Talk:Diabetes

Archives
Chronological archives
Archive 1 - Prior to 2005 Archive 2 - Through the first half of 2005 Archive 3 - Second half of 2005 though the end of January 2006 Archive 4 - First four months of 2006 Archive 5 - Second four months of 2006
Topical archives
Article Structure Discussions

Citation Link Incorrect

The link for citation 35 (Dubois, HFW and Bankauskaite, V (2005). "Type 2 diabetes programmes in Europe" (PDF). Euro Observer 7 (2): 5–6.) is incorrect. The current link directs to http://www.euro.who.int/Document/Obs/EuroObserver7_3.pdf but the correct issue of this publication is actually at http://www.euro.who.int/Document/Obs/EuroObserver7_2.pdf. The one it points to now is about oral health care, and mentions diabetes once, but it is not the article referenced. I'm new to all this, so I don't think I can change it - I just needed the article for a paper and thought maybe someone else could benefit from the link :) Nicolemh 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Citation

I suggest a suitable citation for the "citation needed" in the genetics section is: Adeqhate E, Schattner P, Dunn E., "An Update on the Etiology and Epidemiology of Diabetes Mellitus." Ann N Y Acad Sci 2006 Nov;1084:1-29.

Response for RfC

I do not see any compelling evidence for chromium/GTF's role in diabetes. I do not even see a need to include one sentence about it and do not think that it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. If evidence were provided, then I would support re-examining. InvictaHOG 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The ISI database contains 15 refereed papers to the query "glucose tolerance factor" AND chromium AND diabetes (sample returns Wang et al 2005 BIOCHEMISTRY 44:8167-8175; Cefalu et al 2004 DIABETES CARE 27:2741-2751; Vincent 2000 NUTRITION REVIEWS 58:67-72) that seem to support the verification aspect of the topic (I've made no evaluation of the specific claims). I am in agreement with Alteripse in the section above, that this merits inclusion in the article, but not in the lead section. Pete.Hurd 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Pete.Hurd --Jon Cates 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GT at it again

Sorry JFW and others, but I suspect all your lengthy discussions above have been a waste of time, as Rok bura, john murphy, and xemijura are all GT sockpuppets. Probably the "hundreds of sleeper accounts" he's been boasting about. [1] He's got a vendetta against anyone who was involved in Parkinsons disease so treat all new accounts speaking "with authority" about outlandish biochemical theories with extreme skepticism. --PaulWicks 12:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tojo has now mobilised these users in his revert wars, and they have been blocked indefinitely. Discussion closed. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Puzzling edit

The comment about user:General Tojo having been the puppet master behind John Murphy, Rok bura, etc in the discussion above is odd. First attempting to comment on it in the same section heading, fails to show that the edit text exists in that seciton. Second, consulting the history of the User:General Tojo history indicates that the user has been banned from WP by the Arbitration Committee and further reference to the link to lists of sock puppets which the Arb Comm, apparently, has decided General Tojo has maimtained. Among them is Paul Wicks whose user page discusses being harassed by General Tojo or his sock puppets. And whose talk page includes a notice that this user is asock puppet for General Tojo. So, do we have an actual helpful comment from a medical researcher (ie, Paul Wicks) or has General Tojo or some sock puppet outed himself? Or something else? I think my migraines are coming back. ww 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And now that edit has been alakazam! poof! disappeared. Oh my head... ww 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Paul Wick's comments. DR Congo (talk • contribs) removed it and I suspect him to be a General Tojo sockpuppet too judging from his lack of edits. I can vouch for Paul Wicks and any General Tojo tags on his user/talk pages claiming that he is a sockpuppet is vandalism by General Tojo. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WW, it's simple. John Murphy and Rok bura looked innocent. But then they joined a pattern of reverts on the Parkinson's articles that identified them as Tojo sockpuppets. Unfortunately indefinitely banned users can still use sockpuppets. Anycase, I suspected John Murphy was a Tojo sockpuppet the moment he started boasting about his biochemistry knowledge. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

reversion of vegan diet story pointer.link

The recent edit by LogicUser was reverted for several reasons. Inappropriate bolding, poor source (simplistic popular reporting of study, poorly done), lack of medically informed analysis, rush to judgement of supposed conclusions in a contentious field (vegetarian vs non-vegetarian diets). The data reported is also consistent with the rather better supported and already present in this article, observation that some Type 2 patients improve considerably when they lose weight and get more exercise. And there was no notice taken (in the CNN piece) nor in the reverted link, that Type 2 patients present quite varied responses to any therapy.

WP should wait for better sourcing of this study before including it here. I note that LogicUser has included the same pointer in another article. I haven't examined that one, but suspect it might be inappropriate as well. ww 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro length

Someone came along and slapped {{intro length}} on the article. I can't stand it when people do this to heavily browsed articles - ram a box on top and distract the casual reader with instructions to editors.

I do agree, however, that the intro is presently too long. I previously summarised the characteristics of the three main diabeteses in one paragraph. Then it started growing again, mainly after the John Murphy / Rok Bura fracas.

