If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
HenryK (troll) wrote: more drool from Betty the Fraud snipped -- "...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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ted rosenberg wrote:
HenryK (troll) wrote: more drool from Betty the Fraud snipped Did you know that PhoneyDoctor Betty Martini has an honorary degree from an unaccredited Bible college? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many
calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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" Jeff wrote: The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff -- "...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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... 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" 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/q...&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 Jeff wrote: The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff -- "...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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 Jeff wrote: "ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... 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" 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/q...&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 Jeff wrote: The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff -- "...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 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... 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. 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...nalcode=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 Jeff wrote: "ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... 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" 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/q...&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 Jeff wrote: The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff -- "...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 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff wrote: "ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... 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. 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: 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...nalcode=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. 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 Jeff wrote: "ted rosenberg" wrote in message dfreenews.net... 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" 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/q...&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 Jeff wrote: The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff -- "...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 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 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... Jeff wrote: "ted rosenberg" wrote in message eenews.net... 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. 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: 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...nalcode=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. 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. In other words, you can't provide references. You were wrong back then, and you are wrong now. Jeff Jeff Jeff wrote: "ted rosenberg" wrote in message adfreenews.net... 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" 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/q...&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 Jeff wrote: The cause of the type II diabetes epidemic is people eating too many calories and not getting enough exercise. Jeff -- "...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 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 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chiropractic in pregnancy (Vet to visit a chiro?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 16 | January 27th 05 08:28 AM |
JDRF Needs Your Input Diabetes Night Testing | cindy@medhelp | Kids Health | 0 | July 8th 04 06:34 PM |
No link between childhood vaccinations and diabetes | M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 2, 2004 | Kids Health | 4 | April 5th 04 02:55 PM |
Free JDRF Online Forum - Questions answered about Type 1 Diabetes! | cindy@medhelp | Kids Health | 0 | August 13th 03 06:28 PM |
Free Forum for Juvenile Diabets | cindy@medhelp | Kids Health | 1 | August 12th 03 11:26 PM |