabetes diagnosis. The diagnosis will probably be right. Attention to your own behavior and self honesty is important. If an A1C is run in January, it will almost invariably be higher from holiday indulgences. One week of an ice cream binge will prompt higher A1C for up to three months, even if the home monitoring shows that blood sugar levels returned to normal the week after.
A diabetic can run with the 100-140 "healthy range" most of every day, but spike in the middle of the night or after one specific meal every ay. This will inflate the A1C level. Once the hemoglobin is sugar-coated, it stays that way for its two- to three-month lifespan.
The only way to tell where are problem times of day is to self test via home pricking. Both forms of testing are recommended and neither can truly replace the other.
There are different forms of testing A1C that use different number scales. It is standardized here in the United States.
Different diabetes organizations recommend different target numbers. 6.5 was once the norm. The American Diabetes Association raised the target to 7.0 because the lower levels did not reduce risks enough to compensate for the risks brought on by hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episodes. I know personally of one healthy person diagnosed with "pre-diabetes" at a level just under 6.0% A1C. My cynical thought is that his doctor is doing his best to earn a golf trip offered by the pharmaceuticals for prescription quotas.
Here’s an interesting study from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61969-3/fulltext: "A retrospective study of 47,970 diabetics found that [Type 2] patients with an A1C less than 6.5% had an increased mortality rate." Yes, that’s increased death for keeping the sugar too low. Things like that reaffirm my belief that being too good is not desirable. My theory is that constantly low numbers contribute to "fragile" diabetes. But I am no doctor and only have my own experiences to judge by.
Hemoglobin in a protein in red blood cells. Sugar in the blood will coat some of the hemoglobin cells. The A1C measures the percentage of hemoglobin cells with the sugar coating. An A1C of 5 means 5% of the cells are coated, and A1C at 15% (not desirable) means 15% are coated.
The numbering can be confusing because home testing of blood sugars work with numbers usually ranging from 100 to 600. Home monitors and A1C tests are measuring very different things. The home test tells you were you are at that moment while A1C gives an average. For being an average, the A1C can be skewed by temporary but extreme highs and lows in daily blood sugar levels.
High A1C from a "non-diabetic" can be the basis of a diabetes diagnosis. The diagnosis will probably be right. Attention to your own behavior and self honesty is important. If an A1C is run in January, it will almost invariably be higher from holiday indulgences. One week of an ice cream binge will prompt higher A1C for up to three months, even if the home monitoring shows that blood sugar levels returned to normal the week after.
A diabetic can run with the 100-140 "healthy range" most of every day, but spike in the middle of the night or after one specific meal every ay. This will inflate the A1C level. Once the hemoglobin is sugar-coated, it stays that way for its two- to three-month lifespan.
The only way to tell where are problem times of day is to self test via home pricking. Both forms of testing are recommended and neither can truly replace the other.
There are different forms of testing A1C that use different number scales. It is standardized here in the United States.
Different diabetes organizations recommend different target numbers. 6.5 was once the norm. The American Diabetes Association raised the target to 7.0 because the lower levels did not reduce risks enough to compensate for the risks brought on by hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episodes. I know personally of one healthy person diagnosed with "pre-diabetes" at a level just under 6.0% A1C. My cynical thought is that his doctor is doing his best to earn a golf trip offered by the pharmaceuticals for prescription quotas.
Here’s an interesting study from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61969-3/fulltext: "A retrospective study of 47,970 diabetics found that [Type 2] patients with an A1C less than 6.5% had an increased mortality rate." Yes, that’s increased death for keeping the sugar too low. Things like that reaffirm my belief that being too good is not desirable. My theory is that constantly low numbers contribute to "fragile" diabetes. But I am no doctor and only have my own experiences to judge by.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Campaigning Conditions
From the Mayo Clinic website: "The A1C test is a common blood test used to diagnose type 1 and type 2 diabetes..."
There is an important aspect to this for Type 2 diabetic and some healthy patients: it is used to diagnose. Over the past decade, the exact number used to diagnose Type 2 has changed up and down several times and is reported inconsistently by different sources. The pharmaceutical companies are involved in that, the same way those companies create "syndromes" such as "restless leg." The pharmaceutical companies are for-profit enterprises that are looking to sell you products, and the lower diagnosis numbers favor their sales. Realistically, how many of us would have heard of things like fibromyalgia if we had not been for all the ads hawking drug treatments? These drugs amount to patented combinations of pain relievers and antidepressants.
