Talk:Diabetes/Archive 3

message: The only things I've picked up on so far, are diet, exercise, and whatnot.  I see there's no section in the main article.  Should there be, or should it be its own article? As for the topic of discussion, I have no background (thankfully) on it.  Normally I'd jump right in, but I'll pass on this one. Thanks!  Supaplex 06:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not an ounce of prevention? 

message: Would someone care to provide a cite on the existance of Type 3 as a bonafide category? The only thing that I can find, is an article dated the 9th of this month discussing the possible need for the lable in connection with an Insulin issue involving the brain, [Scientists believe type 3 diabetes uncovered].  Unless a confirming cite can be presented, that section should probably be excised. Also, I have yet to come across anybody referring to Gestational Diabetes as Type 4 , or Type 'Anything Else'. 
coro  17:13, 27 Mar 2005 PST
:I'm indeed not sure what the origin of this classification is. Perhaps searching for 3A, 3B etc may uncover something. JFW | T@lk 19:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type 3, Type4 Diabetes 

message: In reading through this piece tonight, I note the uneven style that others have commented on here on the talk page... but I believe that I discern another more fundamental problem.
Some of the phrasing in this page leads me to wonder if parts of it have been copied wholesale from other sources ("These symptoms may also manifest in Type 2 diabetes in patients who present with frank poorly controlled diabetes."?), and what those sources might be.  Now, if *I* can write "believe that I discern" on a talk page, clearly someone else can write "who present with frank poorly controlled diabetes"... but there seems a thread of that sort of uncommonly precise medical language woven through the article.
Am I the only one who noticed this?--Baylink 23:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because this article is being edited by laypeople and MDs at the same time. When Alteripse, myself and other docs write, we may gravitate towards medical jargon. I don't think anything on this page is from other sources - it's been edited too heavily. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  I knew there were some doctors involved somewhere; didn't know they were first-hand.  *Very* nice work, overall, BTW.--Baylink 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: What's first hand, the doctors? *grins* JFW | T@lk 00:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I too think parts of this article read too heavily; for example, the cures section.  I consider myself an educated and literate person, and I get terribly frustrated reading the terminology and clumsy language in this article.  Considering that this page could viably serve as important information for diabetics and interested others who might not have the vocabulary that this page's editors evidently command, I think it's important to alter the language a bit to make it easier to read.  Just my two cents.  Also, I'm taking out that "frank" word mentioned above, as I think it's completely unnecessary and maybe just wrong. Tmkain 02:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another style/content complaint... :-) 

message: A related article, Obesity, is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Please vote for this article there.--Fenice 08:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: The diagram caption of the glucose response of a beta pancreatic cell says that insulin production is not affected directly by glucose levels; however, in the text, it says that 'rising levels of glucose increase insulin production'. I assume that the text should read 'rising levels of glucose stimulate insulin release'. 
:Yeah, you're right. Care to fix it? JFW | T@lk 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction in page 

message: I removed the following recently inserted sentence:  Also, Dr. Lou Bin, Ji lingong, and Mao Tingchea of China also helped discover treatments to maintain insulin stabillity.   for two reasons: too vague and no historical context. Please tell us what they did and whether it was comparable in importance to the people mentioned. Please tell us when they did it. Thanks alteripse 14:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: chinese addition

message: I reverted following paragraph
The most important forms of diabetes are due to decreased production of insulin (diabetes mellitus type 1, the first recognized form), or decreased sensitivity of body tissues to insulin (diabetes mellitus type 2, the more common form). The former requires insulin injections, otherwise death will occur within a month; thus insulin dependant for survival. The latter is generally managed with decreased carbohydrate intake and oral medications; it is only treated with insulin if the dietary and tablet(s) recommendations are ineffective. However, for type 2, lack of insulin treatment does not result in death in less than 1 month; insulin is a treatment option, although still commonly used.
to the previous version because
#Death does not always occur within a month if insulin is omitted in type 1. Although uncommon, there are enough circumstances when this does not occur that we should not make such a flat claim. The most notorious example is the honeymoon period. A hedged statement or insertion of "nearly always in established cases" would rectify that sentence.
#It is difficult to make simple generalizations about type 2, but a large proportion of people who develop type 2 have enough of an insulin deficiency to require insulin injections. Sometimes insulin sufficiency can revive with a combination of normoglycemia and improvement in insulin sensitivity; often it cannot. There is much evidence that early use of insulin can promote recovery of exhausted beta cells more effectively than ineffective use of oral medications, and this course is often recommended.
#Currently the traditional GP and internist management of type 2, sometimes caricatured as "treat to failure", leaves the majority of insulin-deficient people with type 2 chronically hyperglycemic by presenting insulin as a "patient option" differently than we do for type 1. The sentences seemed too redolent of that approach.
If you think this was too hasty a reversion I am open to compromise or modification on the wording. alteripse 23:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alteripse's version, although there could be some emphasis on the fact that type 1 diabetics are likely to deteriorate rapidly without treatment (cue to teenager stopping her insulin due to IV drug use jokes by peers). JFW | T@lk 23:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deterioration once beta cells are exhausted needs only hours. And, as stated, the honeymoon can even be years. I'd stick with the current version! InvictaHOG 03:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent reversion

message: I'm not sure why the cow's milk issue is back, it seems to be part of a larger debate over diet in general. Recent study (2006):
* Absence of breast-feeding is associated with the risk of type 1 diabetes: a case-control study in a population with rapidly increasing incidence
Recent (2005) review article:
*Is type 1 diabetes a disease of the gut immune system triggered by cow's milk insulin?
2004 review article:
*Bovine serum albumin and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus; is cow's milk still a possible toxicological causative agent of diabetes?
Older work:
*Nutritional risk predictors of beta cell autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes at a young age
*Cow's milk and type 1 diabetes: the real debate is about mucosal immune function
*Lack of association between duration of breast-feeding or introduction of cow's milk and development of islet autoimmunity 
*Nutritional factors and worldwide incidence of childhood type 1 diabetes<BR>
--JWSchmidt 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  milk