|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 5, 2015 1:54:00 GMT -5
Did I get that right? Afrezza cures hemorrhoids! Wow.. Who could have guessed. Amazing really. Absolutely, but if you get it expressly for that purpose, they give you several extra Dreamboats.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Mar 5, 2015 1:56:18 GMT -5
I'm sensing a theme in this thread... Reminds me of that story going around the music biz about Stevie Nicks paying a roadie to blow coke up her rectum when her deviated septum made snorting it impossible. This is getting stranger and stranger... I think we should ask Goldman's junior boy wonder (who follows only Mannkind it seems?) to give us more info about our company before we truly get lost down the road we seem to be heading... This could get ugly. PS: I have never seen a 'cocaine colonoscopy'. I think that story of Stevie Nicks must be made up? Or cocaine is harmless to the colon? The story I heard is a bit different; Stevie borrowed some of Richard Gere's gerbals and trained them to to carry little sacks of cocaine. -
|
|
|
Post by BD on Mar 5, 2015 2:39:41 GMT -5
I'm seriously doubting the brain cell regeneration claim. Darn, I was going to ask for an Rx just for that, as I have plenty that badly need regeneration...
|
|
|
Post by jpg on Mar 5, 2015 3:29:58 GMT -5
I'm seriously doubting the brain cell regeneration claim. Darn, I was going to ask for an Rx just for that, as I have plenty that badly need regeneration... Get one just in case. We need the NRx it seems...
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Mar 5, 2015 8:35:17 GMT -5
RA didn't make the pipeline list (ie pulmonary diseases, pain, oncology) but is it possible that someday (some decade?) a Technosphere-delivered arthritis drug exists? - BTW: No jokes that spiro may be suffering from morning stiffness, please.
www.arthritistoday.org/about-arthritis/types-of-arthritis/rheumatoid-arthritis/treatment-plan/remission/rheumatoid-arthritis-remission.php
Rheumatoid Arthritis: Remission is Possible
Achieving arthritis remission may be well within the grasp of nearly half of the 1.5 million Americans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). And the earlier you begin rheumatoid arthritis treatment, the better your odds are.
“If you have fewer than 15 minutes of morning stiffness and no tender or swollen joints for at least three months, that’s definitely remission,” says Salahuddin Kazi, the chief of rheumatology at the Dallas VA Medical Center in Texas. “From a functional perspective, you can do all that you want to do. You have no limitations and no pain.”
Sound too good to be true? It’s not, says Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a professor of rheumatology at the University Hospital Maastricht in the Netherlands. She says that with today’s newer rheumatoid arthritis treatments, as well as with more aggressive use of older treatments such as methotrexate, nearly half of people with RA can – and should – achieve remission.
In the 2005 Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic Patient Outcomes (TEMPO), a two-year study of 682 people with RA from 92 treatment centers in Europe and Australia, more than three quarters of people treated with the biologic drug etanercept (Enbrel) plus the disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) methotrexate experienced no progression of joint damage at three years. More than 40 percent achieved clinical arthritis remission.
“Treating early before damage occurs gives you a higher probability of remission,” says Dr. van der Heijde, adding, “TEMPO showed a high percentage of patients in remission, even in those with relatively longstanding disease.” Exactly how close you can get to arthritis remission depends on how aggressively you are treated early on, agrees Dr. Kazi.
“If you get treated within two years of the onset of RA symptoms, you have more than a 50 percent chance of achieving remission.” Chances are even better if you have mild disease activity and test negative for blood markers such as rheumatoid factor, he says. “If you get treated within five years of onset, TEMPO shows you still have a good chance of achieving remission.”
“At least 60 percent of RA patients should have low or moderate disease activity with today’s treatments, including biologics” he says.
Don’t take no for an answer, Dr. Kazi says. “Develop a partnership with your doctor where you can say, ‘I still have some disease activity; can I have a higher dose of medication or try something different?’”