If you feel I am being cynical about a serious condition that cripples so many poor unfortunate women, I will steer you towards the latest pharmaceutical ad campaign. The male problems of all aging but not yet old male farts could be "Low T." Ad campaigns like this begin with apparent innocence. You can go to a web site to learn about the condition. The TV ads do not mention the new designer drugs that may solve the problem you did not previously know existed, never mind that the tired feelings and loss of drive may mean that you have this debilitating but potentially crippling condition. Future ads will sell you on the drugs; right now the pharmaceuticals are trying to sell you on a condition. You do have a condition with that tiredness and diminished drive and/or capacity. It’s called old age. Older guys are statistically more likely to carry chromosomal imperfections. Your "Low T" and diminished drive and/or function is nature’s way of making you less likely to share sperm that could produce weak or unhealthy offspring. You can try the drugs, or do what our fathers did: be more physically affectionate with your wife/partner and make sure there’s always a fresh supply of batteries in the house.
In the diabetes sense, the "created" condition is "pre-diabetes." They’re setting you up as early as possible to be receptive to taking drugs in the near future.
In fairness, early detection of Type 2 can prevent devastating ill effects of diabetes. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical profiteers help define the diseases you will soon have.
People need to use their own judgment, and take to heart the catchphrase "when diet and exercise are not enough." Your body very well has the level it wants to be at on its own. Taking drugs will almost certainly change that biochemically, but the pharmaceutical balance sheets may derive more from it than you will, and beginning the drugs too early may make your body lazy with its own functions. If that happens, you are guaranteeing lifelong dependence on the drugs.
I have overweight friends who have low A1C numbers, and fit friends who are told by their doctors that they are pre-diabetic or have "a touch of" diabetes.
Don’t tale my word for this casually, but don’t agree to doctors’ recommendations without asking questions and doing your own research.
There is an important aspect to this for Type 2 diabetic and some healthy patients: it is used to diagnose. Over the past decade, the exact number used to diagnose Type 2 has changed up and down several times and is reported inconsistently by different sources. The pharmaceutical companies are involved in that, the same way those companies create "syndromes" such as "restless leg." The pharmaceutical companies are for-profit enterprises that are looking to sell you products, and the lower diagnosis numbers favor their sales. Realistically, how many of us would have heard of things like fibromyalgia if we had not been for all the ads hawking drug treatments? These drugs amount to patented combinations of pain relievers and antidepressants.
If you feel I am being cynical about a serious condition that cripples so many poor unfortunate women, I will steer you towards the latest pharmaceutical ad campaign. The male problems of all aging but not yet old male farts could be "Low T." Ad campaigns like this begin with apparent innocence. You can go to a web site to learn about the condition. The TV ads do not mention the new designer drugs that may solve the problem you did not previously know existed, never mind that the tired feelings and loss of drive may mean that you have this debilitating but potentially crippling condition. Future ads will sell you on the drugs; right now the pharmaceuticals are trying to sell you on a condition. You do have a condition with that tiredness and diminished drive and/or capacity. It’s called old age. Older guys are statistically more likely to carry chromosomal imperfections. Your "Low T" and diminished drive and/or function is nature’s way of making you less likely to share sperm that could produce weak or unhealthy offspring. You can try the drugs, or do what our fathers did: be more physically affectionate with your wife/partner and make sure there’s always a fresh supply of batteries in the house.
In the diabetes sense, the "created" condition is "pre-diabetes." They’re setting you up as early as possible to be receptive to taking drugs in the near future.
In fairness, early detection of Type 2 can prevent devastating ill effects of diabetes. Unfortunately, pharmaceutical profiteers help define the diseases you will soon have.
People need to use their own judgment, and take to heart the catchphrase "when diet and exercise are not enough." Your body very well has the level it wants to be at on its own. Taking drugs will almost certainly change that biochemically, but the pharmaceutical balance sheets may derive more from it than you will, and beginning the drugs too early may make your body lazy with its own functions. If that happens, you are guaranteeing lifelong dependence on the drugs.
I have overweight friends who have low A1C numbers, and fit friends who are told by their doctors that they are pre-diabetic or have "a touch of" diabetes.
Don’t tale my word for this casually, but don’t agree to doctors’ recommendations without asking questions and doing your own research.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Elderly Adolescence
I use the term "elderly adolescence" frequently. I either coined the term or unknowingly absorbed it from a long-forgotten source. It is when old people get rebellious against doctors, nurses, their grown children, etc who place constant restrictions or limitations. Just because an old fart gets a little confused does not mean they are incapable of making any decisions for themselves. They get frustrated at having their remaining capabilities ignored to a total loss of control over their own lives. I get frustrated like that a lot, often because people with GREAT intentions INSIST on helping rather than asking if help is needed.
