Revision as of 06:47, 17 February 2012 editGraham87 (talk | contribs)Account creators, Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Importers, Rollbackers291,950 edits standardise archive name and provide link to most recent archive (which has apparently been orphaned since 2009!), I found this talk page at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Categorising archived talk pages← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:06, 20 February 2012 edit undo212.19.100.146 (talk) →ReaderNext edit → | ||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
== Reader == | == Reader == | ||
Apologies for not adhereing the proper "talk page" protocol, but I am unfamiliar with the mandated methods for posting relevant criticism on this site. Having said that... | |||
HOW THE HELL IS OBESITY MENTIONED ONLY THREE TIMES IN THIS ARTICLE? The vast majority of scientific literature on the subject indicates a strong correlation between the incidence of obesity and diabetes; furthermore, there exists a body of evidence detailing how obesity physiologically causes type II diabetes. If this article is to be relevant (don't give me that "neutrality" bullshit, everything must exist within a certain context as there are no privileged frames of reference), then it should elaborate how increases in the diagnosis of diabetes amongst developed nations is due to obesity, which itself is due to sedendtary lifestyles and excessive caloric intake. Geneitc propensity to acquire diabetes is substantial with type I diabetes, not type II. | |||
== Diagnosis section == | == Diagnosis section == |
Revision as of 18:06, 20 February 2012
Diabetes is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
Medicine B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Reader
Apologies for not adhereing the proper "talk page" protocol, but I am unfamiliar with the mandated methods for posting relevant criticism on this site. Having said that...
HOW THE HELL IS OBESITY MENTIONED ONLY THREE TIMES IN THIS ARTICLE? The vast majority of scientific literature on the subject indicates a strong correlation between the incidence of obesity and diabetes; furthermore, there exists a body of evidence detailing how obesity physiologically causes type II diabetes. If this article is to be relevant (don't give me that "neutrality" bullshit, everything must exist within a certain context as there are no privileged frames of reference), then it should elaborate how increases in the diagnosis of diabetes amongst developed nations is due to obesity, which itself is due to sedendtary lifestyles and excessive caloric intake. Geneitc propensity to acquire diabetes is substantial with type I diabetes, not type II.
Diagnosis section
I dont agree with using glyslated hemoglobin for diagnosis of diabetis. determination of HbA1c levels has not been universally considered a specific diagnostic test for diabetes See http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/117739-workup under the section of "Measurement of Glycated Hemoglobin levels" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueleowdeo (talk • contribs) 14:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Piece on "Today" programme
I thought that if this article included reference to the section on the Radio Four programme Today on December 14 2011, it would update the piece. The interview with Bob Young can be heard as a podcast on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9661000/9661714.stm
There were other sections on "Today" however, that mentioned diabetes, stressing how better management of diabetes (such as improvements of diet on both Diabetes_mellitus_type_1 and Diabetes_mellitus_type_2, or better control of insulin therapy in Diabetes_mellitus_type_1, could prevent many deaths each year through diabetes. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Removal of my piece
I did put in a reference to the article on the "Today" programme, but some one has removed it on the grounds that Misplaced Pages is not news, citing http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NOTNEWS to justify this removal. However, if Misplaced Pages is not news, how come it already has an article on the Liege shootings, which can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/2011_Li%C3%A8ge_attack
ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
drinking extreme amounts ...
"drinking extreme amounts of sugar-containing drinks" come on... . What kind of happy horse shit is this? Extreme? Like 15 gallons a day? Delete this bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random User 643873 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done and feel free to begin editing yourself. We are so few and the content is so great... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- 15 gallons per day would definitely be a concern. :-) | pulmonological 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- 15 gallons per day of anything would definitely be a concern. :-) (User:miketosh) 20:14 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- 15 gallons per day would definitely be a concern. :-) | pulmonological 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done and feel free to begin editing yourself. We are so few and the content is so great... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Glucagon's the boss
Just when we thought we understood diabetes, doi:10.1172/JCI60016 provides a completely different paradigm that suggests that glucagon is the central player in the pathogenesis of diabetes. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
ref error on note 27
There is a ref error on 27 --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Distinction from the Disease and the resulting diagnosis
In the into 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)
Categories: