 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Children's Health / July 2005The Cause of the Enormous Diabetes Epidemic
http://www.rense.com/general67/epid.htm Also: Kentucky - The Aspartame Death Capital Of The Us: http://www.rense.com/general67/kentucky.htm <more drool from Betty the Fraud snipped>  Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook > <more drool from Betty the Fraud snipped> Did you know that PhoneyDoctor Betty Martini has an honorary degree from an unaccredited Bible college? The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff There is NO "diabetic epidemic" just people who didn't learn simple math. We now have many more DIAGNOSED diabetics than we used to. 20 years ago, you had to 1) show symptoms severe enough for your doctor to test your BG 2) have a BG of over 200 for three consecutive tests (6 months apart) If you were below 200 once, you were not considered diabetic. NOW, everyone is tested for bg regularly ONE reading of 126 is diagnosed as diabetic and anything from 100 to 125 is "pre-diabetic" > The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many > calories and not getting enough exercise. > > Jeff Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook > There is NO "diabetic epidemic" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ONE reading of 126 is diagnosed as diabetic > and anything from 100 to 125 is "pre-diabetic" However, there is a higher incidence of type II diabetes in each age group. I am not going to argue with you whether or not this is an epidemic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 0977060&dopt=Citation http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/maps/map1.htm The rates of overweight and obesity are going up in the US and other parts of the world. Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for diabetes. Use your brain. The rates of diabetes with a consistent definition over time, are going up, for each age group. You have a valid point. But, your point does not explain all of the rise in diabetes incidence or prevelance. Plus, this does not explain all of the new cases of type II diabetes that pediatricitian are reporting in obese kids. Twenty years ago, there were far fewer cases. Jeff >> The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many >> calories and not getting enough exercise. >> >> Jeff No Jeff, we do NOT have a " a higher incidence of type II diabetes in each age group" we have physicians who seem to have missed basic math The diagnostic change only effects type 2's not type 1'a also, we have a change in definitions. 20 years ago NO ONE under 18 was considered to be Type 2, they were "juvenile onset" which was DEFINED as type one. A quick run of the numbers show that in the last 29 years, there should have been an increase in diagnosed type two's of over 300% SIMPLY because of changes in diagnosis >>There is NO "diabetic epidemic" >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >>> >>>Jeff Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook > No Jeff, we do NOT have a " a higher incidence of type II diabetes in each > age group" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > considered to be Type 2, they were "juvenile onset" which was DEFINED as > type one. Apparently, you have missed somethng. This article shows people under 18 diagnosed as having type II diabetes more than 20 years ago and talks about the type II epidemic now: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/27/4/998?maxtoshow=&HITS=10 &hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=type+2+diabetes+in+children+and+adolescents&sear chid=1083786462836_6134&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalco de=diacar The CDC seems to agree with me: http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/projects/cda2.htm > A quick run of the numbers show that in the last 29 years, there should > have been an increase in diagnosed type two's of over 300% SIMPLY because > of changes in diagnosis References, please. Jeff >>>There is NO "diabetic epidemic" >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>>> >>>>Jeff >>No Jeff, we do NOT have a " a higher incidence of type II diabetes in each >>age group" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > diagnosed as having type II diabetes more than 20 years ago and talks about > the type II epidemic now: Well sonny I was there, you werm't. and, The article you quoted is about diagnosing JAPANESE children,m by URINE testing. Jedd, we know you are unable to count, but you supposedly graduated from medical school. Are you being delibertly obtuse? or are you taking lessons from frauds like Rick and Betty? Without even getting into the fact that you can't diagnose T2 from urine tests, how many diabetics would you get today if you used the old urine stick x 3 diagnosis today?. Sheesh > http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/27/4/998?maxtoshow=&HITS=10 &hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=type+2+diabetes+in+children+and+adolescents&sear chid=1083786462836_6134&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalco de=diacar > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > References, please. I sent you the math a long time ago. I don't need a "reference". I can count! I used US-X18M experience for the base mortality tables, and, as I recall, a US population M2000 for the current mortality table. I did NOT make any allowances for the decrease in mortality of diagnosed diabetics vs undiagnosed diabetics as I don't have any good data on theist. I only ran male, and assumed that the female ratio would be about the same. > Jeff > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>>> >>>>>Jeff Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook >>>No Jeff, we do NOT have a " a higher incidence of type II diabetes in >>>each age group" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well sonny > I was there, you werm't. Wow. What a good comeback. You should write it down somplace. > and, The article you quoted is about diagnosing JAPANESE children,m by > URINE testing. > > Jedd, we know you are unable to count, but you supposedly graduated from > medical school. Are you being delibertly obtuse? or are you taking > lessons from frauds like Rick and Betty? Who's Jedd? > Without even getting into the fact that you can't diagnose T2 from urine > tests, how many diabetics would you get today if you used the old urine > stick x 3 diagnosis today?. Sheesh Don't know. The article referenced data from a Japanese study, but also other studies. >> http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/27/4/998?maxtoshow=&HITS=10 &hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=type+2+diabetes+in+children+and+adolescents&sear chid=1083786462836_6134&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&journalco de=diacar >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > vs undiagnosed diabetics as I don't have any good data on theist. I only > ran male, and assumed that the female ratio would be about the same. In other words, you can't provide references. You were wrong back then, and you are wrong now. Jeff >> Jeff >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>>Jeff In other words, Jeff STILL can't count >>>>No Jeff, we do NOT have a " a higher incidence of type II diabetes in >>>>each age group" [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jeff Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook > In other words, Jeff STILL can't count Nice comeback. Especially when I did not talk about counting. It is a shame that when you have a disagreement over something with a person, you have to get nasty to make your point. Instead of attacking me, perhaps you could support your claim. The funny thing is that you failed to make your point. The article cites more than the article about the study of the Japanese people you talk about. And you have yet to explain the CDC page either. Perhaps, instead of attacking me, you could act like a medical professional and try to enlighten me in a civil manner. All the best, Jeff Well Jeff, as you are aware, I am NOT a "medical professional" I am an actuary. That means I work with the mathematics of morbidity and mortality. Physicians in general are pretty incompetent in that field. Even epidemiologists use mathematical techniques which were in use prior to 1860 when Markham developed more accurate methodology. We have come a long way since Markham - physicians haven't even gotten that far. So, do not come to me for treatment of an acute condition - I might be right, but physicians are going to be better than I at least 9 times out of 10, if not more. Equally, DON'T try to feed me idiot conclusions based upon worthless data, poor "studies" and bad math. It is not just long term population items. MOST of the peer-reviewed studies published in medical journals have grevious flaws. That is why we need multiple independent studies to confirm the results. Then there is the mathematics of the spread of contagious disease in a population. Work by Benoit Mandelbrot and his followers is beyond anything I do, and WORLDS ahead of anything taught in Public Health. When in doubt, do a Metastudy - that is if you are running short of toilet paper. >>In other words, Jeff STILL can't count > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Jeff Signature"...in addition to being foreign territory the past is, as history, a hall of mirrors that reflect the needs of souls observing from the present" Glen Cook |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.