|
|
|
Post by robsacher on Mar 5, 2015 13:20:52 GMT -5
I love the comic relief that liane, Spiro, and Baba bring to this forum. As most MannKinders, I suffer through a lot of downturns but you guys always bring a smile to my face while I laugh out loud too. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by 4Balance on Mar 5, 2015 13:40:12 GMT -5
Thank you. This is the first logical post I've seen here that could explain the neutral/non-glowing review. It's very possible that given his low body fat % and high muscle mass, as well as the fact that he's injecting directly into the muscle, that the injections work much faster for him than 98% of the population. He could also be exercising afterwards, which according to that article, would also make it work faster. This doesn't mean that Afrezza isn't awesome. It just means it affects some people differently than others....like any drug on the market Most of us have fat on our abdomens...even those with normal-to-low BMI. And with a short needle, one would expect he would be hitting fat. Tricep, perhaps, if it is close to the surface. Is Humalog or Novalog even recommended for intramuscular use...?? I wonder if the user got started with that methodology because he wanted faster relief and discovered that would work. I DO appreciate the interest of my fellow investors to view this person's experience realistically. Since it is so different from the norm...AND he's been described as well respected in the diabetes forum...his case and similar experiences do bear watching. I wonder, is there some clinical trial data that correlates this kind of reaction with low BMI...?? I realize, for so many with DM, low BMI is the farthest from the truth. But this user's influence AND his experience are significant to me. -- 4Balance
|
|
|
Post by 4Balance on Mar 5, 2015 14:35:54 GMT -5
I think I need to back off one point I was making: the influence this person has as an early adopter. I was unable to find the post that made me think he had a lot of followers...even thought he was MikeP. But, having read a post by MikeP, I am less worried...clearly a different person and probably less influential.
Does anyone have any idea of his standing in the diabetic community...??
-- 4Balance
|
|
|
Post by vaijon on Mar 5, 2015 19:52:47 GMT -5
I came across this Afrezza Blog Review through Facebook, now the review is interesting but what's more interesting is the comment below in which the poster was able to inhale Afrezza without the device! Source: www.russfit.com/2015/02/afrezza-update.htmlOk, I read the blog and noted this item (which other's have addressed): 4) OLD SCHOOL Afrezza uses an older type of insulin called "Regular." It's a perfectly usable sort, and I used it for about 20 years. It takes much longer to enter the bloodstream when injected, and its lifecycle in the body is less predictable than modern fast-acting insulin. I did not find the latter to be true via inhalation, however. It seemed to begin acting within 30 to 60 minutes, and have no more effects after 70. Where did this come from? How did he arrive at saying the actual insulin used is "old school" versus "modern fast-acting insulin" given what has been published about the insulin used for Afrezza? This part concerns me as a new patient with a blog is trying to characterize the product as old and by default not as good a newer injectables. We know that the uptake in insulin versus injection has a completely different profile and appears superior in a number of ways. His 30-60 minute timeframe is also less than stellar as it does not indicate how often he tested and whether or not he was consistent. The fact that he bases his comments on old school information related to an injectable insulin and then tries to link Afrezza to it tells me that this guy has already formed an opinion of the product prior to discussing his actual usage. In summary, I'm stating my opinion that his characterization of the insulin used and the direct comparison to using that insulin as an injectable versus inhaling a stabilized powdered form of insulin with a different PK profile from the injectable is ludicrous. If he as a diabetic likes the needle, then more power to him. This is not a bash of the blogger, but is more of analysis of the style of posting. It's like intereviewing someone in person and noticing that the individual has a certain style in what he presents...and of course in what he omits. My two cents.. (and no... you can't have any change back)
|
|
|
Post by nugjuice on Mar 6, 2015 10:08:33 GMT -5
I came across this Afrezza Blog Review through Facebook, now the review is interesting but what's more interesting is the comment below in which the poster was able to inhale Afrezza without the device! Source: www.russfit.com/2015/02/afrezza-update.htmlOk, I read the blog and noted this item (which other's have addressed): 4) OLD SCHOOL Afrezza uses an older type of insulin called "Regular." It's a perfectly usable sort, and I used it for about 20 years. It takes much longer to enter the bloodstream when injected, and its lifecycle in the body is less predictable than modern fast-acting insulin. I did not find the latter to be true via inhalation, however. It seemed to begin acting within 30 to 60 minutes, and have no more effects after 70. Where did this come from? How did he arrive at saying the actual insulin used is "old school" versus "modern fast-acting insulin" given what has been published about the insulin used for Afrezza? This part concerns me as a new patient with a blog is trying to characterize the product as old and by default not as good a newer injectables. We know that the uptake in insulin versus injection has a completely different profile