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."
“The complications of both types of diabetes are very similar.”
I believe I said something similar in this thread.
“This is, “a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.””
I am a lay person. 238 is a small number for a study of this kind.
“...failed to validate the homocysteine hypothesis ..”
Ah, ok. That is not what is important to me as a female with Type II history in my mom’s family. Besides, there is already a history in her family of an increase in “vascular events”. Most of them have had heart surgery without taking B vitamins. That would be nothing new for my families history. The only sibling who hasn’t had heart surgery gave blood most of her life to help others with RH negative blood. Maybe there was something to all that blood letting thing after all.