I propose we change the intro back to the one on 7 July 2006 (after my large edit). Anyone disagree? JFW | T@lk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I did so. (A small discussion then ensued on User talk:Jfdwolff and my talk page). The reason why I put the tag on the main article is because that's where they're (AFAIK) supposed to go. Tags put the article into the relevant category (in this case, Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup) and let people browsing know that the article needs some work. Per the discussion referenced above, I will not revert. Nor will I add more to this discussion unless explicitly asked since I really don't want to get involved in a debate that's entirely unimportant to me... I'm just defending my actions, since I seem to have offended somebody deeply by actions that I still believe were entirely appropriate. --Storkk 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Offended deeply? Sorry, that's just my normal hyperbole resulting from a longstanding frustration about boxes growing on articles. I do agree with your point that the intro needs cleanup and will have another try to deal with this issue myself. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how I "slapped" the {{intro length}} template on in the first place, and I think it's now vastly better; taking into account the fact that the template should really not be on the talk page of the article, I've removed it from here. Cheers. --Storkk 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ASCOT study

What is the reference for the new results from the ASCOT study that shows that perindopril + amlodipine have a reduced incidence of diabetes compared to BDZ + atenolol? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo: ramipril too! NEJM. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I was wrong there. It was rosiglitazone; ramipril was actually rubbish (despite earlier reports that ACEis improved diabetes risk). JFW | T@lk 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

yup - all from the recent DREAM study. i wonder if the ASCOT results were a reflection of the diabetogenicity of thiazides rather than the anti-diabetic effects of an ACE.

Talk Archive

Would anybody object to my archiving some of this to a separate subpage?--Coro 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I set up Archive1 in chronological order as a place for discussions that ended prior to 2005. The exception was for those items that concerned the structure of the Diabetes Articles themselves, since it is a discussion that keeps cropping up repeatedly under a variety of titles and locations. I have gotten a question on the advisability of doing that, and can see where it is coming from.

Chronological is the recommended archival standard, and for the most part I agree with it, and have tried to do so with Archive1. Where I run into issues with the normal standard is when it involves a recurring issue such as the structure of this article, where earlier entries may be relevant to later entries, and in any event relate to the overall history of a common effort.

Right now, I got two possibilities, that I can think of, on where to go with it.

1. Continue as I've done thus far, or
2. Merge the contents chronologically of /Article Structure into /Archive1, while maintaining a separate copy of /Article Structure.

My only concern is that of being able to view a relatively sequential record of the recurring discussion regarding the structure of the Diabetes and related topics without having to search all over the place. Precisely because it keeps coming up.

Any thoughts? Because I'm currently inclined to hold off doing anything else until I hear more.--Coro 18:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Series Box

Hi, I seem to be free again for awhile, and took a more thorough look at the talk page and found what looked like a request. I have inserted the first draft onto this page for the moment, and would like comments either here or on Template talk:Diabetes before proceeding further. Here until life barges on me again... --Coro 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked the layout and added a few extra entries. Main problem on actually inserting into relevant articles was its lying side-by-side with any other template boxes that might be on the page (i.e. the template:infobox disease) or indeed images. Solution seems to be to place it not at top of an article but just before the first section header. This then leaves the introduction alone, and the navigation box appears level with the list of contents. Where required, I also needed to use the break tab to force completion of the introductory block - using <br clear="left"> - hardly neat markup. Can anyone tweak this navigation box's own markup to help (just adding break clear tags also shifted the article's text to the end of the template:Diabetes) ? David Ruben ^Talk 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Chinese vs. Indian Ants

We seem to have two different claims recently, both un-cited:

• The ancient Chinese tested for diabetes by observing whether ants were attracted to a person's urine, and called the ailment "sweet urine disease" (糖尿病);

• The ancient Indians tested for diabetes by observing whether ants were attracted to a person's urine, and called the ailment "sweet urine disease" (Madhumeha);

Which is true? If no one can provide a citation soon, I will remove the claim from the article (which would be a shame, is it is an enlightening bit of trivia). Anarchist42 18:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a vivid bit of apocrypha found since the mid-20th century in American sources, but never with a specific Indian or Chinese source. I'll bet you could find a version in which it was ascribed to American Indian lore if you look hard enough. I would vote for deletion or at least stop describing it as genuine ancient medical knowledge. alteripse 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History paragraph

Anarchist42 (talk · contribs) removed the well-sourced and highly informative paragraph on the scientific developments in diabetes research with the edit summary: removed editorial. In what sense is that an "editorial"? If the language is a bit too upbeat, then please edit for style. But I protest removing the whole paragraph on this basis. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• We meet again Jfdwolff. Here's what I removed:

Dear Montclair Times,

- The Center for Social Justice at Montclair high school is hosting a program with the purpose of raising awareness and informing the public about the growing diabetes epidemic. In this day and age diabetes is a serious threat, with all of our fast food, sugary drinks, and fattening candy bars diabetes is becoming more and more common. Though there is no cure for diabetes type 1 or type 2 there has been significant research in the search for a cure. By raising funds and awareness we can take us one step closer to curing this global pandemic.

Which seems to be inappropriate for an wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll agree. Anarchist42 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug company cynicism

Ww (talk · contribs) added this:

Many diabetics remain frustrated as the best treatments currently available fall short of cure and, because of the wide variety in the course of diabetes (especially Type 2), the treatments avaialble seem to be somewhat hit or miss. In addition, the drug companies seem satisfied with symptomatic treatments and testing, both of which must be continued for life.

Apart from being unsourced and POV, I'm eager to hear which cures for diabetes have been suppressed by the drug industry. If there is a source for the view that treatment is "hit and miss", we can reinsert the first sentence. JFW | T@lk 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the same evil executives who are suppressing the car that runs on water. alteripse 10:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

JFW & A, Sorry guys, I wasn't the original sinner. Consult the history. I found something even more outrageous, toned it down, cleaned it up, and left it in. Didn't want to delete it until the poster commented on it. On the theory that perhaps there was something there I didn't see. However, I see that others failed to see anything there, too, so I suppose my eyesight was in this instance not as wobbly as it often is. Still don't see what the poster was trying to get at, if there was anything that should have stayed in the article at all.

A, I heard it was a 100 MPG carburettor that the car companies or the oil companies or someone bought up the patent for. Fits with the quite real assistance they supplied toward the death of the streetcar systems that were once common on the ground in the US. I've been told, by an old-timer who was in a position to know (but who may have been pulling legs) that one could get on a streetcar in NYC and, after much changing and all, get off Down East (in Portland?) using streetcars all the way. 'Evil executives' are a kind of jungian archetype aren't they? And we have so many recent examples, just in the US, to reinforce the images in the unconscious.

