The Angry Type 2 Diabetic: AIDS
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Guest Blog Post: The Perfect Storm


Disclaimer: The following is a guest post from a fellow reader of this blog, and a person living with type 2 diabetes as well as HIV. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily my own, nor are they intended to diagnose, treat, or advise anyone's medical condition. Expression and platform for all experiences of living with diabetes are intended as a tool to generate awareness, increase our empathy and understanding and generate questions which we may take to our medical team. 

The Cause

What I’m about to write might sound like a lost script from some soap opera or an episode of Casualty or Holby City. Come to think of it the producers would kill for a story line like this as it’s complicated enough.

The amount of people I’ve spoken to about what I’ve been through whether it be friends of those in the profession have all had similar reactions of disbelief and come to the same conclusion what I’ve been through shouldn’t have happened. It even led to one consultant describing what I’ve been through as the perfect storm.

Definition: A perfect storm is an expression that describes an event where a rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically.

My name is George Rodgers I’m 50 years old, I’m mixed race and I’m HIV. In 2000 I started taking a combination therapy regime containing ddI. I was fine for four weeks then started suffering agonising abdominal pain. I stopped my HIV drugs and two days later the pain went away. But by that time the damage had been done.

Blood tests had made it clear I had had pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas). As I subsequently found, the ddI regime had turned someone with a family history of diabetes into someone with the condition and quite a severe form at that. It’s resulted in a long struggle (as late as July 2010) to find a HIV therapy that didn’t make things worse.

There is a third type of diabetes that exists, which is caused by toxic damage to the pancreas. Although the most common cause is alcohol use, some drugs can also cause it, including HIV drugs which is what happened to me.

I received different reactions to my pancreatitis from my HIV consultant and a diabetologist I subsequently saw. My HIV doctor said, “Your amylase is up by 25% and we normally only start worrying if they’re up 50%.” The diabetologists reaction was “It’s a good job you stopped when you did or you would have been dead”

I feel HIV physicians are overly focused on HIV and not given my diabetes sufficient attention. Repeated requests to be referred to a diabetes specialist have been met with some reluctance both at St Thomas’ Hospital and at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I found out about the diabetic team at St Thomas via my GP and I had to use blackmail to get an appointment to see the diabetic team at Queen Elizabeth Hospital (more on that incident later).

The pancreatitis had scared me from taking HIV drugs and I went on a treatment break for 18 months. My diabetes at that time was manageable with diet and exercise. When I restarted, with a CD4 count of 150, I went on AZT/3TC (Combivir) and nevirapine, chosen with diabetes in mind and did well for 18 months. Then unfortunately in 2003 I became resistant to the nevirapine and got accused by my consultant that I wasn’t taking my medication properly.

After some chopping and changing I was eventually kept on the Combivir and switched to a boosted protease inhibitor Norvir, indinavir/ritonavir. My glucose levels suddenly doubled to 12mmols/l. I felt really unwell, with high glucose levels you feel kind of speedy. I got bad tempered and emotional, alternated between feeling hyper and exhausted.

When my sugar levels shot up I went back to my HIV doctor. He said, “It can’t be the meds it must be your diet” and didn’t propose any diabetes medications. Despite being reassured 18 months earlier that if the anti-virals did start affecting my diabetes there was something they could do about it.

Once again I found myself changing consultants and met with the same response despite both my partner and me at the time and my CPN explaining in full the reason why I was having problems with anti-virals. I even sent her a letter out lining the issues I had. But I met with the same blinkered attitude that I’ve had all the way through this from consultants. Doctor Lyons response was “I don’t see what your problem is!”

Different Hospital Same Attitude

Once again I found myself back at square one and after a long talk with my partner and hammering home the point that if things go wrong this time I will not be held responsible for my reaction. He convinced me to change hospitals and see the same consultant that he was under at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

I went to Queen Elizabeth Hospital and met with the same kind of reaction despite the consultant there knowing the problems I had at St Thomas Hospital. When I raised concerns about the medication she was giving me and asked, “How is Kaletra lopinavir/ritonavir going to affect my diabetes?” She totally blanked the question telling me it was down to my GP to sort my diabetes out.