and appears superior in a number of ways. His 30-60 minute timeframe is also less than stellar as it does not indicate how often he tested and whether or not he was consistent. The fact that he bases his comments on old school information related to an injectable insulin and then tries to link Afrezza to it tells me that this guy has already formed an opinion of the product prior to discussing his actual usage. In summary, I'm stating my opinion that his characterization of the insulin used and the direct comparison to using that insulin as an injectable versus inhaling a stabilized powdered form of insulin with a different PK profile from the injectable is ludicrous. If he as a diabetic likes the needle, then more power to him. This is not a bash of the blogger, but is more of analysis of the style of posting. It's like intereviewing someone in person and noticing that the individual has a certain style in what he presents...and of course in what he omits. My two cents.. (and no... you can't have any change back) Yes, what concerns me is he's obviously not educated on the type of insulin, which makes me worry his Doctor wasn't properly educated by the sales reps. But then again it's only been a month....and maybe he's not a very good listener
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 7:07:42 GMT -5
I am the guy that posted the comment that everyone is taking about. I picked up a prescription of 90 cartridges and two inhalers today and yes I wanted to try the sample from my doctor and did inhale the powder without the inhaler. I also wrote an email to their customer service and did not get a reply. I still think that their Customer service sucks!! The inhalers has to be replaced every 15 days so they should keep extra inhalers ready for people that needs it. My endocrinologist is 3 hours away from me and didn't have the time to go get an inhaler from him. Just to make things clear, there is nothing fancy about the inhaler. When you put the cartridge in and close it, the inhaler pushes the cup that holds the powder to the middle of the cartridge, lining it up with a small opening that is connected to a mouthpiece. The mouthpiece has an opening that lets air in while inhaling the powder. Inhaling the powder with their inhaler gives me the same feeling as inhaling the powder WITHOUT their inhaler. I have to open my mouth, inhale slower and let more air in when inhaling to get the powder to go deeper into my lungs. It also made me nauseous when i used it the first couple of times. Ive been diagnosed in 1981 at age 16 and are using a pump. My A1C's are usually between 5.2 and 5.6 so i do know how to control my blood sugar. I usually have to wait 2 hours for Humalog/Novolog to bring my blood sugars down. Afrezza does work twice as fast and I.m not sure yet but Ive not seen my levels go lower than 80 with Afrezza. I'll be happy to answer any questions, my address is sprbok1@att.net No disrespect, but to say "there is nothing fancy about the inhaler" is something I just don't agree with, at all. Do you have a degree in fluid dynamics? Have you studied the velocity and flow patterns that the inhaler creates? Have you researched the 200+ patents on the device? My guess is no to all of the above. anyway, off my soapbox. I had sanofi's diabetes phone number, if I can dig it up again I'll share. Ive heard from most people who spoke with them at that number that they have all been pleased with the response and I'm sure it bypasses the problematic customer service that you may have experienced. Just a comment though. The product is quite different for them to deal with in that it just got launched, isn't a product they manufacture, and probably Something that their customer service hasn't been trained on yet. I'd give a company a bit more latitude this early on instead of slamming them out of the gate, but hey, that's just me I guess.
|
|
|
Post by mrmookie123 on Mar 8, 2015 8:19:23 GMT -5
WOW !! So you inhaled Afrezza without the Inhaler, Did I read that right I think that's the end of my comment to someone who did something like that !! Obviously you had a hard time following the instructions, My 6 year old niece had no problem loading up a cartridge for use. WOW !! This can't be a serious post !!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by gomnkd on Mar 8, 2015 8:31:46 GMT -5
Folks
Please cut fritz40 some slack. Not everyone is obsessed with every aspect of the inhaler and TI powder.
I've the inhaler and amazed by its simplicity. It is absolutely shocking to think that more than 2 billion has gone into this 2 cents plastic.
Over the years I've had email contact with quite a few trial participants. One of them saved up few cartridges and used a straw (one you use for soda) to inhale the powder stuff after the trials were over. The inhalers had to be returned once trial is over. When I saw the new inhaler and thought of FDA's stupid decision to make mannkind spend another 200MM for trials (not to mention the immense dilution to common), it was just maddening. If you see the inhaler, you'll understand.
yes the straw inhaler just worked as well.
PS: I ABSOLUTELY recommend patients to follow the Afrezza usage guidelines
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 8:44:02 GMT -5
. yes the straw inhaler just worked as well. Where's the scientific evidence that supports this? The answer is you don't know, so how can you even make that statement?
|
|
|
Post by gomnkd on Mar 8, 2015 8:50:58 GMT -5
The evidence is not scientific, the drop in bg was the evidence.
I gave the as an example of how much some pt liked Afrezza and the extent they were willing to go to get the drug. If you were in their shoes you'll understand.
|
|