The Simis family, Atticus, Sarah, Arthur and Ophelia, pose for a photo in Gardnerville, Nevada, on Sept 24. Photo: Simis family/Handout via REUTERS
health

Doctors probe whether COVID-19 is causing diabetes

34 Comments
By Chad Terhune

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

They forgot to mention to not forget to get vaccinated. Is that next?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Gotta ramp up the fear. Too many people getting skeptical.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Gotta ramp up the fear. Too many people getting skeptical.

So are you dismissing a medical question for political reasons?

You are not starting from a good place.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

JimizoToday  10:12 am JST

Gotta ramp up the fear. Too many people getting skeptical.

So are you dismissing a medical question for political reasons?

You are not starting from a good place.

I'm not dismissing it, but am skeptical about the motivations behind an article like this. We're looking at correlation for the time being, not causation.

A little bit of commonsense in an otherwise sensationalist waste of electrons:

Dr. Lily Chao, director of the type 2 diabetes clinic there, said the hospital is still investigating whether this increase is driven by exposure to COVID-19.

This "article" is full of emotional buzzwords designed to ramp up the fear. It's not so much a news item as an manipulative diatribe.

"worry"

"dangerous relationship" - could have said "potential relationship" but that wouldn't have the intended effect.

"infections flare up again" could be "infections rise again"

“These cases are coming from every corner of the world and every continent,” Rubino told Reuters. Gross exaggeration. Aside for a handful of cases in the US an UK, they offer no other evidence of this.

"ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING’ DIAGNOSIS" - headline designed to elicit fear and terror

"as the pandemic raged" - made to sound like this is the bubonic plague that kills huge numbers in its wake.

Simis believes his son had been infected by the coronavirus because the father and his wife experienced symptoms in the spring. The couple went to urgent care but never got tested for the coronavirus because of stricter testing criteria at the time. Atticus tested negative for an active coronavirus infection in the ICU, medical records show. But he was never tested for antibodies that could show whether he was exposed weeks earlier.

So does he have antibodies or not? Did they test him for them later? This article doesn't even say. But that's not really important, it seems.

Articles like this one are regularly doing the rounds of the media, so it's nothing out of the ordinary. And there are thousands of medical experts, including those in the fields of virology, immunology and the like who disagree with the official narrative about SARS-CoV2. New things are being learned every day, and indeed there may indeed be a link between this virus and diabetes, but that, and what underlying conditions if any trigger the response, remain to be confirmed.

Unfortunately, there is an inextricable link between this virus and politics. In part because many politicians and the like have taken advantage of it to entrench their own power through creating a fearful population that will resign themselves to give up their liberties for a (false) sense of security. At least that seems to be where things are heading, and the new buzzword "COVID-normal" gets bandied about frequently nowadays as the conditions we're supposed to get used to living under.

What does that even mean when the goalposts are constantly being shifted?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

So are you dismissing a medical question for political reasons?

You are not starting from a good place.

Unfortunately people that only see conspiracies tend to disregard medical and scientific truths as simply as ways to manipulate people. The many other uses for spreading knowledge and information simply escape them, all has to be always about the conspiracy.

This "article" is full of emotional buzzwords designed to ramp up the fear. It's not so much a news item as an manipulative diatribe.

You were unable to "eliminate" the buzzwords without changing completely the meaning, that should be a very strong hint why they were used. The purpose is to call for attention, that is obviously what every news article means, but the "hidden" purpose of "eliciting fear and terror" is completely your subjective, personal opinion, and as such it cannot be imposed as truth. The article makes a very good job not assuming causality and putting adequate qualificators to what is being thought is happening.

People should be attentive, recognize the signs for a complication that could be increasing, the same as many others that are appearing continuously after humans are being exposed to a new disease, this would let people take proper care and consult with the medical professionals in an opportune time. That is the opposite of being terrorized. Knowledge is the best remedy against fear, pretending that every single piece of knowledge that you don't like is meant to manipulate is not justified, nor positive.

There are always "hundreds" and "thousands" of nameless professionals that supposedly disagree with the "narrative", how about a reference to see them, and specially the data they base their disagreement? it would not be the first time professional opinions are misrepresented and people disagree with perfectly rational details, but not with the general measures recommended for the pandemic.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

There are always "hundreds" and "thousands" of nameless professionals that supposedly disagree with the "narrative", how about a reference to see them, and specially the data they base their disagreement? it would not be the first time professional opinions are misrepresented and people disagree with perfectly rational details, but not with the general measures recommended for the pandemic.