Knowing full well that my GP doesn’t know anything about HIV medication I had no choice but to stay of medication. Not only that I wasn’t too sure how my G P’s reaction would be to treating someone who is HIV as I had just transferred to a doctors surgery that was closer to home. Not only that all this was starting to have an effect on my relationship as my partner couldn’t understand why I was having problems with Dr. Mitchell when his treatment and care was going so well.

The Fallout

The answer to that is his medication didn’t trigger of pancreatitis and leave him with diabetes type II. On several occasions he accused me of asking for too much and even went as far as accusing me that I was giving the consultant enough time to know me.

The consultant involved would have gotten to know me if she had had the decency to listen to what I was saying and not be so blinkered in her attitude and listened to my concerns. For 3 months I was telling her the concerns I was having about the medication she was going to give me. I only asked what anybody else would ask in that situation. Not only that she knew what I had been through at St Thomas’ because my partner had kept her informed, it wasn’t like I was going in as a cold case.

In the end I stopped seeing the consultant and I ended up moving out of my own home because I couldn’t get my partner to understand why I was reluctant to go back on anti-virals without my question being answered and precautions being put in place. I was taking this stand just as much for his benefit as mine, I saw the look on his face of sheer terror when I was doubled in agony when I got pancreatitis.

I moved back home just before Christmas 2007 and I made an appointment for the both of us to go and see a psychologist at Queen Elizabeth Hospital as I needed my partner to understand why I was so reluctant to go back on medication and why he needed to back off.

That went well, he backed off and I ended up getting the therapy sessions which lasted three weeks after I got a lecture in regards to the fact that I needed to be an A1 patient when it comes to taking anti-virals. My response to that was I’ll be an A1 patient when I get an A1 doctor and never went back after that.

It was roughly around this time that I went for hypnotherapy to try and get over how angry I was with what happened at St Thomas’s. I was told that I should take the anger down a level to just being annoyed and that doctors aren’t infallible they make mistakes and it seemed to work until I hit the same brick wall when I was at Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

I did take one piece of advice from that therapy session and that was to write down what I was feeling or what I needed from my consultant and so in June 2008 I wrote a letter to the consultant agreeing to go back on medication, by this time my CD4 was down to 29. I was given two choices I could start on a lower dose, something I asked for two years previously when I first transferred to Queen Elizabeth and was told no, or hit it hard by going on a higher dose.


The Fights

After a talk with the adherence nurse specialist and feeling comfortable after being reassured that if I had any problems with my medication I should hesitate to ring the hospital I opted for the higher dose but after three days of being on it I was suffering from some serious side effects. I rang the adherence nurse specialist and the response I got was, “This doesn’t happen to other patients” and had the phone put down on me. This was after explaining to her that I had previously been diagnosed with pancreatitis. Once again I had no choice but to stop medication.

The consultant’s response was no better when I saw her a week later. I was accused that maybe it could be psychological. There was nothing psychological about my sugar levels going into double figures, my metabolism going ten to the dozen and being sick two minutes after taking medication, I was bringing up bile and two minutes after eating my breakfast I was really hungry again. But it fell on deaf ears and so I ended up using blackmail and refused to go back on meds until I had spoken to someone from the diabetic team. I did see the diabetologist there, that’s was the very first time someone actually told me my diabetes was due to drug induced pancreatitis. The diabetologist also informed my consultant that I was right to be concerned the effects anti-virals have on my diabetes, as left unchecked diabetes is just as deadly as HIV if left unchecked.

Up until October 2009 I thought I was a so called unique case, I was even prepared to let go of my anger as I was transferring my medical care back to St Thomas’ (a consultant there had heard the problems I was having, he had read the article I did for NAM and had agreed to see me).

Then I broke out in shingles that’s how stressed out I had been about the whole thing, the doctor explained to me why I might be having trouble with certain medication and it’s all down to my genetics and something called micro toxicity. Thinking that this was something new I did a Google search and found out that this information has been around as late as 1999. Along with articles on HIV related diabetes: A Complex Interaction between liver damage body mass and genetics” and was reported by NAM way back in 2004.

