Big pharmacuetical companies DO want to find a cure. I'll make it simple. Over my remaining lifetime (going on average another 40 yrs left) they will get 48,000 to 100,000 dollars from me for medication (not actually from me, but from insurance, the VA system, etc). Imagine what the first company to come up with a cure could charge. How much would you be willing to pay? Tomorrow you could be D-free, how much is that worth? Plus they would recieve millions upon millions from the government in the form of grants. The first company to come up with and market a cure would have an average of 8-10 years left on the patent for the drug. 8-10 years of setting whatever price they can get away with. And with tens of thousands of people diagnosed every year, that's tens of thousands of people spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so long as a prevention or vaccine is not found, that cycle would continue for the full 8-10 years. That's a LOT of money.
[Note - Drug patents last 20 years, however drugs are patented prior to trials. Once the drug goes to market it is usually 8-10 years left before the generics come out]
I never said they didn’t want to find a cure. However, they really, really want to sell pills.
I just want to point out that I've met several members here at TuD who've been eating a 'raw' diet for many years, and still developed T2 diabetes.
And while your statement that 'Doctors fail us because they couldn't care less what the cause is' may hold true for some doctors, it doesn't hold up in the big picture because there is NO definitive answer as to WHAT the cause is. Yes, there are risk factors, which we all know about. But what triggers ANY kind of diabetes, Type 1 or Type 2? If someone could figure that out, we'd have a real chance at prevention. But for now there isn't a lot we can do, except reduce some risk factors for Type 2 (asking people to engage in healthy eating and exercise habits). And even that is not close to guaranteed to get results.
Oh I agree on that!
I'm confused ... is this the real Mr Peachy or an imposter? Because the Mr Peachy I know was overweight at one time. He took Metformin at first and lost the weight, then he quit the Met and changed his lifestyle to stay that way.
Craig, it seriously annoys me that you would lie about your personal history to sell your lifestyle. Why don't you tell the truth, so people can really learn from what you know?
I love it! “Immune to Type 2!” Wish it were so! If you don’t have the genes for it (and a certain percentage of Type 1’s do, in fact have the genes for Type 2, and do develop metabolic syndrome in their 40’s, resulting in “double diabetes”), go for all those deli meats, man!!
you are aware that the student aid was increased on every kid that the school identified as ADD and that Michigan had some of the highest numbers in the nation
With 6 Billion people in the world I don't expect governments to care that much, if 20% of us get sick and die before our time we are just fueling the economy and being good consumers right up to the point where our family has the 10,000.00 funeral.
Our government doesn't want to eliminate problems just manage them, medication is big business, lots of $ gets pumped into the economy and if you are investing with the aging boomers coming into retirement medical supply, medicine, nursing related stocks are the way to go.
How many of us were really that concious about our health and food choices pre dx? not so much I think, we're just not prevention oriented and people tend to take the path of least resistance until that 900 pound gorilla gets dropped on our head.
Our children are also far more stressed than they were before. there's overbooked children, federal tests to be passed, athletics, lifestyle, socializing etc. I think it's dangerous to place blame on parents - parents in our time are already far over stressed and dealing with things that parents in our previous generations didn't have to deel with. such as - abuse. Both parents working. And people from all areas of our life - teachers, schools, parents, grandparents and inlaws judging our parental choices and the quality of our kids (ie: "..they just needed a little discipline"). I don't think it's up to any of us to place blame or judge other people's lifestyle's until we've walked in their shoes.
Our world is changing and lifestyles are changing and this is the information age - people are learning and changing and making choices that are unpopular to some.
There was LOTS of abuse in previous generations. More than there is today. It's just that nobody talked about it -- the attitude was that parents had a right to beat their children, and men had a right to beat their wives. Sexual abuse occurred, the victim was blamed, and if a pregnancy resulted, the family just quietly moved away, and told the next community that the father had died.
Don't underestimate the hardships our ancestors lived through -- they weren't the same as ours, but they were no easier!
I was looking at…ummm I forget who’sprofile it was… but it had a video on it call the truth about sugar… if you haven’t already seen it… check it out. If anyone reads this and knows who has that video…please post!!! thanks!!
Kudos, Dave. It’s good to know that there are a few thinkers left out there.
