Not really.
I have family history with diabetes, but it is all Type II.
Was it the Type I or Type II or both that this happened to? Was it evenly divided? How many Type I with kidney problems? How many Type II? Or was there only one Type II?
Doesn’t say. The Types aren’t interchangeable. Different conditions cause them to exist. It matters, as far as I know and understand.
That is the problem with studies like this. Scare people out of vitamins, with not a lot of science behind it. This is a VERY SMALL case study.
I find it inconclusive. And with the broadness of their pronouncement, it concerns me this is done with such little evidence. It is not good science.
Remember that the AMA pushed for Obamacare.
Type II can drift over into Type I ~ not going to happen to everybody, but for some folks they are not really different diseases.
Was it the Type I or Type II or both that this happened to? Was it evenly divided? How many Type I with kidney problems? How many Type II? Or was there only one Type II?
"Participants were predominantly men (178 [74.8%]) and white (198 [83.2%]), with type 2 diabetes (195 [81.9%])."
Doesn’t say. The Types aren’t interchangeable. Different conditions cause them to exist. It matters, as far as I know and understand.
The complications of both types of diabetes are very similar. Have you heard nephrologists say that there are significant differences in diabetic nephropathy between the two types?
That is the problem with studies like this. Scare people out of vitamins, with not a lot of science behind it. This is a VERY SMALL case study.
This is, "a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial."
I find it inconclusive. And with the broadness of their pronouncement, it concerns me this is done with such little evidence. It is not good science.
Results are results. They failed to validate the homocysteine hypothesis of atherosclerosis despite lowering homocysteine levels and got a, "greater decrease in GFR," i.e. worse kidney function, and "an increase in vascular events."