I have had to go through hell and back with no proper support to get to where I am now. Not only has this had an effect on my health it also affected me on an emotional level and it had an effect on my relationship with my partner as we split up after eleven years. I don’t normally get violent but because of all the stress I was under g it was having an effect on my adrenaline levels which as we found out was having an effect on my sugar levels and because my partner was defending the consultant I was seeing as he hadn’t had any problems with her we ended up arguing and I got to the point that I actually went for him.

The first time I went for him was New Year’s Day 2010, we had had an argument the night before over the TV, there was more to it than that but that was the final straw and on New Year’s Day I just went for him. The only reason I stopped was because I was going to hit him over the head with a chair and so I walked out the house. The only trouble I was so pumped up that if anybody had said a cross words to me I would have gone for them.

The second time I went for him I nearly put his head through the bedroom floor and the only reason I stopped was because he bit me and that’s when we realised something was wrong. In the eleven years we had been together I had never got violent towards him. This was no ordinary case of domestic violence it wasn’t until the third time I went for him I managed to pick up a chair in one hand turn it round and ended up pin his head against the wall. That’s when I ended up doing a search on the Internet and I came across the effects of adrenaline on diabetics.

Adrenaline is a chemical that is produced by the body when it thinks it is under attack that is why you get adrenaline junkies because the rush can leave you feeling high. Stress can also cause adrenaline to rise the only trouble is adrenaline cannot tell the difference between a diabetic and a non-diabetic and that’s where the problems start and what was even scarier about the whole none of the professionals took any notice despite a community psychiatric nurse visiting our home and she must have notice the damage that had been done. It wasn’t until I rang the hospital and told my consultant at the time that I was getting violent that anyone intervened but as usual it was too little too late and that was when I made one of the toughest decisions of my life and after eleven years of being together I called time on our relationship because I didn’t trust myself when it came to my outbursts of anger.

How My Past Helped Me Through

When I first became HIV I ended up going for counselling. It wasn’t just about dealing with HIV it also helped me get over my low self-esteem caused by what I went through with my parents when I was younger.

My adoptive mother was warned about taking a mixed raced baby into a white family as there could be problems. And oh boy were they right, I could understand being picked on at school because of my colour but to have to go home and face it especially off my younger brother and no one done anything about it.

One of the questions I was asked was why didn’t I get angry at my parents for the way they treated me and my response was no matter how bad things are you always respect your elders and that’s how I saw doctors.

I was taught how to do the circle in cognitive therapy, I tried applying it to the situation I was in with doctors but it didn’t seem to work or so I thought because I found myself comparing to what I was going through with what I went through when I was younger.

My birth mother gave me up for adoption because she thought I would have a better life my adoptive mother was given that trust to look out for me and she didn’t she buried her head in the sand and I ended up suffering because of it.

The same thing happened here I was told that I could trust Dr Bubu, I was also told I could trust Dr Mitchell instead I got the exact opposite but instead of bottling things up I fought back and in some strange way I found the strength to do that by confronting my past.

And as hard as it was remembering what I went through when I was younger it helped me fight back and I did it on my own.

And The Fight Continues

It’s like the other day I received a Depression Scale form through the post because I’ve been prescribed antidepressants. I ticked all the relevant boxes then after reading through it I realised that all the questions asked how you are feeling yet there wasn’t a question on why you feel that way.

The reason I’m feeling the way I am isn’t because I’m depressed or the fact that I’m living with two chronic illnesses I’m feeling this way because the NHS let me down and put my life at risk. Not only that the damage that has been caused some of it is irreversible. At times I feel like I’ve gone through a car crash, at least if I had been in a car crash people could see the trauma that’s been caused and I would get the support that I need to get my life back on track. Instead I’ve had to do it on my own. Not only that the lack of consistency in my care doesn’t help either, if I can’t get the ‘professionals’ to understand just because we are diabetic we are still individuals and what works for one person it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to work for everyone else.