But, on another subject altogether, I've been trying for some time to find someone who actually knows the stuff to go over diabetic ketoacidosis. I thought I'd finally found the causational mechanism (non-diabetics don't go into DKA, but do go ketotic -- normally. So why do diabetics sometimes (often) do so?), but have since been told I'd gotten it wrong. I really don't see that glucagon/insulin ratios are a key, as the article now claims, but... See pleas/plaints in talk. ww 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The DKA article surely needs work. It is a complex pathobiochemical state and shows that carbohydrate & lipid metabolism are tightly interwoven on a regulatory level. I have not recently read any good review articles (perhaps Alteripse is the man here), but I've had a good talk at the Royal College of Physicians a few months ago which basically emphasised that ketone measurement (especially β-hydroxybutyrate) may be the most accurate way of establishing whether the patient is still ketotic (urine dipstix only measure acetoacetate). JFW | T@lk 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Farting?

The word 'farting' is used in the first paragraph. I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't seem to be used in the correct context. Could someone please clarify.

Some short-lived (9 minutes) vandalism. It's been corrected.–RHolton≡– 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical material

I've found a nice paper that details the history of diabetes in clinical research: Am J Physiol. I have updated the Dobson reference, but there are several other nuggets of gold in there. JFW | T@lk 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Diabetes prevention needs some help.

I started to address the errors in this section, but my changes were removed. Rather than put them back in, let's discuss the issues.

First, a clear distinction between type 1 and type 2 is needed. Type 2 is preventable for many people (not all), with diet and exercise. For the newly diagnosed, it is possible for many type 2 diabetics, if well motovated, to control and reverse their condition by loosing weight and eating fewer carbs. This is medical fact, backed by countless studies. There is a great deal of news about the epidemic of "diabetes" (meaning type 2) in the US because of fast food, upsizing the fries and beverages, spending too much time in front of the TV etc. Unfortunately people who hear this information (and many reporters and writers who present it) do not understand that this prevention is not applicable to type 1.

Type 1 on the other hand has no known preventive cure. It certaintly has nothing to due with french fries or television.

Second, there are several popular misconceptions, including these unprooven concepts: T1 can be prevented by rejecting required pre-school vacines (particularly those with thermasol): T1 can be prevented by breastfeeding your children; T1 can be prevented by not getting chicken pox (which means getting the vaccine??). For each of these controversies, there are studies for and against with no conclusion yet possible.

I suggest that the article either remove the prevention section, or address these shortcomings.

Mbbradford 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mbb, I've made some edits which may help with your concerns, with which I basically agree. I've tried not to touch existing content (ie the references) leaving that to someone with better experience and knowledge of the research literature. Comments? ww 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that didn't do it for me. While there are many benefits to breastfeeding, preventing type 1 is not proven to be one of them. Read the articles already cited in the cows milk section above, and you will see that the research is controversial. Some articles say there is <2% reduction in risk of type 1 if you breastfeed. Other articles say that it is inconclusive. IMHO a controversy does not belong in an enclycopedia, unless at least you admit the controvery and show both sides. Also IMHO, an article that shows 1.5% reduction in risk of developing type 1 due to breastfeeding should conclude that there is a lack of strong correlation, not that there is a protective benefit. I know that many mothers who have breast fed their kids that still developed type 1 later anyway will tell you that a study about a few percent improvement in risk is not a breakthrough, so we should keep looking for other causes. If you are a brave soul, post a question at www.childrenwithdiabetes.com on the mailing list for parents, and ask the question of the moms yourself. I will also tell you that mothers with type 1 kids who did not breastfeed are greatly offended when they read these statements. My other complaint with this prevention section was the lack of good information about the prevention of type 2. Much is known about prevention of type 2 (related to diet exercise and obesity) that should be given some generous space in the prevention section. Instead it gives space to say that nursing mothers have a reduced chance of getting type 2 diabetes themselves. It seems like there is a hidden agenda built in here. Mbbradford 07:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mbb, Well, ... There existed several statements I thought over the top, I weasel worded them (all?) and cleaned up the phrasing. I take no position on the studies cited, but I'm really skeptical about claims of prevention or remission, given the snake oil hisotyr. Sorry you weren't happy. I think all that can be sid is that there is some evidence for <good effects> of diet, exercise, and losing weight (for most), but that there is nothing clear about it. As for type 1, there's some talk about a vaccination which might stop the auto-immune attack... Lots of stuff here I don;t think belongs here, but I didn't want to start an edit war by deleting it. Your warning about the forums at childrenwithdiabetes.com is well taken and I was ducking already.

And, in any case, DavidReuben cam along and delelted most of what I'd done anyway. It survived but a few minutes.

I tried. ww 10:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, with the breastfeeding as a protective benefit in the prevention of type 1 diabetes, I followed the guidelines from the Wiki article on citing sources, and removed the claim that breastfeeding protects your children from diabetes.

Tagging unsourced material

If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing after the sentence or removing the claim. Consider the following in deciding which action to take:

If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.

If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material.

So I ask you, to find a supporting source of medical science, and this means from a peer reviewed medical journal. Going to PubMed and finding a epidimeological survey that concludes there might be a protective benefit does not support your article.

Since the statement has alrady been added back in after I removed it, I'll appeal to you again with only the request to cite your soure. Based on the guidelines however, it should simply be removed as harmful to the article.

