Talk:Diabetes

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

Distinction from the Disease and the resulting diagnosis

In the intro 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)

Peer Review

Peer Review

So first of all, I would like to say that I compared your two articles beginning to end (from 4/4 and today). I like the edits you have made. I think they simplify the language and update the statistics and information well.

I think it would be helpful to think about the language a bit more for example "metabolic disorder" is a term many people may not understand. Is there a way to explain it better while still using the term? Other terms I might think about include: acute,glucose (can we say sugar?), end stage renal disease, level of consciousness, coronary artery disease, altered sensation, cognitive, impaired counterregulatory response to hypoglycemia,endocrinopathies, unequivocal hyperglycemia, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c in parentheses maybe?), improve outcomes.

I like the edits you did to the section on genetics. I think it much simplified and clarified existing information.

In the section on pancreas transplants, you say they there has been limited success but the sentence is not complete! Just think that is a typo. The pathophysiology section could definitely use some citations!

I think those are my comments from looking at what is up so far! Good luck!Lmciszak (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I just would like to comment on the "hard words" in the article because you have asked whether it would be possible to replace some of them with terms that would be easier to understand. I am a diabetes patient, and I think the medical terms should be kept in the text. They are all explained in brackets and linked to other articles which give a proper explanation of what they mean. I have activated the popup gadget in account preferences, so I can read the introduction of the article on such a technical term when hovering over the link with the mouse. This is the way it should be in a hypertext encyclopedia. Apart from that I like the article. I think it covers most of what a patient should know about the disease as an overview. I made only a minor edit you will find in the article history. Thanks for the good work.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments to both of you, I appreciate the feedback and input! UCSFrb1983 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014

Tiny change: The link is missing from the letter "D" in "Diabetic neuropathy" Yueli7 (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Diabetes mellitus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diabetes mellitus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nps01":

• From Cardiovascular disease: NPS Medicinewise (1 March 2011). "NPS Prescribing Practice Review 53: Managing lipids". Retrieved 1 August 2011.
• From Hypertension: Nelson, Mark. "Drug treatment of elevated blood pressure". Australian Prescriber (33): 108–112. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
• From Anti-diabetic medication: National Prescribing Service (August 1, 2010). "Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors ('gliptins') for type 2 diabetes mellitus". RADAR.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cure

I still don't understand it. I've read about a cure yet there isn't anything about it anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skele (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably because no viable cure exists.--Coro (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources we can consider. But yes no cure really except if you count bariatric surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The magazine article was in my country's (Finland) science magazine called Tieteen Kuvalehti. It was published in the 80's. It read about a Russian scientist/doctor who started giving electric treatment to the pancreas of the patients who had been diagnosed with diabetes under a year of the treatment. The treatment was given once a week for a few months if I remember correctly and after that the patients were completely healed of diabetes (It didn't specify which type but probably type 1).

I think the scientist was trying to kill the bacteria or virus that was blocking the passage to the pancreas and, according to the article, succeeded. Yet there is a possibility that the electrical treatment had some side effects and because of that wasn't marked as a cure. Nevertheless if the article was true it would be a viable cure, but I just can't find any source of the experiment taking place which makes it less possible that the article is true even though the magazine is a very reliable source. Skele (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)