The ‘professionals’ can’t even agree on what our sugar levels are at or what diet we should be following. Here are two good examples. When I first become diabetic I was told by my diabetic nurse that my sugar levels should be slightly higher that someone who isn’t HIV because my body is working overtime because of the anti-virals, I was also given this advice last year by one the diabetic doctors at St Thomas’ Hospital. I tried telling this to one of the consultants at the hospital and he wouldn’t have it despite the fact that I become Mr Hyde when my sugar levels fall below 5 and as usual I got the same old crap that it’s just my body adjusting to the lower levels.

Try telling that to a policeman when I get arrested for thumping a complete stranger in the face because their baby was crying. “Oh excuse me officer I was having a hypo!” I haven’t actually done it but I came close to it the other day though when I was on my way home from my friends’ house.

I was on the 188 everything was fine, was in a nice relaxed mood. Then someone got on the bus with a baby and half way through the journey it started crying normally I would just ignore it but the more it kept on crying the more agitated I got, then someone started talking on the phone and the noise just seemed to have intensified and I just wanted to tell everyone to shut the fuck up. When I got home my sugar levels were 4.5, I wouldn’t have minded so much if hadn’t been for the fact that for breakfast I had two slices of toast, two boiled eggs and a bowl of cereal.

The other example is how the ‘professionals’ can’t seem to agree which diet to follow either everyone in the profession has been saying we should be eating plenty of carbohydrates, now the only problem with that is eating to many carbohydrates as recommend by the NHS and the government would be like drinking six cans of coke and the consequences of that leads to high sugar levels as I found out the other day. Wanting something to snack on I decided to go for a healthy option and brought a packet of those Ryvita Thins that they have been advertising on the television recently. Not giving it a second thought I started eating them as I was working on this before I knew it I had gone through a whole packet. Half an hour later I felt drunk, I did my bloods and my sugar levels had shot up to 17. I ended up falling asleep and my friend had to put me to bed as I was so disorientated. It took me two days to get over that.

Now some in the profession are saying we should be following a low card diet, which makes more sense and though it makes more sense so yet again the goal post have been changed.

Getting Family and Friends to Understand

One of the questions on the form asks do have thoughts that you would be better off dead, my answer is yes I do and it’s not because I feel depressed it’s because I’m having to deal with an illness where the goal post are constantly changing and I wouldn’t mind if it didn’t have to involve family and friends.

It’s bad enough having to get your family and friends why you have bad mood swings the worst one is when you find yourself becoming introverted and switching off from everything despite explaining it to those close to you whether it be friends, family or partners well in advance that you do get days like that they still find it uncomfortable like they have done something wrong which becomes frustrating for the diabetic as it ends up making them feeling bad.


No Pressure Then

Part of the reason a someone with a chronic illness finds themselves wanting to switch of is because the whole thing can leave you warn out and there is nothing you can do about it because you don’t know when it is going to happen. So imagine what it’s like living with two!

It’s like a friend of mine he does shift work and he can’t understand why I’m so tired all the time despite me trying to explain the reasons why. The reason I get tired so much is because my internal organs are on constant overdrive and as much as I try to live a normal live there are times through no fault of my own when having two chronic illnesses to deal with is going to take its toll no matter how good you are at managing things, the only trouble is you don’t know when it’s going to happen.

Another problem with all of this is the constant pressure we are under to get our sugar levels below a certain figure we are under pressure to keep fit. I have come to realise that I don’t have the same energy levels that I did when I was first diagnosed with diabetes, it’s all right for someone to sit there and say “we should be doing 30 minutes of exercise a day but it’s not always possible and we shouldn’t end up feeling guilty because we aren’t well or the weather is to hot or too cold.

Making A Change

There’s a strong sense of feeling that we are being treated like guinea pigs, HIV medication may be keeping us alive but it’s causing other problems as well and there seems to be no back up when situations like these arise.