Often, the help hoisted on me is not what I wanted or needed to do. Sometimes, the presumed help actually makes what I wanted or needed to do more difficult. Think of someone moving my drink closer to me. What they have done is moved something around on a blind guy, thus increased the chance for an accident.
The whole social phenomenon makes old people into crotchety old people, and/or worsens people who were crotchety as young people.
Imagine being elderly but still in possession of a strong set of teeth, and being put in a nursing home. You will never be served a fresh apple or corn on the cob again, because "no one" in the home can physically eat those things. You miss those luxuries and ask the nursing home staff for them. They get tired of hearing this same complaint that they consider an "unreasonable" demand from anyone in a nursing home. They will soon have you labeled as one of the difficult patients and be warning every new employee against you.
The elderly have too much opportunity to look back on their lives and remember what they used to do for themselves, how they used to do things in ways that are no longer allowed by caregivers, whether due to the oldster’s decline or the caregiver’s convenience.
Getting old, or in my case going gimp, is a loss of function and independence and freedom. Neither of my two disabling problems, blindness and Charcot Foot, developed overnight, so I am perhaps too empathic to the plight of the declining elderly. Month by month over a period now approaching three years, I have had to accept more and more things I just can no longer do comfortably, if I can do them at all.
Yes, an oldster with visual or reactionary impairments may have to have a grown child take their car keys away because the oldster is a public danger who won’t stop driving on their own. But this does not mean their house key should also be taken away "because they might lose it" or "you’ll never go anywhere without one of us anyway."
The "best" way to determine the extent of exertion needed over an elderly grandma is the individual’s willing to compromise to rational argument.
Just keep in mind that "rational" cuts both ways, and the caregiver’s convenience should not always be the top priority.
Someone may need help dressing; that does not mean they should be told what clothes to wear every day. I need restaurant menus read to me. That doesn’t mean someone else has to order for me.
Often, the help hoisted on me is not what I wanted or needed to do. Sometimes, the presumed help actually makes what I wanted or needed to do more difficult. Think of someone moving my drink closer to me. What they have done is moved something around on a blind guy, thus increased the chance for an accident.
The whole social phenomenon makes old people into crotchety old people, and/or worsens people who were crotchety as young people.
Imagine being elderly but still in possession of a strong set of teeth, and being put in a nursing home. You will never be served a fresh apple or corn on the cob again, because "no one" in the home can physically eat those things. You miss those luxuries and ask the nursing home staff for them. They get tired of hearing this same complaint that they consider an "unreasonable" demand from anyone in a nursing home. They will soon have you labeled as one of the difficult patients and be warning every new employee against you.
The elderly have too much opportunity to look back on their lives and remember what they used to do for themselves, how they used to do things in ways that are no longer allowed by caregivers, whether due to the oldster’s decline or the caregiver’s convenience.
Getting old, or in my case going gimp, is a loss of function and independence and freedom. Neither of my two disabling problems, blindness and Charcot Foot, developed overnight, so I am perhaps too empathic to the plight of the declining elderly. Month by month over a period now approaching three years, I have had to accept more and more things I just can no longer do comfortably, if I can do them at all.
Yes, an oldster with visual or reactionary impairments may have to have a grown child take their car keys away because the oldster is a public danger who won’t stop driving on their own. But this does not mean their house key should also be taken away "because they might lose it" or "you’ll never go anywhere without one of us anyway."
The "best" way to determine the extent of exertion needed over an elderly grandma is the individual’s willing to compromise to rational argument.
Just keep in mind that "rational" cuts both ways, and the caregiver’s convenience should not always be the top priority.
Someone may need help dressing; that does not mean they should be told what clothes to wear every day. I need restaurant menus read to me. That doesn’t mean someone else has to order for me.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Practical Definitions
Before bridging insulin topics to blood sugar topics, I wanted to clarify some definitions, particularly ones in the label/tag bubble that serves as a link menu. I am fully aware that I am using many terms in practical definitions rather than legal or official ones.
"Cialis = Blindness" applies to all boner pills. I do apply it to posts that speak of the onset of the loss of my "good eye" as nothing can convince me that the vitreous hemorrhage would not have happened if I had not taken that damned pill. I apply it because I want the warning always prominent on the blog site, and will continue to do so for as long as the pharmaceutical companies insist that the incidences of these hemorrhages result from underlying condition/s that necessitate boner pills. This catch-22 is shameful, because the drug is intended for the people most at risk. I focused on Cialis because that is the brand that I took. The risks are the same with Levitra and Viagra. Boner pill ads warn about sudden loss of vision but fall far short of warning customers that their eyes might bleed.
I mark "Feedback" on any post that write in response to commented, e-mailed, or personally discussed reaction to a prior post.
