Talk:Diabetes mellitus

Archives
Chronological archives
Archive 1 – Prior to 2005 Archive 2 – First half of 2005 Archive 3 – Second half of 2005 to the end of January 2006 Archive 4 – First four months of 2006 Archive 5 – Second four months of 2006 Archive 6 – Last four months of 2006 Archive 7 – First four months of 2007 Archive 8 – Second four months of 2007 Archive 9 – Final four months of 2007 Archive 10 – First four months of 2008 Archive 11 – Second four months of 2008 Archive 12 – Final four months of 2008 Archive 13 – First 10 months of 2009 Archive 14 – November 2009 to present
Topical archives
Article Structure Discussions

grammar

some grammatical errors in the Epidemiology section I cannot tell if the first line should read "...estimated that there are 285 million people [with] diabetes[. Type 2 makes] up about 90% of the cases" Or "estimated that there are 285 million people with type 2 [diabetes] making up about 90% of the cases" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.93.40 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reader

Apologies for not adhereing the proper "talk page" protocol, but I am unfamiliar with the mandated methods for posting relevant criticism on this site. Having said that...

HOW THE HELL IS OBESITY MENTIONED ONLY THREE TIMES IN THIS ARTICLE? The vast majority of scientific literature on the subject indicates a strong correlation between the incidence of obesity and diabetes; furthermore, there exists a body of evidence detailing how obesity physiologically causes type II diabetes. If this article is to be relevant (don't give me that "neutrality" bullshit, everything must exist within a certain context as there are no privileged frames of reference), then it should elaborate how increases in the diagnosis of diabetes amongst developed nations is due to obesity, which itself is due to sedendtary lifestyles and excessive caloric intake. Geneitc propensity to acquire diabetes is substantial with type I diabetes, not type II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.19.100.146 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosis section

If you have sex with someone with aids your diabetes will go away and you will not have aids. determination of HbA1c levels has not been universally considered a specific diagnostic test for diabetes See http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/117739-workup under the section of "Measurement of Glycated Hemoglobin levels" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueleowdeo (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Piece on "Today" programme

I thought that if this article included reference to the section on the Radio Four programme Today on December 14 2011, it would update the piece. The interview with Bob Young can be heard as a podcast on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9661000/9661714.stm

There were other sections on "Today" however, that mentioned diabetes, stressing how better management of diabetes (such as improvements of diet on both Diabetes_mellitus_type_1 and Diabetes_mellitus_type_2, or better control of insulin therapy in Diabetes_mellitus_type_1, could prevent many deaths each year through diabetes. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of my piece

I did put in a reference to the article on the "Today" programme, but some one has removed it on the grounds that Wikipedia is not news, citing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTNEWS to justify this removal. However, if Wikipedia is not news, how come it already has an article on the Liege shootings, which can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Li%C3%A8ge_attack

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We at WP:MED probably apply the NOTNEWS more than other parts of Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

drinking extreme amounts ...

"drinking extreme amounts of sugar-containing drinks" come on... . What kind of happy horse shit is this? Extreme? Like 15 gallons a day? Delete this bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random User 643873 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done and feel free to begin editing yourself. We are so few and the content is so great... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

15 gallons per day would definitely be a concern. :-) | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

15 gallons per day of anything would definitely be a concern. :-) (User:miketosh) 20:14 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Glucagon's the boss

Just when we thought we understood diabetes, doi:10.1172/JCI60016 provides a completely different paradigm that suggests that glucagon is the central player in the pathogenesis of diabetes. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ref error on note 27

There is a ref error on 27 --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Distinction from the Disease and the resulting diagnosis

In the into to this article there is an incorrect statement that T1D/JD is "insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus". That is incorrect.

There are between 2 and 4 diseases, depending on which philosophies you follow, but the distinction between the "insulin-dependent" and "non-insulin-dependent" diagnoses has nothing to do with the disease, it has to do with the treatment. These references should be removed as they can contribute to the misinformation surrounding this group of diseases.

As an aside, I'd like to take an actual shotgun and shoot a giant physical hole in every web-page that references "Diabetes" as a singular thing. Unfortunately the bridge between rendered electronic code and a physical shotgun bird-shot (had to look that term up) won't have the effect I'm looking for. "Diabetes can be prevented." AAAHHH!!!!

Another aside, thank you to the authors who appear to have done an excellent job noting the rest of this page with disease-specific names, and attempting to not make any reference to the group as a singular disease. (User:miketosh) 19:10 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Section on the news on February 21 2012

There was a report on the news on February 21 2012 stating that there thousands of death in the United Kingdom due to diabetes mellitus that were preventable. I know that Wikipedia is not wikinews, but this report seems momentous that I think it does merit a mention in the article here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Similar topics were discussed on "File on Four" on February 21 - and if one goes to

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17014480

one will be able to read more about what the BBC news covered in relation to diabetes on that day. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The same reports were also saying that many diabetics in the United Kingdom were not getting their nine recommended health check-ups. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)