Hi, Quer! I see that you too have dived into this area a little bit. Your comments are interesting, and very accurate, btw. Actually, if you were to talk to 10 Endocrinologists, 9 of them would tell you that Type 1 Diabetics tend to have higher zinc levels than copper. Most of them believe that copper is "Absolutely essential" for diabetics. An Endocrinologist that I know of whom I consider to be a very dear friend has an opinion that is much in line with what you believe/have read. He's writing a book about all of this as we speak. Type 1 diabetics that fall into a state of ketoacidosis experience actual systemic Candidiasis followed by lactic acidosis. Type 2 Diabetics are prone to Celiac Sprue, a condition that just so happens to all but mirror that of intestinal Candidiasis. Therefore, however you choose to cut this, the relationship between Candida and diabetes, of either varieity, is quite pronounced. Some of the conspiracists will tell you that those with Candidiasis, Lyme, Diabetes, and HIV all have the same thing in common-immune deficiency, which is accurate. The extremists will tell you that what this really is is AIDS itself. I'm not about to go that far. There are fanatics that have access to the internet, afterall. The darkhorse in all of this is copper, according to my Endo, and the 25 year history of multi vitamin use may be to blame for some of it, in his opinion at least (He's not a fan of the absorption ability of Copper Gluconate, the copper source that is most often found in today's multi vitamin formulas). One of the most fascinating things about today's "Antioxidants" (AKA-E, Glutathione, Cysteine, Bioflavanoids) is that what works as a beneficial mechanism for the vast majority might actually have the ability to cause cancer in a limited few. Clearly, the issue at work that determines that variable is oxidation in and of itself. And when it comes to oxidation, we know that three key minerals are at work. On the one end of the chain, you have iron. On the other end lies copper, with iodine as a team partner. Iron------------Copper I I Iodine Many believe that the effectiveness (And safety) of the antioxidants depend on the levels of these three minerals being in perfect balance. If one or more are off, antioxidants become oxidants, and that's not what you want at work in the context of this example, anyway. It's easy to get an assessment of the Iodine level, even though few docs will test for it. If you're T4, T3, and T7 reuptake scores are normal (Thyroid), you're fine with your iodine level, or so it is the belief of most. Doctors regularily screen for iron; the majority should be looking at the ferritin level, too, btw, but the iron level presents an accurate portrait, for the most part. That leaves copper, a key mineral that is rarely ever tested for. Adrenal insufficiency, Candidiasis, panic attacks and the other types of symptoms observed here are quite common among those that are going through something in a "Bigger picture." Enter Adrenaline-AKA-Epinephrine. The Synthesis of Adrenaline (AKA-Adrenal/panic attack "Central") is almost fully dependant on copper, and copper only. Part of this spins off into the ATP/Kreb's Cycle game, but far and away, the biggest mystery/starting point has to do with the copper level, for very obvious reasons. Theory #1, as it might apply to some of what's going on here-Copper deficiency might actually facilitate for yeast overgrowth in and of itself. Low copper levels have been associated with low WBC's, artery/vessel weakening/bruising (Vasculitis/Lupus), and other complaints that are very consistent with many of the symptoms I've read over on here. A blood test would determine a copper deficiency. Theory #2-A copper toxicity. In a bizarre new approach, New Zealand researchers have begun to chelate copper with Penicillimine in Type 2 diabetics for the purposes of cardio protection/prevention, and they have done so with enormous success. My endo contends that a small handful of such patients were literally cured of their type 2 diabetes condition as a result of this study, even though I have not found that reported anywhere else on the internet. The odd thing about this approach is that it would seem to go against everything else that is known about copper-Copper, at least in terms of TRADITIONAL medical theory, was always thought to be absolutely essential for cardio health. Copper ='d cardio, zinc ='d immunity. Or so has been the belief for the past century. Theory #3-A "Wilson's Disease like effect" at work. In this scenario, the copper serum level will come back low (deficient), but the body itself has a toxic build up of copper, that which has been deposited in various tissue, organs, even the brain itself. It's a metabolic absorption defect, a phenomenon that doesn't allow for the proper absorption/utilization of copper in the system. Essentially, once you consume copper, it can't be digested from the villi and is deposited throughout the system in the muscle, liver, kidneys, and pancreas, even the brain. Some of it remains trapped in the intestines. In that case, chelation is required, but stringent protocols with your physician are also required to correct/cope with the metabolic failure. 