For a start, what about the ones who signed the Great Barrington Declaration? Follow them up for yourself.

You dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your worldview as a conspiracy theory. Do you even know what the word means? Police, lawyers etc are always theorising about conspiracies to work out the details of crimes and the like, which by definition makes them conspiracy theorists. Just not the type you're thinking of.

Even you would acknowledge that politicians and the like regularly lie and distort the truth for any number of ends, right? Do you think the same people those calling for/implementing lockdowns and pushing for mass vaccination are doing it for the greater good? And remember, not all science is good science, regardless of the field. Any science can be misused to push a certain agenda, product or idea, whether it be political or commercial.

How about those scientists and doctors who have worked for the tobacco industry? And remember Thalidomide? Scientists in both the renewable energy and fossil fuel industries who will publish questionable results to meet the needs of their industries. How about the dodgy science that condemned saturated fats in favour of unsaturated ones, which people all over the world built food pyramids and diets upon. I don't have the time to go through and list all of them, but to have faith that the line governments are trotting out is undoubtedly the right course to take is naive at best.

Scientists and doctors are human, and are fallible like the rest of us, They're not immune to taking a certain views, actions or sides for economic, moral or political reasons. The scientific method and peer review help to sort the wheat from the chaff, but they are tools that can be misused. Of course, most are likely to be good and honest, but that doesn't mean that there are no bad apples in the mix.

As for the manipulative language, read it again. News articles are supposed to present facts and let readers make up their minds for themselves. Injecting emotive terms into the text sensationalises the article and changes it from fact to opinion. Think about it.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

You dismiss everything that doesn't conform to your worldview as a conspiracy theory. Do you even know what the word means? Police, lawyers etc are always theorising about conspiracies to work out the details of crimes and the like, which by definition makes them conspiracy theorists. Just not the type you're thinking of.

A baseless conspiracy is always less valuable than a simpler explanation that has proof. If your first thought about seeing a puddle after rain is that maybe someone put it there for some sinister purpose you have your conspiracy, but it is still completely worthless.

This makes people disregard your opinion completely after seeing how that is the only explanation you have for everything. And it can even make you to not give any value to what you yourself say. One day you say one thing but the next day you do the opposite. For example making comment only to say you see no point in trying to discuss anything with me and that you would not do it anymore, only to do it anyway because being coherent is not a priority for you.

Anything can be false, but that does not mean that by default you can consider false anything you don't like and the opposite the pinnacle of truth. For that you need evidence, specifically the scientific kind. If someone imagines an explanation, much more convoluted and less likely than what is normal, and that does not agree with reality as much, there is simply no need to listen to that. First get enough evidence and then you can ask for attention. All your examples began with evidence, and the evidence at this point say that in general the current measures are justified.

There is no data behind the Barrington Declaration, no studies, no analysis, no proper scientific discussion about objective measurements that can prove (as in general) that the approach taken by the health authorities of the world is wrong. As always, in science the whole point is not who says something but what data there is to prove what its being said. As you said, the signers of the declaration are human and fallible, which would explain how they disagree without even taking the time to prove why their disagreement is valid. After all it is much more likely that people without data behind them are wrong that those that actually have it and allows them to make precise predictions that turn out right.

News articles are not scientific papers, they are made to call for attention to inform and that is fine as long as they do not twist the truth, there is no need for a conspiracy to manipulate the world to explain why the news do what they have always been doing, specially when written responsibly.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

We're looking at correlation for the time being, not causation.

Is some cases, not even that. If we look at Atticus Simis, the only evidence they gave for him having been effected is that his parent had symptoms in the spring. That's it!

I get the feeling this pandemic is approaching the end, and we might never get a large second wave. It does appear some are desperate to keep the fear going, keep the control, and sell us the solutions.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

I get the feeling this pandemic is approaching the end, and we might never get a large second wave

Feelings and mights are useless here.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

This makes people disregard your opinion completely after seeing how that is the only explanation you have for everything. And it can even make you to not give any value to what you yourself say. One day you say one thing but the next day you do the opposite. For example making comment only to say you see no point in trying to discuss anything with me and that you would not do it anymore, only to do it anyway because being coherent is not a priority for you.

Cheap shot, but I guess the ammo is running low. So, who are you to say whether I should or shouldn’t post? I guess you’re unfamiliar with the concept of free will.