I can’t change the past; once again I’ve got to live with the damage that has been done not only on a physical level but on a psychological level as well, for the past twelve years I’ve felt like I’ve been on an emotional roller coaster ride and though I’m in a better place now, I have a very good consultant and a very good diabetic nurse, (they both communicate with each other and take on board what I say and I’m not expecting them to have all the answers)..

I’m also beginning to realize that the one size fits all attitudes doesn’t only apply to HIV it seems to apply to diabetes as well and that isn’t good for the patient especially when they have two chronic illness to cope with. Some good has come out of this in knowing that I wasn’t asking for too much and I have a letter from an MP to back me up.

Taking an Holistic Approach

In the last decade the government and the NHS have been promoting a ‘patient-centred approach’ to health care which encourages ‘expert patients’, previous experience has shown that some healthcare professionals are unable or unwilling to deal with patients that do their own research and come to consultations with more information and questions than the ‘professionals’ can deal with. Rather than collaborating with the patient and help them set up a link with the different specialists we end up being bounced around from one doctor to another and none of them have a clear understanding of all the patient’s conditions and how they (and the medication that treats them) might impact upon each.

It’s no good getting the healthcare professionals to take a more centred approach if the various support services don’t take a more holistic approach to the service users that access their services. Not everyone who wants counselling has issues around family, sexuality or drug use and I’m a good example.

My issues centre on what I’ve been through and the damage it’s caused some of it irreversible:
  1. I feel like I’ve been on a non-stop roller coaster ride these past twelve years.
  2. At times I felt like I’ve been in a game of Russian roulette and I wasn’t the one holding the gun.
  3. I feel like I’ve been robbed of something and that is time.
  4. I feel like Humpty Dumpty who’s fell of the wall and I’m having difficulty putting the pieces back together again.
  5. And on top of everything else there’s a sense of guilt.
I was told being on anti-virals was supposed to improve my life instead all I’ve seen is it do so far is rip it apart.

Friday, February 10, 2012

When Ostracizing Type 2 Diabetes Became an Accepted Lifestyle...

When it comes to Diabetes, and the messages being put out there in the media, it is really hard for myself and other folks not to become angry -- if not downright furious. I have to tell you, I generally look through articles, and skim through different headlines, and just tend to "cherry pick" what's going to be real news, and ignore and pass over the fluff. If I were to read it all, I might be en route to a heart attack in less time than you can say "duck fiabetes."

But on Wednesday, just having gotten home from a long, physically and mentally exhausting shift at work, I failed to listen to my own advise. A dear friend of mine shared a news article, in my "Living with Diabetes" Facebook group... and I just lost it. I don't think I have ever been so outraged by an article before. (Well, except maybe for Wendell Fowler's abusive tirade against little Type 1 Diabetic children having ice cream. OMG, how dare they! That's almost as dangerous as Paula Deen having a cheeseburger! *snark, snark*) I was seeing so many shades of red, and purple, I just could not think straight. I said a bunch of things, in my group, about the article, and to my husband... went and kicked a few things around... flipped off Dr Oz on the TV... and then I felt like my head was going to explode. It was just too much.

Having taken at least, a few days, to calm down... I can probably now tell you what I really think about this piece, with a little more perspective. The piece is called "Curing Diabetes: How Type 2 Became an Accepted Lifestyle" (Yes, you are reading right... That IS the headline for this article), and it was written for The Atlantic, by reporter John-Manuel Andriote, who has supposedly been specializing in HIV/AIDS reporting since 1986. I guess, I would like to think that being exposed to such a world would have given Mr. Andriote some perspective, and a keener sense of tact, and to an extent it has... but, apparently, not enough to have helped him rethink such a terrible headline.

The article itself makes a few key mistakes, which well, to an outsider would not be as self evident. And why would they? Our current government, medical advisory agencies, and medical industry want to do all they can to pass blame onto the Type 2 patient, entirely, and take on NO responsibility themselves. I've shared on this, before, many times. Especially, the deep denial of how multi-faceted the triggers are for Type 2 Diabetes, and the roles pollution and other medications, etc., have in the development of the disease. It is unfortunate that everyone in the industry quotes such poorly done research studies that do not take these complexities into account, or even consider to do so, to blanket claim that 80% of all Type 2 Diabetes is "largely preventable." These simplistic allegations lead to discrimination, misunderstanding of a very complex disease, denial of health management resources and tools by the insurance industry, and uneducated reporting that often leads to societal abuse, bullying, and further discrimination.

