There’s a web-personality called Jim Jubak who is considered a serious writer on investments, or at least considers himself so; he does ‘research’.

These words appear on A blog posting of his, a newsletter, etc.:

“The worldwide explosion in diabetes has increased the demand for medicine to prevent the illness from advancing from Type 2 to Type 1 diabetes.


Always annoying. Another person that doesn’t understand the difference. He obviously has heard that a type 2 often progresses to needing insulin and needing insulin must mean you become a type 1. It’s one of the reasons I want a name change.


It’s sort of understandable, the confusion arises from the conflation of “type 1” and “insulin dependant”.

Probably better to refer to the distinct entities as distinct diseases with different causes and able to be treated without insulin in many (but not all) cases of type 2 and never without insulin with type 1.

1 Like

Or we could go back to using juvenile diabetes!!!

1 Like

“The worldwide explosion in diabetes has increased the demand for medicine to prevent the illness from advancing from Type 2 to Type 1 diabetes.

Maybe I just did not get the right medicine when I was 5 years old, and that’s why I got Type 1 at age 6. :man_shrugging:



Talking about things you don’t understand seems to be the modern reality.

Back 200 years ago no one knew there were 2 distinct diseases with totally different disease processes.

I can forgive people who came up with the term to cover anyone who has glucose spill into the urine.

It’s harder to give a pass with so much knowledge out there. It’s not as complicated as it appears to be.

I agree we should dump the term completely.

I have autoimmune islet cell failure.
Or Islet cell failure w/o autoimmune disease
Or you have insulin resistance.
Or insulin resistance paired with later stage insulin insufficiency
Geriatric insulin insufficiency

It could just be that easy. But old habits and labels die hard


Problem with going back to juvenile diabetes - many adults presenting with classic T1D symptoms will be mis-dx’d with T2D and many insurance company claims people think that adults with T1D are to old to have T1d - after all “it’s a childhood illness that you grow out of” I wish T2D would be renamed to “insulin resistancve” sijnce that is the hallmark of T2D.

1 Like

I don’t think that that journalist was terribly far off the mark. What he said was an explanation suitable for most people.

The problem is largely due to doctors who continue to insist on calling diabetes a disease with categories when it’s not, It’s only a symptom shared by many diseases. That fundamental misconception has infected the world, It’s not really any better to believe there are two diseases when there are many more,

[rant]Neiher my PCP nor my endo ssems to care that there are at least 13 different known things that are called diabetes, each with a different cause, because neither of them practices preventive medicine based on science. They treat people who are "il"based on signs and 3 cookbook protocols that only vary with pregnancy and the mistaken belief that competence is related to chronological age.

My PCP only recently accepted the idea that metformin doesn’t work for all persons he classifies as type 2 for reasons other than their lifestyle or how diligent or competent they are in following directions - because drug reps are now pushing drugs that work differently.

Until that changes, there is no practical difference to doctors in how the signs of dysglycemia are acquired, only their progression as they continue to treat them ineffectively, Those of us who do well using the cookbook only seem reinforce their biases. The mantra that every case of diabetes is different is only true because many diseases are being treated as if they are two.

it’s been established statistically that the majority of people who are not insulin dependent (aka type 2) will progress to becoming insulin dependent within 10 years. Once that happens the cookbook says to keep using the ineffective type 2 recipe and add the type 1 on top until it’s clear the type 2 recipe isn’t helping, And in the US most PCPs still only use the A1c to check the results of their ignorance.

With cooks like that it’s hardly surprising that so many cases of type 2 diabetes get unpalatable results.

Until the day comes - if it ever does -when medicine switches from treatment to scientific, not statistical, prevention of disease, then pragmatically, if you’re insulin dependent you might as well start describing yourself as type 1, meaning the type 2 cookbook recipes don’t work for you.

Diabetes carries so much baggage as misinfornation regarding cause and effect of type 2 in particular that the world may respond better to all our needs if it can just stop thinking that we know enough to prevent it - until we really we do - not just on Youtube,[/rant]

1 Like

It was not a serious suggestion.

Ha ha! We as a tribe are so good at sarcasm! I should have paid attention to your facial expression

What?!! And disregarded his vocal inflection?

1 Like