And it’s my explanation for everything? Again, you seem to be unfamiliar with nuances of human nature, and what motivates people to act or not acts in certain ways. Hate to break it to you, but you’re not the arbiter of what is true or isn’t, and neither am I. But on top of the science, it’d be unwise to ignore individuals’ motivations and who benefits at the expense of whom or what, and any potential conflicts of interest.

Regarding the GBD, it’s a principle based on the informed opinion of the experts who made it based on their prior and current research, and supported by people who agree with it -thousands of who are medical experts in those or related fields. Take it up with them, not me. Maybe they know more than you do.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Cheap shot, but I guess the ammo is running low. So, who are you to say whether I should or shouldn’t post? I guess you’re unfamiliar with the concept of free will.

Quote me where did I say you should or not post anything, I only make the point that if you yourself give no value about what you write you can expect the same from everybody else as well. Contradicting yourself is a sure way to show how little you care about being truthful.

There are much better explanations for a lot of things you consider inevitably caused by the conspiration for which you have no proof. Those explanations are simpler, require no convoluted mechanisms and have proof to support them, the rational option is to consider them as the truth until proved the opposite, but conspiracy theorists are not rational, they want to believe whatever they want to believe, and logic or reason are just obstacles for their beliefs.

There is something much more unwise that ignoring motivations, and that is to ignore reality and evidence for what you think might be those motivations. Conflicts of interest are important but not more than the scientific evidence. It is still interesting how you can so easily choose to ignore the huge undisclosed COIs from the 3 main people that sign the Barrington Declaration, they make money directly by their support of the discredited idea of natural infection as a safe mechanisms of reaching herd immunity, but for you they are a valid reference only because they say what you want to believe. They are much more closer to those "tobacco bought scientists" you complained about. The worst thing? their position is precisely where the COIs completely disqualify them, they have no valid data to support their points so they are asking for people to believe them just for who they are. It was not surprising either that many of those signatures were proven to be faked.

It is not me who they have to know better than (I never said it was my expertise the one that justify the measures), its the general consensus of the academic community from people that have to do with pandemic control and public health in the whole world, at least the huge lot that can put the lives of the people first without worrying about losing the money they get from supporting an indiscriminate spreading to "open the economy".

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Quote me where did I say you should or not post anything, I only make the point that if you yourself give no value about what you write you can expect the same from everybody else as well. Contradicting yourself is a sure way to show how little you care about being truthful. 

Give no value? You can twist meanings all you like, but to truth is the ultimate goal here. I'm curious, do actually read sources that contravene your worldview to get an idea about what and how others think? Put yourself into their shoes?

Watch these and get back to me. And watch the whole things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbMJoJ6i39k&t=16s

https://thefatemperor.com/ep98-be-safe-heading-into-this-viral-winter-all-explained-here/

It is still interesting how you can so easily choose to ignore the huge undisclosed COIs from the 3 main people that sign the Barrington Declaration, they make money directly by their support of the discredited idea of natural infection as a safe mechanisms of reaching herd immunity, but for you they are a valid reference only because they say what you want to believe. 

Point out the COIs. Go on.

Conflicts of interest are important but not more than the scientific evidence.

The issue with conflicts of interest, as I'm sure you're perfectly aware, is that they colour the evidence and may motivate people to highlight positive evidence or suppress negative evidence and vice-versa. And it can reasonably call into question a person's judgment and credibility based on, say, ownership of shares in a drug company while they're a senior government advisor that advocates for mass vaccination. You know, like Sir Patrick Vallance owing 600,000 pounds in shares in a company contracted to develop shares in vaccines. Vallance appear to be very intelligent man and probably quite wealthy, so it's worth asking the question of whether this shareholding would be a major proportion of his wealth. Maybe, maybe not, but the morally right thing to do would be to sell the shares if decisions he makes as a public advisor could unfairly advantage that company.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

This reminds me of how all evils are dumped on the enemy to drum up public support for an unwarranted war.

Similarly, we've heard things about Covid19 worded in a way to drum up public support for intrusive measures. First it was the greatly exaggerated predictions, then the apparent "long term physical damage" (inflammation), and the antibody production dropping quickly (actually very typical and not an indication of short-term immunity). Now someone had the brilliant idea of scaring us with diabetes, without any proof. And I am sure that if there is an increase in diabetes cases, perhaps real or perhaps due to increased testing, it will automatically be blamed on Covid19, rather than people staying home eating crap, not exercising, and being mentally stressed. Anything to control people and sell unnecessary vaccines.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Give no value? You can twist meanings all you like, but to truth is the ultimate goal here.

