Re: OK - so a 68 at PS all of a sudden? +some data thoughts
Sheila & Beau & Jeddie said:
I just use the regular pill pockets, but only a half of one for Beau's thyroid med and about a 6th of one to just wrap Jeddie's prozac (so it is like a coating on it) because I have to still pill Jeddie but keep him from tasting the med. Beau will politely take the pill pocket from my fingers and eat it. I know the regular ones have one of the sugars in them (sucrose? dextrose?) but I am giving only a tiny amount. The allergy ones (duck and pea) don't have sugar, but they sort of fall apart and they are really stinky.
Ilkka, why would you have not raised the dose? Do you mean when I raised him to .7u, or do you mean raising him above .7u? I am not thinking of raising him right now. As for raising him up to .7u, I did that because he was not getting very low nadirs - not below mid-upper 100s.
I didn't test again yesterday because I have never had a test strip fluke like that. I always assume a faulty test strip will give an error code. And its funny, I read people suggesting a testing error when the number is unexpectedly low, but not when it is unexpectedly high... why is that?
He didn't get out of the 200s today, apparently. (haven't updated his SS yet).
Sheila, thanks.. btw.. got the pill pockets yesterday, success! Tom ate the Denamarin without a hitch -- am astonished. I thought he would detect the evil tasting med hidden inside. May seem like a small thing, but it is a discovery...
Re the test strip -- you're right that people don't re-run the test when the results are out of line high... and they should. It's a problem with how we view data -- which is, selectively. However a very low reading at PS poses probably more consequences for dosing, than a single high number. Case in point, you delayed the shot and that was right. You can't take insulin back once injected...
The reason I said I may not have raised is that a PS of 68 is too weird, not business as usual.
- [edited: deleted rest of paragraph.. I had misread something... thought you were planning to raise more, but you were already there...duh.. ]
This is not the place to go into detail about this, but I actually like to see numbers like that because they defy the regular explanations. Whatever they are, if they are real readings, they are also data. It seems to that some kind of framework for understanding "anomalies" is needed. Truly wonky numbers are meaningful and all those patterns that don't fit our preconceptions are as important as the ones that do. Sometimes the exception proves the rule; at other times, the exception proves the rule is broken. I think our understanding sugar cat dynamics is going to be radically revised in the coming decade. Were it not for insights into genomics and proteomics, DNA and replication, there would be no Lantus or Levemir, as we all know, but these "analogues" are just the beginning, and I think almost everything we believe about feline diabetes is due for a change. I think we are going to go beyond the idea that diabetes is a primarily problem of the pancreas (to the idea, probably, of an endocrine system disorder that manifests in the pancreas -- i.e., more of a "software" messaging than a "hardware" problem, esp in Type 2 diabetes).
Ilkka
