Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 24, 2012 at 7:24pm

"Never" is a very long time!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nel on April 24, 2012 at 7:41pm

Europe is broke !!! The Dutch Government resigned yesterday : NO support for austerity ...very sad but true .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Holger Schmeken on April 25, 2012 at 1:59am

The resignment of the Dutch Government is not welcome in Germany. Combined with the victory of Hollande in France this is not good. But broke is not the right word. Europe could resolve its current problems just by taxing its assets. Broke is when the debts are greater than the assets. Let us take a look at per head numbers in different countries:

Greece: 30000€ debts VS 56000€ assets => not broke!
Ireland: 23000€ debts VS 74000€ assets => not broke!
Portugal: 12000€ debts VS 48000€ assets => not broke!
Italy: 29000€ debts VS 130000€ assets => not broke!
Germany: 24000€ debts VS 104000€ assets => not broke!
Austria: 22000€ debts VS 101000€ assets => not broke!

DRUM ROLE

USA: 32000€ debts VS 22000€ assets => well?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BadMoonT2 on April 25, 2012 at 3:59am

I actually think something like this is inevitable, here in the US, as health care costs continue growing faster than inflation. At some point the pressure to trim the cost of insurance will become too much. Instead of tackling the insurance companies, who have the Congress bought and sold, this will be the line of least resistance.

The first target will be the overweight. The line of reasoning will be that your weight is costing the normal weight folks money, and to solve this problem you will have to pay more for your medical care, or perhaps your care will be inferior, as in the example of Hungary. The line of reasoning will be, this will give you an incentive to loose those extra pounds. Diabetics of all stripes will not be far behind with an A1C standard being imposed. Appropriate penalties will be imposed for non compliance.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes we are all perfectible, and that a utopian future is just over the horizon. In this brave new world everyone will be slim and everyone's A1c will be indistinguishable from a non diabetics. Everyone's kids will also be above average:)

In my experience we are all flawed to one degree or another, and most of us are only perfectible around the edges. I hope I'm wrong, but something will have to be done about health care costs, the question is what.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BadMoonT2 on April 25, 2012 at 10:44am

"Pat" the diabetic starch queen dietician:)

This whole scenario could certainly generate some Orwellian paranoid fantasy's if one were so inclined!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerri on April 25, 2012 at 4:13pm

Hmmm, can we start taxing the ADA & CDA & the Pats to hold them responsible:)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BadMoonT2 on April 25, 2012 at 5:06pm

The "Pat the diabetic starch queen dieticians" of the world are adamant in their belief that they are in sole possession of dietetic truth.

Here's an article about "The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition" (The Ministry of Dietetic Truth?) who "is threatening to send a blogger to jail for recounting publicly his battle against diabetes and encouraging others to follow his lifestyle." The blogger in question, Steve Cooksey, follows a low carb/paleo diet and has had success using it to control his diabetes. He makes no bones about his disdane for the standard dietetic advice and apparently those who have been the target of his attacks have taken notice. If he doesn't take down his site he faces up to 120 days in jail!

Although they claim to be following science the "ADA Minions" as Cooksey calls them:) are defending a paradigm that is decades out of date. In science all paradigms/theories are open to reexamination in the spirit of advancing our understanding. I think it's bad form to threaten the questioners with jail.

"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc." George Orwell 1984.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 25, 2012 at 5:31pm

Interesting link and story, on the frontier of free speech and the internet? I read the rest of the link to the edits done by the board and I have to agree that he ought not to be selling his services, however useful, without a license? That perhaps crosses the frontier although it's also interesting that he's seemed to have helped a number of people too?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BadMoonT2 on April 25, 2012 at 6:26pm

I poked around his site and could not find that he is selling anything beyond some videos by 3rd parties. Perhaps the threats by the The North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition had an effect on him. He does have a rather all encompassing disclaimer page in which he freely admits he has no credentials and no education beyond self education and his own experience. He says "Personal advice will not be given on this site. This site is ONLY intended for educational purposes ONLY. Providing people with the information on a “real” diabetes diet is my goal. Creating other Diabetes Warriors…is my desire!" With a disclaimer like that one has to at least raise free speech concerns.

It certainly didn't alter his opinion of the "ADA Minions". He is a bit on the strident side, but that sometimes is what happens when you are given disastrous advice by experts. I follow a similar diet and have achieved some success, although I am not able to do it without the assistance of drugs, as he has been able to do, so I am probably predisposed to be sympathetic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 25, 2012 at 6:31pm

The link I found was here: http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Website_..., in their review. It seems sort of "grey area" to me but I could see it crossing a regulatory line? Like about 1/2 of what I post here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BadMoonT2 on April 25, 2012 at 6:57pm

These criticisms seem a little nit picky to me. As you say this website is full of posts where someone poses a question and is given advice. Where does it stop? If a neighbor asks me what I am doing and how it is working do I have to refer therm to a registered dietician for fear that Big Brother with learn of the conversation? I do know that without tuD my control would be in a world of hurt. Crowd sourcing is a powerful thing that the internet has given us and I am free to accept or reject any advice I am given.

To me if he was charging for his services that would clearly cross the line, since he is not it's free speech.

I have to question whether this is just a case of the attackee fighting back with the tools available to them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by acidrock23 on April 26, 2012 at 4:18am

I think I usually try to say "I usually change my dose by 10% and see what happens" or "some people have reported getting decent results splitting their Lantus, which I've never taken" and other sort of "disclaimery" things? It's hard to read stories and think "man, that doctor is an idiot" but you don't know what sort of data the doc's being provided with or what other factors might be involved in a scenario. I feel like I can guess and I am *very* skeptical of a lot of people's doctors. I think that it's reasonable for a state to regulate medical advice but stuff like "he needs to get off the 'carb up and shoot up meal plan'" is pretty clearly medical advice. It also occurs to me that posting people's medical "chats" is sort of a HIPAA violation too? Maybe he's got an emailed permission but that's not how that process works, as the forms have federally mandated requirements.

I also have to suspect that he doesn't have malpractice insurance? If I were betting, I'd bet that he probably doesn't have enough insurance to cover himself either, should something "interesting" (horrible!) happen? And, since it appears there's at least a hint that what he's doing is or at least may be illegal, if he DOES have insurance, it may not cover the activities in which he's engaged, presenting a problem for claimants which, in turn, exposes his personal property in a rather alarming way?? I can see free speech as being useful but, OTOH, the whole "DOC" thing is fraught with peril too.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page