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

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

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?

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"

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

"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

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

"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

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

"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