There are many prooven benefits to breastfeeding. Preventing type 1 diabetes is not one of them. Absurd! mbbradford 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at my comment below. And please WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL. We're not out to get you. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed my comments for any signs of uncivility. I don't see them, except perhaps for the fact that I do not agree with you. As for assuming good faith: first it goes both ways, and second good faith it where I started 6 months ago when I edited the article, had it immediatly reverted, posted my concers on the talk page above, and generally ran into a roadblock. Recently I removed that poor conclusion again, only to have it immediately reverted again. I do not believe that I have been uncivil or acted in poor faith. I have however challenged you on the facts, questioned your sense of balance with repect to the controversy, and tried to enlighten you as to the insult that is implied in your bias. Mothers who are considering breastfeeding will go to wikipedia for the breastfeeding article, and be encouraged to breastfeed for the well being of their infant, even if not all benefits have been medically prooven. But the people likely to come to wikipedia and read diabetes articles are most likely the newly diagnosed, including in the case of the children with type 1, their mothers. Why offend them with a statement which is not supported by uncontroversial medical evidence? mbbradford 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

MODY?

Shouldn't there be some mention of MODY in the article somewhere?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.90.185 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 November 2006

Yes, there should as a varient of type 2. Anyone already know much about this ? David Ruben ^Talk 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[2] explains it quite well. SenorKristobbal 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

contradictory opening lines.

The article starts of saying "Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder...", then the very next line this "It is a disease". Is it a disease or a disorder? A local hospital here claims that Diabetes is not a disease but a disorder. Idleguy 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the two terms are synonymous. So, Idleguy, could you give us a definition of these terms? Google gives 59,000,000 entries for "Diabetes disease" and 4,800,000 for "Diabetes disorder", so let's scrap the "disorder", never mind the local hospital (you did not give us a source for that).  Andreas  ^(T) 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No it is definitely as metabolic disorder. I called it a disease in an essay recently and was told by an expert that it was wrong. SenorKristobbal 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is something like HIV and AIDS. Recently everyone is classifying/calling it as a disorder. The hospital I was referring to is MV Diabetes, Chennai, (well renowned hospital) which says "Diabetes Mellitus is a chronic metabolic disorder."[3] It does however lead to other diseases that affect the organs etc. Idleguy 15:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was that expert? We need citable sources. Maybe the term metabolic disorder is a special term, as opposed to disorder alone. In any case, according to ICD 10-14, diabetes belongs to the class of "Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases", so it is definitely a disease. Medline plus writes: "Diabetes is a life-long disease marked by high levels of sugar in the blood. " Similarly for emedicine. Only Britannica writes "a disorder of carbohydrate metabolism". Britannica: disease: an impairment of the normal state of an organism that interrupts or modifies its vital functions. [Britannica dictionary] disorder: an abnormal physical or mental condition. According to Britannica thesaurus, disorder is a synonym of disease. Imho just leave the opening phrase as it is.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I really think it doesn't matter too much. I've checked some thesauruses and dictionaries, and disease and disorder are fairly interchangeable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.113.126.198 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

I think disease isn't P.C. much like you can't call people "diabetic" anymore its "people with diabetes". Disease suggests people are having a bad time of things which isn't necessarily the case. Disorder suggests there is a problem but its not going to have a huge effect on you. Stupid I know but thats how P.C. works we'll have to call it something else in a couple of years. SenorKristobbal 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There has already been some back and forth on the question of diabetic vs people with diabetes. Please see prior talk (probably archived by now). It was resolved to the current article terminology. ww 06:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Role of Nervous System, Reversability?

I've added one sentence to the section on Type 1 Diabetes referencing the recent paper published in the journal Cell, which might change just about everything. Diabetics have seen promised cures disappear before, and given the number of us with this condition I didn't want to make a big deal about and get people's hopes up. Having said that, the findings of this study look like very, very good science. I leave it to others to try and strike the right balance, but this looks about right to me.

If someone can clean up my references (citations), I'd appreciate it as they look messy right now, and I can't find a page telling me how to do it properly.JakartaDean 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that iansmcl has reversed my changes, without comment here. Ian, what's up? I feel it's unneccerassily rude to cancel others' edits without comment. Why? i stand by what I put in, and feel it's appropriate that I reinsert in 48 hours, unless you present contrary evidence.JakartaDean 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I find myself with iansmcl in this case. JD, your comment above, that "...this might just change everything..." pretty much covers it. This is a article of first resort for the Average Reader, and as such shouldn't have much (ideally none) of potential might be sort of stuff. I was myself struck by the Cell report and the possibility of more links to other body systems. Sounds quite plausible to me, actually, but that's not sufficient for WP, expecially in an article like this. Perhaps this should go in one of hte other more specific DM articles under a heading such as interesting research with considerable promise, or some such. Lizard spit wasn't even mentioned here for quite a long time and I think is gone again, and that's been an accepted therapy for a while now. And has a great story behind it. Wrong place I think, at least now. When we know more about what it means, maybe... ww 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments Ww. I understand you POV, and appreciate it, and I hope my concern came across also. I understand the need for balance, but I (perhaps hopefully, but I don't think so) find this research breathtaking. I think I wrongly blamed Ian before I fully checked the 'audit trail' of revisions. As I hope was clear, I think this is wonderful, Nobel prize worty resarch, but I understand the need to keep folks who haven't studied it on an even keel. Your improvements are fine with me. Merry Christmas, Seasons Greetings, ...JakartaDean 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Toe socks

The use of toe socks to prevent gangrene would belong to the gangrene article. However, before it is included there, a serious search for sources would be necessary to give neutral (non-advertizing) sources for the utility of toe socks for gangrene prevention.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism in footnote requires removal

Note 1 has some cretinist vandalism, but I can't figure out how to delete it. Someone with some more familiarity with the mechanisms should correct it. Too bad the irresponsible and childish are ever present. ww 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything, but I've been removing a bunch of other vandalism. I patrol this page from time to time. Is it there there? --Mdwyer 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it now, so someone must have removed it. But I don't see the edit. Mysteries of WP, eh? ww 01:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Misconception of health