Eight years ago I was directed to a site dealing with medical testing. I wasn’t satisfied with what I saw and started looking around. At that time in Peru, a medical research lab that was working with stem cell research claimed that they had injected 800 subjects with stem cells to rejuvenate the pancreas. They claimed that (this was from a source like Scientific Magazine) within days the subjects showed no signs of having diabetes. I kept my eye on them and unfortunately 4 years later sixty percent of the test subjects started showing signs of diabetes. Still forty percent remained cured. When Stem Cell Research was finally allowed in the U.S. it almost was immediate that any mention of this could be found. Now I hear that the research companies in the U.S. think that with stem cells they believe they should be able to create more effective insulin. Need I say how I feel about pharmaceutical companies?
Even if we take the T2 part out of it, obesity is becoming a huge health crisis. I’m glad that the first lady has made childhood obesity her issue because it really is something that is going to have a huge impact on our medical health as well as our economic health. And I don’t think there is any question that being obese in childhood is going to put a huge, unnecessary stress on the beta cells whether it leads to T2 or not.
It’s easy to blame the drug companies, but I see them more as opportunists here than anything else, there to take advantage of a financial opportunity. I can’t say that I even blame them for that. But you’re right, we need to get to the root causes and deal with them. One of the biggest problems is that you have parents with a poor relationship with food and/or exercise raising children with a poor relationship with food and/or exercise. Or parents who have to work so much just to put food on the table that they just don’t have time to do what they know they should. And then they’re fighting against what their kids see at their friends houses.
Especially in this economy, junk food is too cheap to pass up, and that goes for the schools as well as the parents. And don’t even get me started on the lack of gym class in some places…I was one of the biggest dorks in my school and gym was one of my favorite classes. I would much rather have been playing street hockey than sitting in study hall…
I recently read a paper that said that in non-diabetic obese people, insulin resistance does increase, but the pancreas just grows in size and makes more beta cells, and there is no problem. Interestingly, in non-gestational diabetic women, the pancreas grows too, but shrinks after the birth of the child. So I don’t think it’s the pancreas we need to worry about, except where children are genetically predisposed.
However, insulin resistance is correlated with cardiovascular disease, regardless of diabetes or not, and these obese children face heart disease and strokes at an earlier age than their slim companions.
But if you read obesity journals and Dr.'s websites, it’s MUCH more complex than parent’s work schedules, junk food or lack of gym class. On the one hand, it’s the overabundance of ANY food, not just junk food, but it’s also a body with a combination of enzymes and hormones that get every single calorie out of food, as compared to slim people who are wasting a lot of calories, some of them as extra body-heat production and some of them consumed by intestinal bacteria, among other things. They are finding more and more genes that contribute to obesity (as well as some which contribute to slimness), which, in a world where everyone lived on the edge of starvation, were most likely beneficial, but are harmful now that we live like kings and queens, and eat far more than we need. “Eat less, move more” is hopelessly oversimplified, because obese people would have to eat a LOT less (like concentration camp diet) and move a LOT more (like 4-6 hours a day) in order to achieve even a modest weight loss and maintain it. I just don’t think that’s possible.
There is also the issue of hunger – obese people have many dysfunctions of digestive and brain hormones that tell them they’re hungry, even when they’re full. Again, in a semi-starvation world, there was nothing they could do about it, but in this world, they can easily go get something to eat.
If you want to know more about obesity, I recommend Dr. Sharma’s obesity notes http://www.drsharma.ca/ He is a bariatric surgeon, who does NOT recommend it for everyone, but who has a realistic view of obesity and often explains some of the metabolic things that are going on in an obese person. He works with obese persons using other methods besides surgery as well. And he has respect for obese people – he treats an illness and is not involved in the blame game.
When I was in grade school, in the early 1960’s (I turned 12 in '68) there was ONE “fat boy” in our entire elementary school. I still remember his name. His father ran a local Italian restaurant and this child was as mean as a snake, no doubt because of the endless teasing he experienced as “the fat boy”.
There wasn’t another child in the entire school (several hundred children) who was obese. How many schools can claim that today?
I didn’t start gaining weight until junior high school, but it was ten pounds, not 60 or 80. There were only a handful of kids who were overweight in high school, but none of them were morbidly obese – not one.