20 years ago, medicine finally figured out that iron could cause Homeostasis (The same process that can occur w/ copper in those with Wilson's Disease, except with iron). That is exactly why some well researched physicians are now suggesting C use rather than iron, knowing that C leads to a re-uptake of iron, much like it does with E. Unfortunately, this doesn't work for those that are clearly deficient of iron, but it may show some promise for those that simply have lower ferritin levels without anemia. One of the key situations to keep an eye is the way that some of the higher end vitamin companies are beginning to pull copper out of their multivitamin formulas now as we speak. For the past seven years, we've looked for our multi's that are "Without iron." Now you're starting to see a few of them that say "W/o iron and copper." In the perfect world, the doc I have been referencing suggests that multi vitamin formulas remove copper, iron, and zinc, for reasons that are fairly clear to understand. Excessive iron causes cancer, low levels of iron cause extreme fatigue/CFS like symptoms. If low copper levels cause low WBC counts, it may be that the opposite could hold true with copper in comparison to iron. Unfortunately, there are just too many variables at work here that are not yet understood-if the problem here deals with the oxidation-peroxidation/anti-oxidation pathway, and I don't know why it wouldn't, being that cancer still seems to be the most active in this area, than not only does this issue involve iron and copper, but iodine, too, as well C, Selenium, and E. And if E's involved, than so will Alanine, Glutamine, Glutamic Acid, and Riboflavin. And if Riboflavin's involved, than we have to throw B6 into the picture, too. And if B6 is involved, now we have the Cysteine/Homocysteine conversion process at work, which will also involve Methathione. That means B12 and Folic Acid are thrown into the loop now, too, and quite possibly, beteine anhydrous (TMG). And if TMG sneaks back into the picture, than we must also re introduce its fellow 1960's counterpart, DMG. There are no easy answers in medicine. NONE. There is no "Cover up," there is only massive confusion among our docs, and why wouldn't that be the case, you know. The example above is what goes through the mind of every doc in America, I'm quite sure of that. Fortunately, there is a framework that can be followed, and in my "Amateur opinion," it must start with an exploration at the very roots-copper, zinc, iodine, and iron. Like you say, it would be nice to know "Who's right" here about some of this, too-Are the 1980's and 90's studies that seemed to confirm higher levels of Zinc than copper in Type 1's accurate, or are these newer studies that seem to suggest that copper is higher than zinc in such subjects that of a more accurate assessment? And at that point, the question needs to be answered as to why that's the case. If these newer studies are accurate, those which seem to prove the opposite of traditional belief, why is the copper level higher in diabetics? Is the body holding onto excessive copper for a reason? A "Toxicity" to some might be a life savor for others, something that the body is doing all on its own to keep itself healthy. Or, do diabetics simply do too well of a job holding onto copper in comparison to the rest of society, meaning the excess copper isn't doing the body any good, only harm. If so, why is that happening? There are no easy questions in medicine, that's for sure. In respect to your post, however, if you might ever be right about your own, individual theory about the copper/Candida theory, which, essentially, is one posed in "reverse fashion" of the general belief (You are proposing the infection is causing the higher mineral level; most in medicine would say that the mineral imbalance is fascilitating for the actual infection), if you might ever be right about that, you might notice that your own post probably gives itself its own answer. You actually wrote the answer to the problem down in your own post. That is, if you are right about it....