Transfered from the article:

There is a major missconception that good management and proper treatment for this disease will not lead to a happy healthly life style. Constant checking of blood sugar level's and eating the right diet can help lead to a better lifestyle. Better treatment is coming very soon and ways to help manage your blood sugar levels are already here.Tarrom 09:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Matthew Tarro

I've transfered Tarrom's posting from article to here in talk space. Aside from the trivial point of signing talk page edits, it does not WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify that there is a misconception. Also the piece was written as if giving advice or speculating on the future. For most patients these days in countries with developed heaslthcare provision, the emphasis is less on good diebetic control, and more on reducing cardiovascular risks that remain (allbeit at lower levels) even with tight control (i.e. chasing ever tighter blood pressure or cholesterol targets). Some of Tarrom's intensions would be worthwhile keeping, i.e. trying to put things into perspective, but this might be better up in the introduction and needs a good source to cite - any thoughts ? David Ruben ^Talk 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Diabesity

I can find no reference saying that Harvard coined this term, but LOTS of references to the fact that "Shape Up America" [4] has tradmarked it. That being said, it really doesn't add anything to the article. NipokNek 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've ever worked in a diabetes clinic you will find that there are many type II diabetics who are not obese at all. There is clearly more than just obesity to that fascinating condition. "Diabesity" is a nice neologism, but it is not useful in this article. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought WP:V was one of the key deciders of article content not what one editor's evaluation of "useful" is... Cburnett 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Cburnett, I was addressing an additional problem. Even if the concept exists, do we need to mention it as a matter of course? JFW | T@lk 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can easily verify who won the Super Bowl last year, but it wouldn't necessarily belong in an article about making footballs. NipokNek 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Diabesity," a phrase trademarked by Shape Up America founder and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, reveals a frightening connection between the dual problems of obesity and type 2 diabetes. This new catch-phrase is further presented in a "call to action" book, Diabesity: The Obesity-Diabetes Epidemic that Threatens Americans--and What We Must Do to Stop It, recently written by Dr. Francine Kaufman, past president of the American Diabetes Association and head of the Center for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism at Childrens Hospital Los Angeles. In her impassioned portrayal of personal and clinical accounts surrounding the world of diabetes and obesity, Dr. Kaufman offers critical advice for our generation: "To stop the diabesity epidemic, the new normal must become not just an individual but a societal choice."

Certainly obesity is not the only cause of Type II but it is the leading cause. I think it has merit in the article. Harvard does claim to have used it first, but I can't find credit for that, so default should go to Koop since he now owns the trademark to it.Julia 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please consider moving this to Diabetes mellitus type 2. JFW | T@lk 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, please don't add this anywhere. This kind of victim blaming isn't what people need. "Diabetes mellitus type 2 is presently of unknown etiology" which means that medical science has yet to figure out what causes it. Without some pretty stunning verification, statements like "...obesity is not the only cause of Type II but it is the leading cause" will not add anything of value to the article. NipokNek 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability of TexasDiabetesInstitute.com

A user has tried to add this link twice. I'm not convinced it is notable so I have reverted it twice. Can anyone else assert its notability? Mdwyer 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No reference to Diabetes Cure (text moved here)

It is rather disturbing to see no reference to people actually having been cured of diabetes. It is a fact. Patients I have and have had using 20 to 40 units of insuline a day have been monitoring their blood and as they changed their diet, had treatments with cadmium a precursorfor the enzyme that creates insuline, and acupuncture treatments, some using Alpha Lipoic Acid, saw the reduced need for insuline and lowered their intake accordingly. I requested they do so under the insulin prescribing doctor. Does chemical medicine have a monopoly and that is why research is not being done on alternatives. (user:michael)14:10 19 Feb 2007. HTW§§§§

I would submit to you that a "reduced need for insuline" doesn't actually qualify as a cure, just a different form of treatment. NipokNek 17:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I reverted this text because I'm apparently incapable of telling the difference between a talk page and an article page. I'm very sorry for that, and I appreciate the other editors catching my mistake. --Mdwyer 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC) to nipokNek, The first line refers to the cure, the line you mention refers to the method. These people are without medications for months. no signs of needing insulin, as their continued monitoring indicates. Treatments with Acupuncture continue at less and less frequent intervals. Their cure includes exercise, proper nutrition, and acupuncture. (user: michael) 13:25 21 Feb 2007. HTW§§§§

It is common for people in the early stages of type 2 to achieve a remission of insulin needs after a period of better glucose control by using insulin, or by losing weight and doing other things to improve insulin sensitivity. This is certainly healthy and to be desired and (contrary to your conspiracy theory) is the first thing that doctors tell their patients. Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict the duration of improvement, and over time most people have continued loss of beta cell function. Calling this response to early treatment a "cure" is foolish and misleading, as is accusing doctors of prescribing drugs instead of letting their patients in on the "secret" (which you probably think is being closely guarded by the drug companies) that healthier eating and increased exercise might greatly improve their pancreatic function. PS: Acupuncture works for diabetes only if the needles contain insulin. alteripse 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro

At the risk of bloating the intro again, I have reinserted the important message that diabetes control is not just about the sugars and the HbA1c/glyco-Hb but equally at preventing end-organ damage through blood pressure control and weight management. In the prevention of nephropathy, BP control is more crucial still than glycemic control.

I have also added that diet and tablets are also treatments, to remove the impression that a diagnosis of diabetes means one is sentenced to subcutaneous insulin. With the incidence of DMII so much higher than DMI on the Western World I think this is a justifiable change.