That would be for people that try to be truthful and use only reliable and trustful information to base their opinions, for someone that does not even hesitate to lie just because it is perfectly normal to assume the goal is different.

do actually read sources that contravene your worldview to get an idea about what and how others think?

Sure, all the time, obviously when they are primary sources, as in peer reviewed scientific articles, the kind you never bring because mistakenly believe videos are primary sources. That may be why you end up not even knowing you support people with hugely disqualifying COIs, even when it is a well know problem all around the internet, that apparently only you ignore, maybe on purpose.

For example

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89204

That did not even make you think twice about supporting them, even when they did not even had any real evidence, just their personal opinion, completely tainted by their economic gain from convincing people that the rest of the scientific community are wrong and only they are right.

So if on the side of the consensus you get all kinds of people, including those that benefit personally but also those that only benefit because they can actually do better their jobs of saving people's health and lives, but on the other side you have people without any evidence, that benefit personally from convincing people then precisely the COIs are the reason why it is much more rational to listen to the science based consensus, because you can eliminate everybody with them and you still get the consensus.

Or more simply, if you have liars (the ones that say one thing but then do the opposite) on both sides of a problem, and people without COIs only on one side, then the logical thing is go towards the side with people without them, they are more likely to be right, EVEN if some of the liars share their opinion, because obviously the truth does not change just because people with lousy reputations happen to support it.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

This reminds me of how all evils are dumped on the enemy to drum up public support for an unwarranted war.

Like vaccines and other safe and effective medical interventions, doctors, pharmaceutical companies or the media. Whatever it is that does not conform to the irrational ideas of antivaxxers and other science deniers automatically becomes the pinnacle of evil, not that they may be mistaken, for religious believers on conspiracy theories they can never do anything good, no matter how much valid evidence they have about something, they will always be wrong and trying to manipulate the world, even if that cost them their family and friends lives.

It may be because those science deniers actually believe money is the only important thing, that is why they believe so easily that millions of people dedicated to inform, cure others or run a company are all in it just for the money and would sacrifice everything for it, like they would do.

It is easy to identify them not only because they blame anything and everything on them, but because they never have evidence to support them, just beliefs and suppositions, and sometimes because they pretend to be anonymous authorities on the field or express the secret opinion of countless "experts" that only they can see.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I have a relative with type 1 diabetes and recently a young niece was diagnosed. It is a tough condition because of the ongoing need to give yourself shots every meal, however, in the past it was a death sentence. I hope that they figure out how to cure it soon.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89204

Are you serious? This joke of an article is nothing but a pathetic hit piece trying to discredit the GBD. authors and and anyone who signed it. Unlike the vaccine industry, they don’t have a financial interest in extending lockdowns and promoting mass vaccination. The libertarian think tank supporting them is about letting people go about their daily lives, not locking people up and jabbing them with needles or else.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Like vaccines and other safe and effective medical interventions

safe, like the flu vaccine that recently killed 59 Koreans?

It may be because those science deniers...

So it is anti-science to not accept the above Covid19-diabetes relationship, or to point out basic immunology.

Weak, very weak.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

safe, like the flu vaccine that recently killed 59 Koreans?

Again, mistaken, 59 people died after being vaccinated, which is very different from dying from the vaccine, and still a tiny microscopic number compared with the number of people that die of the flu in Korea every year.

That would mean that yes, even if the vaccine were the culprit (something that at this point is becoming less and less likely according to the Korean authorities) that would still mean it is safer than not vaccinating.

So it is anti-science to not accept the above Covid19-diabetes relationship, or to point out basic immunology.

No, its antiscience to assume its not possible that the relationship could exist, even with plenty of examples of other viral infections having been proved as causative agents.

It is scientifically illiterate to think something is impossible just because there is no evidence (yet). It is anti-scientific to think something is impossible even with valid evidence pointing out towards that conclusion, just because you don't want it to be true.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

So it is anti-science to not accept the above Covid19-diabetes relationship, or to point out basic immunology.

Your problem is a mindset which is wired for conspiracy theories. You are neck-deep in them. You are not an expert in this field but you automatically jump to dismissal because of the mindset you bring.

Wouldn’t the best approach be an ‘I don’t know’ and wait to see if this relationship is valid or not.

You could of course later run to the old-faithful , conversation-ending ‘bought and paid for’ line for the scientists if a relationship is found and perhaps give us a Youtube link to an outlier opinion.