I refer to "medical malpractice" as an ethical term, not a legal sense. If the actions of a doctor makes me want to say "Shame on you! I consider it malpractice. It does not necessarily mean something that could trigger a lawsuit, although I probably should consider consulting a lawyer about some of my experiences "Pharmaceutical monopoly" gets applies to any post that refers to the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies over American life and economy. This ranges far and wide from deceptive advertising to actions (such as the elimination of pork and beef insulin by Eli Lilly and Company) that get decided in favor of profits over patients, to marketing drugs that have not been fully tested over the long term.
"Diabetes" refers to Type One/Diabetes Mellitus and posts that would also apply to age advanced diabetics get marked with "Type 2."
"Social Impact" posts discuss the psychological or interpersonal effects of the blindness or other conditions discussed in the blog.
"Blogging Experience" can relate and overlap with social impact, but is more restricted to observations that stem from the blog itself rather than the conditions blogged about.
When I started the blog, I thought I would be referring to my GP more often than I have so far. I’ve been seeing him since 2005. He’s never done anything to alienate me, but by my reckoning and other people who serve as caregivers or otherwise know details, he’s not a great doctor, so he will remain anonymous.
"The Healthy ears" posts talk about the time before I was seeing the GP, when I managed my diabetes in isolation from medical professionals. I felt a lot healthier before the professionals got involved.
"Caution: Blind Driver" is used when I talk of doing things that visually impaired people "shouldn’t" be able to do, such as driving a car or using power tools.
"Hemorrhage" refers to the vitreous hemorrhage that the Cialis caused. This is different from an eye hemorrhage that produces dark floaters instead of brilliant red blood.
"God Complex" applies to any and all doctors who demonstrate arrogance and "authority" far above the patients who seem to be expected to worship their word and fulfill their will. These doctors talk at patients rather than to them and do not seem to listen to patients.
The other terms should be pretty self explanatory to most, save perhaps "A1C," which will be the topic of an upcoming post.
"Cialis = Blindness" applies to all boner pills. I do apply it to posts that speak of the onset of the loss of my "good eye" as nothing can convince me that the vitreous hemorrhage would not have happened if I had not taken that damned pill. I apply it because I want the warning always prominent on the blog site, and will continue to do so for as long as the pharmaceutical companies insist that the incidences of these hemorrhages result from underlying condition/s that necessitate boner pills. This catch-22 is shameful, because the drug is intended for the people most at risk. I focused on Cialis because that is the brand that I took. The risks are the same with Levitra and Viagra. Boner pill ads warn about sudden loss of vision but fall far short of warning customers that their eyes might bleed.
I mark "Feedback" on any post that write in response to commented, e-mailed, or personally discussed reaction to a prior post.
I refer to "medical malpractice" as an ethical term, not a legal sense. If the actions of a doctor makes me want to say "Shame on you! I consider it malpractice. It does not necessarily mean something that could trigger a lawsuit, although I probably should consider consulting a lawyer about some of my experiences "Pharmaceutical monopoly" gets applies to any post that refers to the stranglehold of pharmaceutical companies over American life and economy. This ranges far and wide from deceptive advertising to actions (such as the elimination of pork and beef insulin by Eli Lilly and Company) that get decided in favor of profits over patients, to marketing drugs that have not been fully tested over the long term.
"Diabetes" refers to Type One/Diabetes Mellitus and posts that would also apply to age advanced diabetics get marked with "Type 2."
"Social Impact" posts discuss the psychological or interpersonal effects of the blindness or other conditions discussed in the blog.
"Blogging Experience" can relate and overlap with social impact, but is more restricted to observations that stem from the blog itself rather than the conditions blogged about.
When I started the blog, I thought I would be referring to my GP more often than I have so far. I’ve been seeing him since 2005. He’s never done anything to alienate me, but by my reckoning and other people who serve as caregivers or otherwise know details, he’s not a great doctor, so he will remain anonymous.
"The Healthy ears" posts talk about the time before I was seeing the GP, when I managed my diabetes in isolation from medical professionals. I felt a lot healthier before the professionals got involved.
"Caution: Blind Driver" is used when I talk of doing things that visually impaired people "shouldn’t" be able to do, such as driving a car or using power tools.
"Hemorrhage" refers to the vitreous hemorrhage that the Cialis caused. This is different from an eye hemorrhage that produces dark floaters instead of brilliant red blood.
"God Complex" applies to any and all doctors who demonstrate arrogance and "authority" far above the patients who seem to be expected to worship their word and fulfill their will. These doctors talk at patients rather than to them and do not seem to listen to patients.
The other terms should be pretty self explanatory to most, save perhaps "A1C," which will be the topic of an upcoming post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)