There's probably still a lot of work to do, but the present format of the article is really not all too bad. Is there any hope of getting this MAJOR health topic up to WP:FA? JFW | T@lk 14:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're near that point. it has been more or less stable for a while, modulo random bits being added now and then. You want to propose it? Now, DKA on the other hand is a very very long way from any quality levle... ww 07:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Treatment/management

I'd just like to point out that the treatment/management section of the article says absolutely nothing about insulin or other anti-diabetic drugs.

I'll take a look. ww 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

removed paragrah

I removed this paragraph:

Currentley, there are several well researched herbs and nutritional supplements used for both the treatment and prevention of Types I and II Diabetes. Gymnema sylvestre, known for its bitter taste, has been shown to suppress glucose uptake, stimulate beta cell production in the pancreas, and improve insulin sensitivity in Type II Diabetes (source needed). Chromium, Biotin, Bitter Gourd, Vanadium, and Alpha Lipoic Acid (Thioctic Acid) have also been shown in clinical studies to significantly improve sensitivity in diabetics, lower serum cholesterol and tryglyceride levels, and improve HbA₁C (source needed).

Aside from difficulties with the language and formatting, this makes claims which are not actualy supported by research. Any of which might well earn the discoverer a Nobel, there having already been 4 related to DM already. There are currently no cures for DM (save pancreas transplant for Type 1) The other claims for the listed products are also not credible per current research. In fact, this reads more or less like an advert for a 'natural' rememdies sotre. Problematic edit, so I pulled it. Anyone care to comment? ww 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

a much longer removed edit

This edit, perhaps from the same poster -- I didn't check -- was also removed and for essentially the same reason. See wikitext comment left in its place.

--snip--

There are natural treatments that exist for Type I and II Diabetes. Gymnema sylvestre leaf has been used by natural clinicians in India for centuries to support healthy blood sugar levels.^29,30 In India, it has a common name Gumar, meaning 'destroyer of sugar', perhaps because the taste of the Gymnema plant suppresses the ability to detect sweet tastes.^31,32 The important plant constituents of Gymnema are the saponins, especially the gymnemic acids.³² Gymnema extracts containing an appropriate amount of saponins (gymnemic acids), help maintain a healthy pancreas. This supports healthy pancreatic function and the normal production on insulin in the body. Gymnema may do this by supporting the integrity of the pancreatic beta cells²⁹ (These beta cells produce insulin. Insulin removes glucose from the blood and helps with the storage of glucose (as glycogen and fats), thereby helping to regulate the supply of energy.)

When combined with a balanced diet, Gymnema supports healthy blood glucose levels within a normal range²⁹ As well as supporting the pancreas, Gymnema also promotes normal absorption of glucose from the intestine and a healthy metabolism.³³

While supporting healthy glucose metabolism, Gymnema may also help maintain cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood within a normal range.²⁹ A healthy diet (low in saturated fat and refined carbohydrates and sugar) combined with regular exercise and healthy cholesterol and glucose levels, helps maintain metabolic and circulatory systems.

Gymnema supplements are sold throughout the world. Standarization of the herb is important in determining the dosage (usually 100 mg gymnemic acids per 400 mg of Gymnema leaf). Typical doasage ranges from 400 mg- 6g.

Other supplements that may aid in preventing insulin resistance, Syndrome X, or other diabetes-related complications include Chromium, Biotin, Niacin and Thiamine, Fenugreek Seed, Vanadium, NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine), and Bitter Gourd Extract.^{source needed}

Alpha Lipoic Acid (thioctic acid) has also been immensley helpful in treating diabetic neuropathy. It also enhances glucose uptake in non-insulin dependent diabetes and inhibits glycosylation.^{source needed}

Phospatidylcholine (PC) and other 100% pure, GMO-free sources of phospholipid complexes have been shown to improve diabetes related dyslipidemia.³⁴ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ww (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

29. Shanmugasundaram ER, Rajeswari G, Baskaran K et al. J Ethnopharmacol 1990; 30(3): 281-294

30. Shanmugasundaram KR, Paneerselvam C, Samudaram P et al. Pharmacol Res Commun 1981; 13(5): 475-486

31. Medline Plus: Trusted Health Information for You. Gymnema (Gymnema sylvestre R. Br.). Available via www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-gymnema.html.

32.Suttisri R, Lee IS, Kinghorn AD. J Ethnopharmacol 1995; 47(1): 9-26

33. Hirata S, Abe T, Imoto T. J Yonago Med Assoc 1992; 43: 392-396

34. Lee SH, Han YM, Min BH, Park IS. Cytoprotective effects of polyenoylphosphatidylcholine (PPC) on beta-cells during diabetic induction by steptozotocin. J Histochem Cytochem. 2003 Aug; 51(8): 1005-15. [PMID: 12871982]

--snip--

Let's discuss this people. Does this sort of thing, or only some of those mentioned, belong here? Comments? ww 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Eschew the remote control" deleted

That eschewing the remote control would lead to more exercise sounds too obvious, even silly. Besides, walking to the television and back doesn't make a big difference - the reader should read the whole article on exercise instead. Mortsggah 11:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And besides, I defy anyone to properly control a modern day cable box or TiVo without using the remote control. :) NipokNek 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to add these links to the "External Links" section, but I am having some resistance...

• Diabetes Life Lines
• Your Guide to Diet and Diabetes
• Recipes for Diabetes
• Flavor Fiesta - Traditional Hispanic Recipes for People with Diabetes

Moved the links to Diabetic_diet#References, seems like a more suitable place for them after comments from Nbauman.

