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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Would anybody object to my archiving some of this to a separate subpage?-- Coro 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
We seem to have two different claims recently, both un-cited:
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)
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)
Which seems to be inappropriate for an wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll agree. Anarchist42 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ww ( talk · contribs) added this:
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)
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)
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.
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)
Shouldn't there be some mention of MODY in the article somewhere?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Would anybody object to my archiving some of this to a separate subpage?-- Coro 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
We seem to have two different claims recently, both un-cited:
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)
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)
Which seems to be inappropriate for an wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll agree. Anarchist42 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Ww ( talk · contribs) added this:
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)
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)
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.
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)
Shouldn't there be some mention of MODY in the article somewhere?
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)
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)