What has changed? Everything. We played outside for HOURS every day, running, jumping, playing chase, riding bikes, climbing trees, playing ball, being super active until our mothers called us in for dinner, and in the warmer months we’d go right back out and play until after dark. What family – especially urban family – does that with their kids today?
I probably got 2-1/3 to 3 more hours of outdoor, active play every day than the average child today – hours more time spent in highly physical activity. On the weekends, I probably got TEN more hours of active play than a modern child. It’s a huge lifestyle difference.
My grand-nieces and nephews are not allowed to run the neighborhood in packs with the other kids anymore. It’s perceived as too dangerous. I think my grand-niece would consider herself being punished if she was asked to go outside and play from after breakfast until lunchtime during the summer, and then again from after lunch until dinner. Me? My mother would have to track me down and force me to stop playing long enough to come in and eat. The whole cultural norm for children is different: their own televisions, their own cell phones, their own dvd players, video games, texting, on and on. Obviously, we had none of that. If we weren’t doing chores or homework, we were outside running around the neighborhood in packs of kids, burning calories like little Olympians.
We were at the park – running, jumping, chasing, swinging, sliding – they’re in their bedrooms, watching television.
The fact that the rates of T2 are increasing so quickly suggests that genetic predisposition is very widespread. So I think the issue of stressing out those beta cells so young in life is of concern to more than just a small population of kids. The truth is we won’t know the real affects for many years to come. CVD is obviously a bigger concern, but the rates at which T2 are increasing makes it clear that we are talking about a HUGE segment of the population that is susceptible under given conditions.
I also don’t disagree that ‘eat less, move more’ is oversimplified. But it’s definitely part of it, as is the psychology of turning to food for comfort. I know because I used to be overweight because of poor habits that I developed as a teenager and young adult. I ate what I would say is a pretty typical American diet and I got fat. It wasn’t easy to lose 40+ lbs but I’m glad that I did it before my metabolism slowed down! And I think more people are like me than not – some just need (a varying degree) of help in going down the right road. For some that might mean surgery, while for others it means information and commitment.
But it would be a lot easier if I had got it right in the first place. I don’t think it’s necessary to create semi-starvation conditions to tackle childhood obesity. It’s also not necessary to give up other forms of entertainment like video games completely. It is, however, necessary to start modifying the current patterns that we teach our kids. That means healthier foods in healthier portions and putting a greater premium on physical activity. The fact that we are choosing academics at the expense of gym and recess I think is sending a tragic message to our youth. As is serving cheap, huge portions of high calorie foods. It doesn’t matter what we teach them in health class if our actions are completely to the contrary.
I’m not saying that there aren’t many other components – I know there are. However, neither the accessibility of food nor genes has changed very much from my generation to the current one, yet the rates of obesity have. Those other factors aren’t inconsequential, but I don’t think you should dismiss the importance of developing healthier patterns at an early age.
I honestly think that if I were a young mother today, I’d be the most Luddite mother in town, because there wouldn’t be an electronic device of any kind in my home: no television, no video games, no cell phones, not even a computer. No e-mail accounts. No texting. Nothing electronic – not even a clock radio.
Children who are not in the mood for active play (e.g. resting after LOTS of active play) should be either reading books or using their imaginations and creativity – not consuming other people’s creativity like little zombies.
Coloring, drawing, creating a fort or a castle out of sheets and cardboard boxes, blocks or tin foil, building crazy animals out of modeling clay, writing a play and performing it for the family, being active and creative.
There’s nothing positive about the way children have been turned into passive consumers. It’s bad for their bodies, bad for their minds, bad for their spirits. It’s a damn shame and if I were a mother, I’d fight the trend as hard as I could.
How many kids are going to have heart attacks or go blind in their twenties before we figure this out?!?
I think that a lot of it w/ kids is also that more moms are working. When I was a kid, I could sail home and hang out, bike to friends house, play, do whatever. I somewhat suspect that we were encouraged to “go play” to avoid driving mom nuts? If we were out and about, we didn’t have access to a closet full of junk food that has become standard. We didn’t have a “pantry” in the house I grew up in but the houses since then have had them. W/ mom and dad both working, the kids are sort of put into programs but this also makes the parents more stressed, pick kids up, pick dinner up, eat, get kids to bed and pass out is pretty standard?