Alessandro Bellina 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the sites and agree with Jdf. The problem isn't that the information is not "reputable" but that the sites are pretty mediocre and non-notable. How many pieces of information can you find in them that are not already contained in the links we have? Nearly every hospital in the country with a diabetes service has stuff like this posted, and we could fill this encyclopedia with links like this. I am sure it seems arbitrary to you, but we try to be somewhat selective about this type of link since there is an endless amount of these out there. Does your perseverance reflect some sort of direct or indirect personal connection with these sites? alteripse 02:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alessandro Bellina, why don't you add those links to Diabetic_diet#References instead? They cite several books (most of them British), but they don't have any on-line references. Hispanic recipies are particularly useful, given the epidemiology of diabetes in the U.S. Nbauman 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I am really new to Wikipedia as an editor and want to learn how to do edits so they are accepted, not rejected. This is what I thought it was more like, multiple people taking part of the conversation. I will look at the section you have suggested Nbauman, thanks for that! Alessandro Bellina 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wine

It has been said that red wine and help prevent diabetes type 2, can any 1 comfirm this

Whoever said this is less informed than would be ideal. Alcohol (ie, ethanol, as there are lots of different kinds of alcohols, at least one frankly poisonous (methanol)) is generally a toxin and is as well a central nervous system depressant. In addition, its metabolites are also toxic. So, in more than moderate quantities, the damage alcohol does is well known. Not so well known is that alcohol interferes with the liver's processing of glucose (storage as glycogen, conversion from glycogen and putting deconverted glycogen glucose back in the blood). This is one of the causes of heavy drinkers systemic health problems.

There is no observed credible evidence that alcohol prevents or cures or alleviates Type 2 diabetes. In fact, there is no known benefit of alcohol save some calories and perhaps some social lubricant, except for the French paradox. This is not well understood, but the effect is clear. Small quantities of alcohol (some claim red wine is especially helpful, whtout solid grounding) lead to reduced rates of cardiovascular disease. Since the French have eaten a high fat diet for a long time, their rates of cardiovascular disease should be higher than they have been. It seems that small, but steady, alcohol consumption may be the reason for this. The mechanism remains unclear. BUT, this a dangerous approach for the difference between beneficial doses and damaging doses is quite small. Anything more than a drink or two a day (depending on body size) causes more damage than benefit. Thus, sixpacks of beer should last a week or more at a helpful consumption rate.

You might want to consult the most recent edition of Bernstein's (poorly named) Diabetes Solution. It is by a doctor with type 1 who was an electrical engineer before medical school; the approach is less anecdotal than most such books, and yet is not opaquely technical for most readers.

However, note carefully that Wikipedia is 1) not a source of reliable medical advice (faddists/enthusiastists/snake oil peddlars are sometimes not easily distinguishable from the knowledgable for many readers, perhaps especially in medical matters), and 2) such questions should be directed to the Reference Desk in any case -- not here. ww 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Breastfeeding and DM1

Mbbradford (talk · contribs) has taken issue with the claim that breastfeeding may reduce risk of DM1 in the infant. Before I insert a reference, I'd like to present some here so we can select the best one:

• PMID 6150150 (the Lancet 1984 study that seems to have sparked this line of research)
• PMID 14668264 (rather thorough Am J Clin Nutr review that lists all the evidence until then)
• PMID 8773632 (a negative trial 1996, JAMA) - in PMID 8664407 the same team suggests the link is due to a methodological blip rather than a real association
• PMID 9051384 (a negative trial 1997 from Italy)
• PMID 15037991 (oddly worded abstract suggests exclusive breastfeeding >2 months reduces risk)
• PMID 16249566 (introduces the TRIGR study which is much larger than the above and will give much more information, as well as assessing risk re diabetic mothers)

I think we need to mention both the 1984 study and the Norris et al 1996 study, as well as perhaps the 2003 Am J Clin Nutr study. Alternatively, we can find one review that would support the following sentence: "Some studies have suggested that prolonged exclusive breastfeeding is a protective factor against type 1 diabetes mellitus, but other research has cast doubts on this link. Ongoing research is being conducted into the importance of breastfeeding in the prevention of DM1." JFW | T@lk 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that some of the studies support while some negate the fact in question tell us that there is a controversy? I appreciate the rewording above, which now at least reports the controversy. The TRIGR study looks like good science, but, there are no results yet. The question then becomes: why report it at all?

How about this rewording:

As little is known on the exact mechanism by which type 1 diabetes develops, there are no preventive measures available for that form of diabetes.

In other words, the article sticks with what we really know about the ability to prevent type 1 diabetes. mbbradford 22:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been 2 weeks without any new discussion. I will rewrite the type 1 prevention paragraph again, perhaps encouraging more input. mbbradford 05:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the nutritional links, with good references. The Norris study doesn't explicitly disprove the breastfeeding link. We are talking about risk modification, so an argument that breastfeeding did not prevent a particular case of DM1 is with little merit.

I have removed the link that suggests that we can predict the development of DM1. It is an interesting page, but it doesn't deliver on the main premise: can we screen for future DM1 and immunosuppress them to prevent DM1 from developing and salvage beta cell reserve? JFW | T@lk 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you have again edited the article to include the protective benefit of breastfeeding and represent it as fact. It is not necessary to disprove the breastfeeding study you cited because it was based upon epidemiology. A study which looks at statistical information of a subset of the population and then shows a possible relationship overall never offered any "proof" in the first place. Rather the possible relationship is useful only as a basis for making a hypothesis. In the 25 years since your cited study, the subject has been contradicted by other epi-studies and is controversial. The consensus in the medical community is that while breastfeeding should be encouraged for many reasons, there is no proof that it prevents or reduces risk of type 1 diabetes. The webpage that I cited was from the Barbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, which is highly respected, and the charts in particular are teaching materials for doctors. It stated "At present we can predict the development of type 1A diabetes but do not have a safe and effective preventive therapy." By the way, your own reference says "There is little firm evidence of the significance of nutritional factors {including breastfeeding} in the etiology of type 1 diabetes" which you have rephrased to "various other {beyond breastfeeding} nutritional risk factors are being studied, but few have a strong link with the development of type 1 diabetes." mbbradford 18:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes Wiki link