Then we can just wish each other a pleasant day as we leave the conversation.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Type 1 diabetes cases have previously been associated with other viral infections, including influenza and previous coronaviruses. It is known that infections can stress the body and increase blood sugar levels.

Well, if that is the case, it would not be surprising is this new Corona does the same.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@rawbeer

Sorry, I know you probably do it on purpose to make other conspiracy believers seem ignorant, but just in the remote case you don't, you really need to inform yourself better about diabetes.

"People staying home and eating crap" as you say have absolutely no importance for diabetes type I as described in the article, and no testing is necessary to detect people going into ketoacidosis coma, them almost dying when reaching the ER is enough to detect something wrong is happening.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

you really need to inform yourself better about diabetes.

"People staying home and eating crap" as you say have absolutely no importance for diabetes type I as described in the article,

What?!!!

Eating crap definitely has a big effect on autoimmune disease. Stress and lack of exercise probably do too.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease.

Again, mistaken, 59 people died after being vaccinated,

Yeah, but they were vaccinated. The above article gives as an example the kid in the picture, who we don't even know if he had Covid-19. All we know is that his parents had symptoms in the spring. And according to you, bringing this up is unscientific or a sign of science illiteracy!!!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@raw beer

No, you are still completely wrong, there is no indication that diet or lifestyle has anything to do with diabetes type 1 appearing.

A typical description of the causes of the diseases is as follows

Some people have certain genes (traits passed on from parent to child) that make them more likely to develop type 1 diabetes, though many won’t go on to have type 1 diabetes even if they have the genes. Being exposed to a trigger in the environment, such as a virus, is also thought to play a part in developing type 1 diabetes. Diet and lifestyle habits don’t cause type 1 diabetes.

You need to inform yourself better, unless your purpose is the other one I mentioned, in which case you are doing an excellent job.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

OK, so perhaps diet would be the "trigger" rather than the "cause" of diabetes type 1.

So, what's your point?

From a recent review article:

Recently, the onset of type 1 diabetes (T1D) has increased rapidly and became a major public health concern worldwide. Various factors are associated with the development of T1D, such as diet, genome, and intestinal microbiota. [ Int J Mol Sci 2018 Mar 27;19(4):995. doi: 10.3390/ijms19040995.]

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@raw beer

Did you even read your own reference? the "diet" they talk about is about breastfeeding or when some food are introduced to babies, exclusively. This is just grasping at straws in something you are (or want to appear) completely ignorant.

My point is that saying that people eating crap, not exercising and stressing because of covid is causing or triggering diabetes type 1 is nonsense not supported by any kind of evidence but just your mistaken imagination.

oh! once again the other "person" is posting at the same time as you, giving up trying to keep appearances?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Eating crap definitely has a big effect on autoimmune disease. Stress and lack of exercise probably do too.

Sure, just bring the studies to prove diet, stress and lack of exercise as factors for diabetes I, and by the way also whatever made you think that diabetes I would need increased testing to be found, instead of simply wait for people to get very sick as is normal for those patients.

oh! once again the other...

Good catch, but its been quite obvious for some time already.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I've listened to a number of diet experts over the years discussing things like ketogenic diet, carnivore diet, and fasting. Diet clearly has an effect on triggering/causing/speeding up the development of diabetes; both type 1 and 2, though probably more impact on type 2. I won't go through everything I've listened to again to find something for you.... but perhaps this will do:

A 2008 study showed that a highly glycemic diet can speed up the progression to type 1 diabetes in children.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008 Oct;93(10):3936-42. doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-0886.

And this one by Valter Longo (this is one guy I followed): "Fasting-Mimicking Diet Promotes Ngn3-Driven β-Cell Regeneration to Reverse Diabetes" (T1D and T2D)

Cell 2017 Feb 23;168(5):775-788.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.040.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

and by the way also whatever made you think that diabetes I would need increased testing to be found, instead of simply wait for people to get very sick as is normal for those patients.

Are you suggesting that one moment everything is completely normal, and then suddenly everything shuts down and you get very sick?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

speed up the progression to type 1 diabetes

Duh! because diet is a very important part of the treatment of the disease, something completely different from originating it, which is what you mistakenly wrote. That is like saying that combination antiviral therapy is very important on HIV serum levels... so antivirals must be the reason why the virus appear in the first place, pure nonsense.

Your references only prove you don't understand the topic in the first place and now you are trying to change what you said so maybe you can find something to save you. You also failed completely to show anything about excercise and stress.

