Can we change the name? Has anyone tried this? I am so sick of people comparing it to their old, overweight relative that they know who has Type 2 diabetes! It's a different monster. Sorry...I don't wanna be in the same category.
With regards to autoimmunity, if there are no insulin antibodies, and no antibodies that signal an autoimmune reaction against the beta cells themselves then it isn't "crazy" to suggest that autoimmunity is an unlikely culprit in the development of Type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, the evidence strongly points to an exhaustion (leading to permanent disability in many cases) of the beta cells. This is why, for example, hypoglycemia is a common symptom in those with Type 2 diabetes. The beta cells have to work overtime producing enough insulin to cover the body's needs and frequently will overshoot, causing rebound low blood sugar. In any event, if you want to claim autoimmunity is involved then produce the evidence- antibodies. Without evidence, there really is no point in debating the issue.
You are correct in stating correlation does not prove causation. However, correlations are indicators that a causal link may exist. There are many links between insulin resistance and obesity. Fat tissue produces chemicals that are directly responsible for insulin resistance- a hallmark of Type 2 diabetes. Another strong correlation is the concurrent rise of Type 2 diabetes with obesity in the general population. It is not as if research moves from knowing nothing about causal links to knowing everything there is to know in one step.
Virtually everyone accepts that there are genes that contribute to Type 2 diabetes, even though there is no genetic test that can determine if someone is going to get the disease or not. But when it comes to obesity, I see a lot of comments like yours, which suggest people are rude or ignorant for pointing out the large body of evidence that links obesity and Type 2 diabetes. I suspect this is because no one can be held responsible for their genes, but most people can be held responsible for being obese.
No one is saying that we know all there is to know about all the kinds of diabetes, but you are suggesting we don't know anything and this is certainly not the case. If you are obese, you are at a much higher risk of Type 2 diabetes and if you are obese and have any kind of diabetes you are at higher risk for serious complications. I've been overweight in my life and so I don't judge anyone for that unless they are unwilling to address that issue and continue to deny it has any serious health implications in general or with regards to diabetes.
The key here is misinformation and ignorance. If there is one thing I have gained from this place is a more proper education on Diabetes. I say this because up until I joined this community I knew so little about type 2 that as far as I was concerned you didn't deserve the privilege of calling yourselves diabetics. When explaining my condition to others who only knew about type 2 I would say things like "first of all those fakers aren't even diabetic. If you can control it with diet and exercise you're not in the same boat with me."
I too thought of type 2 as a self-inflicted wound that was easy to manage and didn't deserve any real recognition. Now I know better and I have this community to thank for that.
Having said that, however, there is a great number of people with type 2 who are indeed in a very different category from the rest of us and quite frankly do give us not-by-choice diabetics a bad name. Like all coins this too has two sides.
As for a name change I utterly disagree. With the worldwide ignorance about diabetes the last thing we need is to throw out the word that gives us some recognition and support. Today it's not that hard to find a sponsor for a "Walk for Diabetes" fundraiser, but imagine trying to do the same for "Walk for IDS" or "Walk for APD". Unfortunately I think the burden of educating the world must continue to fall on our shoulders (by world I mean everyone including diabetics, and by shoulders I also mean everyone including diabetics).
I know how easy it can be to get pissed over such matters, but let's not start pissing on each other.
Please excuse the language.
We can all be grouped as diabetics don't get me wrong. There is power in numbers. There can still be events such as "the walk for diabetes". But when it needs further explanation I think the name differences would be much more helpful.
I also think that non-d's aren't trying to be ignorant with their lack of knowledge. It's how we preceive what they are saying. More infomative names will educate non-d's so that they know. We will then not feel as if their lack of knowledge is ignorant.
I like that - and agree educating others is the best option. When it comes right down to it, it's only because we have been forced into it that we know or care to know what type what means - my dad has been type 2 since his early 30's, and I knew very little about the difference for much of my life until my lucky number came up as a bonafide type 1 (a year ago last feb.) - and then it's like, whoa, this is a serious business... And for the most part, those who ask questions really do become interested as they begin to see how complex a system it is.
On a side note, an example of how things have changed, when my dad was diagnosed he was basically told to carry on. But stop putting sugar in his coffee...
I don't have a creative thought for a name change. But since I love factoids, here are a few:
1) When this topic comes up, someone always objects because they say that they are thin but were diagnosed as having Type 2 diabetes. So to Lahle I would say, do you truly know you have Type 2 diabetes or have you been misdiagnosed? If you were young and thin when diagnosed, it is far more likely that you were misdiagnosed and actually have Type 1 diabetes. Check out the LADA/Type 1.5 forum here, most of us with adult onset Type 1 were misdiagnosed as having Type 2, strictly based on our age not etiology. Antibody testing is the gold standard for Type 1 diagnosis, c-peptide is also useful. Thin and Type 2 is very rare, when you take the misdiagnosed (antibody positive) Type 1s out of the Type 2 category.
2) The original Greek term and the discussions by the Greeks described Type 1 diabetes.
3) Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes are completely different diseases, with different genetics, causes, treatments, and cures. Just a leftover from the days before the medical community knew about autoimmune diseases. Can't be compared with cancer.
4) The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation is a money making successful machine. They make quite an effort to differentiate Type 1 versus Type 2, to distance themselves from Type 2. Why? Because children (yes, JDRF doesn't promote all those pesky adult onset Type 1s) with a disease acquired through no action of their own get a lot of sympathy. Type 2s don't. I am not saying this is right, I am just saying that's JDRF's strategy. It has worked in terms of raising money for Type 1 research.
329,040 minutes, 329,040 moments so dear. 329,040 minutes — How do you measure, measure volunteers? In smileys, in tears shed, in counsel, in cups of coffee. In units, in carb counts, in laughter, in strife. In 329,040 minutes – how … Continue Reading
Diabetes Hands Foundation has always relied on partners and advisors to increase its understanding of the diabetes space, in order to better serve people touched by diabetes. Today this is as true as ever, as we proudly announce the expansion … Continue Reading