Diabetes: Maybe the Accord fiasco was sloppily designed?

Maybe the Accord fiasco was sloppily designed? And therefore strained statistically as to the bizarre treatment assortments present and the resultant deaths more than imply that the researchers may not have known what they were doing? Still, we insist on giving this "trial" serious interpretation with the aid of statistics.

I knew this topic would interest Roger when I got my diabetes control newsletter, so I anticipated his post. Myself I opt for tight control, that is, what is possible for me at my rate of evolution of moving in this direction. It would take more than a clumsy trial to motivate diabetics to tight control. The Bernsteineans would appreciate this goal backed even by the old DCCT which we never review in terms of its validity. Yet it is what all constructive diabetics are yearning to hear, that control any control pays off. The ADA per Bernstein is dangerous. But all this arguing over what goal is desirable, through it we sometimes forget the reality of the individual. We can advocate on the basis of statistics and then conflict with IMMV, the individual diabetic and the degree of control for each diabetic based on what that person can do or is willing to do.

How to aim for the normal bg zone and stay there is the goal of diabetic control. You have to agree what your normal zone is and then do all you can to stay there. That is the goal. The docs, the trials will try to set goals and change them around so tight you feel like you are in a straight jacket. You will do what you can and hopefully that will be in harmony with the standard setters. And of course, the arguments will go right on as to what is best for all.