The one that is actually caused by diet and sedentary life is the type II, which you were obviously confused until were corrected.

Are you suggesting that one moment everything is completely normal, and then suddenly everything shuts down and you get very sick?

No, I am telling you that diabetes I is normally detected by an extremely clear syndrome that frequently puts in danger the life of the patient, not by testing someone that appears completely normal as you thought. Again the one that is silent for a long time and for which testing is important is type II.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No, I am telling you that diabetes I is normally detected by an extremely clear syndrome that frequently puts in danger the life of the patient,

Yeah, I know that is how it is normally detected, just like the flu is usually tested and confirmed in people that show symptoms of the disease. But Covid19 has now turned into a casedemic (not pandemic) by testing everyone.

I realize that you are desperately trying to prove me wrong and now focusing on a minor detail (which I showed that I am not wrong) but you ignore my main point, that the article uses as an example a kid that was not shown to have been infected with SARSCoV2 (his parents had symptoms in the spring).

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Yeah, I know that is how it is normally detected, just like the flu is usually tested and confirmed in people that show symptoms of the disease. But Covid19 has now turned into a casedemic (not pandemic) by testing everyone.

That is irrelevant, if you think a nose or throat swab will report the levels of glycated hemoglobin you are simply wrong. It does not matter at all how much anybody test for COVID-19, diabetes I would not see an increase of diagnoses. For that to happen it would be necessary an increase of symptomatic patients compatible with the disease.

More simply, an increase of DM I diagnostics can be only attributed to an increase of cases, the fallacious "casedemic" argument has no value. It would be as valid to call a casedemic of hypertension or cholesterolemia just because people can be detected with the disease even at a time where they don't have any evident health problem.

To recapitulate, diabetes I is not caused by stress, nor by lack of exercise, nor by changes in the diet (that obviously don't even have to happen because of a lockdown). Detections would not increase just because people are tested more for COVID-19. So all the minor details are actually everything you said.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Detections would not increase just because people are tested more for COVID-19.

Who said anything about detecting T1D with Covid19 screening? As always, you misunderstand my posts, intentionally perhaps.

My point was that if they started increasing screening for T1D (not with Covid19 tests), they would get an increase in DT1 cases, and certain people with an agenda would blame it on covid19.

And yes, diet is a critical part of the treatment for T1D, but studies have shown that a highly glycemic diet can speed up the progression to type 1 diabetes in children. And fasting mimicking diet may reverse it.

And so yeah, although diet and stress do not cause T1D, they can certainly speed up the appearance of symptoms. Perhaps that is what happened to kid mentioned. We know he was "stressed out from being trapped at home in the pandemic" (and perhaps not eating well) and we don't even know whether he had covid19; so why is he mentioned in the article? If they need to resort to using him as an example, then the evidence for a covid19-T1D relationship is ... weak.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

My point was that if they started increasing screening for T1D (not with Covid19 tests), they would get an increase in DT1 cases, and certain people with an agenda would blame it on covid19.

There is no reason nor need for an increased screening for Diabetes I, the cases are all detected by their very heavy symptomatology (or overwhelming risk from family history), you are still thinking about diabetes II, which can run silently for years and for which screening is necessary to get the diagnosis opportunely. You really need to inform yourself better, you could begin by reading the articles you brought yourself, none of them support your mistaken assumptions, but at least the introductions would help you understand why your theory of the "increased screening" is nonsense.

Again, if diet is part of the treatment it is obvious that this is because not controlling it makes the progression worse, (it is not like people could eat nothing and keep living). That has no importance on the origin of the disease. To say it again more clearly, the diet part comes AFTER the disease already began, not before.

Speeding up the symptoms would have no impact on the detection on an epidemiological scale. You may have the cases of March as early as January, but the whole year would still be the same, you are again thinking about diabetes II, that takes a huge lot more of time. Speeding up the onset would not make the number of cases higher, a viral infection that triggers it would, because that single stimulus is the difference between getting the disease or not, that is well known, described even in your references.

If they need to resort to using him as an example, then the evidence for a covid19-T1D relationship is ... weak.

Again, that is the problem when you are used to consume propaganda made with the sole intention to mislead people into a fixed conclusion of the author's liking. In normal journalism there is no fixed conclusion to "protect" so its perfectly fine to give the information freely, some for and some against what is being told that may be happening (nobody has to "resort" to tell the truth). I know this must be a whole new experience for you, but it would be very positive to get used to it. Try reading again the article without your your prejudice about someone trying to "force a narrative".

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites