You state falsely "Done by a paid insider at this fraud"
In fact the referenced double blinded placebo controlled study (level 1 evidence) conducted where Sucanon outperformed Glyburide, and that along with preclinical results I have referenced below, were reviewed by Mexican and Peruvian authorities, resulting in approval of Sucanon sale in Mexico and approval in Peru. Note that these studies, reviews, and actions were prior to involvement of any individuals repeatedly referred to as 'scammers' (Irving, Hall, etc). From a scientific standpoint, the overwhelming majority of medical treatments by most people's doctors here in the USA, are not based on level 1 evidence, or even level 2 or 3 for that matter. Most is based on expert opinion developed through approved training in the profession. While controlled studies are desirable, they are not a prerequisite to established standards of medical care, as has been falsely implied. Summary details of the earlier studies are included below. It is all publicly verifiable information which the FDA referred to as "substantial clinical investigations"
Preclinical in vitro tests of Sucanon (then diab2) in rat muscle showed an up regulation of insulin receptors
Sucanon outperformed biguanides (Metformin) and sulfonylureas (Glucotrol, Micronase, Amaryl) in rat models
Pharmacokinetics showed dose response relationship, peak response 2-4 hours, no effect by 10 hours
Toxicity: none at dosing 2000x therapeutic levels in dogs and rats with therapeutic index > 10,000, no carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, or mutagenicity in mice
Clinical studies: randomized double blind placebo controlled study in 370 adult type 2 diabetics, 6 months (1 month screening, 4 months treatment, 1 month post treatment) Sucanon outperformed Glyburide in control of fasting blood sugar levels, urinary glucose excretion, and glucose tolerance testing
(All above results done under management of Bob Rieveley, Biotech holdings, before involvement of FROI or ROTH current individuals)
So your statement is definitively false. Logically, if it were true, there would be no reason to modify a Consumrr Reports article in post 4477 to falsely imply Sucanon as being the subject of an FDA warning, or claim "no active ingredients" or many other definitively false statements
AI