I'd like to add a link to Diabetes Wiki -- it's a Wikia-hosted site for people with diabetes to share their information and stories. The information on Wikipedia is often very technical; the idea of Diabetes Wiki is that the writing is more accessible for people with diabetes. Still, the site's just starting out, and it isn't an official/authoritative source. Would it be okay to add this link? -- Danny (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to mind, so I'll add the link. If there's any problem with it, then please let me know. Thanks! -- Danny (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountains for Active Diabetics

I want to add the external link www.mountain-mad.org to the wiki site, but am having no luck!!!! MAD is the global resource site for all tings related to diabetes and mountains, and we have an extensive list of academic and other references with regard to this. We hold an annual symposium with www.IDEA2000.org members, called MADiDEA, which is this year being held in Montana. We are not a commercial organisation, but purely funded by passion and enthusiasm. Pease help.

Links of this type would bloat the article beyond recognition. Could you think of other ways to advertise your organisation's activities. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect

If that amount of vandalism happens more ofthen as is doing in the past day or so, may a semi protection thing be added? petze 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sugar is bad

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69700-6 indicates that even slightly raised blood sugar levels predispose for cardiovascular diseases. I'm not sure if it needs to be included here or elsewhere.... JFW | T@lk 09:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in Type 1 treatment discussion

Early on in the section titled "Type 1 diabetes mellitus" there is the following sentence: "Diet and exercise cannot reverse or prevent type 1 diabetes." A couple of paragraphs later, this is restated: "Currently, type 1 diabetes can be treated only with insulin, with careful monitoring of blood glucose levels using blood testing monitors." But then the next sentence contradicts: "Emphasis is also placed on lifestyle adjustments (diet and exercise)." This contradiction undermines the credibility of the article, or at least, the credibility of the treatment discussion. (Or accurately reflects confusion among physicians and researchers?) DrStan 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the emphasis on lifestyle is obselete. It must have been based on the older insulin regimens (ie NPH) wherein you had to plan the mealtime and snack time and exercise time based upon the timing of the NPH peak. Now with the flexible techniques using insulin analogs, you can simply match your insulin to your actual need. Everyone of course benefits from exercise and a healthy diet, including all diabetics, but is really has nothing to do with treating type 1 diabetes anymore. So go ahead and fix it. mbbradford 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No contradiction here, and so nothing to fix. Type 1 cannot be trated (as in cured) by diet or exercise. It can be managed and symptoms controlled by medication and diet and exercise. Food is of course required, and in Type 1 must be balanced, somehow, by insulin, ideally precisely timed to match glucose uptake. Whatever sort of insulin one is using. As for exercise, it increases glucose uptake w/o regard to insulin levels. Thus lifestyle is not clinically irrelevant today, nor was it in former times.

Since there's confusion this point, perhaps a rewording is in order? However, it would be in error to state that insulin alone is clinically sufficient for type 1, as it is not. ww 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This goes again to the annoying confusion between type 1 and type 2. In management of type 2, diet and exercise are necessary and critical to controlling blood sugars. In type 1, they are no more beneficial in treatment of type 1 than they are for every person. The difficulty is to balance the insulin with the exercise and diet, regardless of what that might be. In days gone by, one had to plan the days physical activities, meal times, and carb counts with the insulin cocktail that was injected in the morning. Thankfully due to flexable insulin therapy, those days are gone. The article seems obselete to me. mbbradford 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Epidemiology and Statistics

"In 2006, according to the World Health Organization, at least 171 million people worldwide suffer from diabetes." http://www.who.int/diabetes/facts/world_figures/en/ In 2000, according to the World Health Organization, at least 171 million people worldwide suffer from diabetes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bin Qasim (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

EDIT: Glandular vs. Organ Manipulation Comparisons

I have seen Kevin Trudeau's infomercials as far back as the early 1990's, dealing with improvement of memory. "Kevin, you discuss how with weight loss that the resetting of the Hypothalimus Gland can permanently keep weight loss in check. Can the same thing be said about Diabetes, meaning can the Pancreas insulin secretion ratio be reset properly to eliminate Diabetic onset, or that can't happen because the Pancreas does not have glandular characteristics for that to happen? I know the government makes it so you can't mention it on TV, or in an e-mail, but if it's in one of your books, could you give a reference page at least? My e-mail address is tonydpanico@yahoo.com . Take care of yourself, and keep up the good work!!!

Lead sentence

is a metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and other signs, as distinct from a single illness or condition. The World Health Organization recognizes three main forms of diabetes...

The half sentence starting with "as distinct from" is unclear. What does "X is a Y, as distinct from a Z" really mean? Further, aren't the words "disorder" and "illness" pretty much synonymous? [And if there are indeed tiny technical differences, then the reader at this stage cannot be expected to know those, especially since neither disorder or illness are linked to their respective articles.] It seems to me that someone just wanted to emphasize the fact that there's several forms of Diabetes, but that's the content of the very next sentence. So I propose one of the following two versions, depending on how strict you want to be with the definition of "disorder":

is a group of metabolic disorders characterized by hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and other signs. The World Health Organization recognizes three main forms of diabetes...

or

is a metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and other signs. The World Health Organization recognizes three main forms of diabetes...

Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vascular disease?

How and why does Diabetes cause vascular disease? The only hint I could find was in Microvascular disease, where it says that the vessel walls become thick and weak, but without explaining the mechanism. AxelBoldt 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I got an answer here. AxelBoldt 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

16 year old get diabeties

can a 16 year old who is 50 pounds over wieght get type 1 or type 2 diabeties?

Anyone can get diabetes at any age. --Idleguy 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes of type 1

I lack citation, but recent studies have shown that type 1 may be caused by a gastrointestinal retrovirus, atleast in some cases. Zanduar 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)