In 2001, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a trial to lower blood glucose levels in diabetic patients to reduce their risk for heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular disease. The trial, called Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes, or ACCORD, involved over 10,000 Type 2 diabetic patients who had either been previously diagnosed with heart disease or had two or more risk factors for heart disease when they entered the study. Half received standard treatment and half were treated aggressively with higher doses of antidiabetic drugs. The trial was halted 18 months early because of a 26% increase in deaths in the aggressively treated group. The NIH said there was no conclusive link to a particular medication. Were these outcomes just a fluke or was over-medication involved? What is Creator’s perspective?

This was definitely a drug-related health liability showing its negative effects in the patients treated more aggressively than usual dose levels with a variety of substances, including insulin. Because of the complexity in any analysis in assigning cause-and-effect considerations, there were no rock-solid convincing links, but we can tell you that there was manipulation of those involved in the oversight and scrutiny of the data, done surreptitiously by the Extraterrestrial Alliance. They promote the pharmaceutical approach to healthcare because it is usually misguided and deleterious, treating symptoms in unnatural ways that cause distortions in function and inevitable side effects. If the latter are tolerable, the drug gets approved. So it is a kind of poison that is sublethal in its effects but has a perceived benefit in causing something to happen considered beneficial by physicians, like realigning a test result to be more normal, as in the case of fasting glucose levels, and so on. That does not mean it is a good idea or a productive use of resources and funds.