Still, there is some good, among the bad, to be found in this article. I do feel that, had the author taken some time to meet with members of the diabetic online community, this article could have really shed some light more adequately, on a lot of issues that affect our community, without contributing so much to the problems it so tries to 'address.'


The Good in this Article: 

  • Right off the bat, the article addresses the issue that the medical industry does not like to discuss with patients, or at least seldom does, the idea that they can manage their diabetes without medications, much less what Diabetes even IS. This is, indeed, a struggle we have right now. But it is a deep, and complex problem involving a lot of ethical concerns which affect almost every aspect of the health industry, including the American Diabetes Association itself (it's probably not an accident that they recommend diabetics keep their blood glucose levels at or below 180 mg/dL -- a very high, and potentially long term dangerous, blood glucose level), as well as other diabetes medical guideline agencies. The fact is, many medical professionals receive kick backs and incentives from the pharmaceutical industry -- large kickbacks and benefits -- and it's in their pocketbook's best interests to keep as many of their patients taking certain medications. This is not something exclusive to the diabetes industry, though. I am sure this is one of the prime reasons why there are now, commercials on mainstream media, for prescription only medications. It's BIG business, and there's no better salesman out there than your doctor. 
  • Andriote does some thinking outside the box, which is helpful: Chronic illness, particularly obesity and diabetes, are multi-faceted diseases which do not have just one contributing factor to them (though at times he seems to suggest they do) and thus, will need a multi-sector response. He speaks about our sedentary jobs, and a poor transit system, and the lure of the food industry, and how addicting high fat/high sugar/high salt/food combinations can be... and the supposed "myth" that healthy foods cost more than unhealthy foods. He even quotes an article from someone who supposedly "destroyed" this myth. What is perhaps not understood by people who claim that healthy food is cheaper than fast food is that most dedicated Type 2 diabetics don't consider healthy food what they consider healthy food, and they have to cut back on carbohydrates in order to control blood glucose, and not rely solely on their medications for control. I'd like to see Andriote actually trying to live a lower carbohydrate lifestyle, at a grocery store, with a maximum of $350 for 2 people, for a month worth of groceries, and not being able to eat as many starches, grains, and other foods which ARE the cheaper foods, for their value and how far they go. Living on lean proteins, and veggies, and cutting back on all those starches and breads, and grains is NOT cheap. Also, per the fast food cost example he uses, if one assumes poor people buy value meals at fast food joints to feed all of their family members, one might be very, very naive: there is such a thing as a dollar menu, or less, at these places... And people KNOW this. How can you beat $2 for two double cheeseburgers at McDonald's??? It costs me $2.88 a lb alone, for chicken! (And it's cheaper in Iowa, than in many places...) 
  • Andriote talks about the need for balance in media industry reporting (Surprisingly): On the one hand, you don't want people dismissing diabetes as 'not serious' enough, but on the other, you don't want to create a public backlash for patients. "When the media do focus on type 2 diabetes, said Sarah Gollust, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, they give twice as much coverage to the behavioral risks for it than any of the other factors that contribute. But this over-emphasis on personal responsibility tends to blame and stigmatize people with type 2 diabetes or who are obese. Those living with the disease may feel it's their fault if they can't always maintain the ideal blood sugar level. Worst of all, said Gollust, public support could erode as people are expected to cover the costs, however they can, of a medical condition it's believed they brought on themselves ... Public support for addressing diabetes is imperative when you consider the tremendous amount of money it costs to manage the disease." This is a very important reality that we, as Type 2 Diabetes patients face as we strive to manage this disease. We NEED support, and we can't succeed without it. However, many of the undercutting remarks Andriote makes, including his headline, are FAR from being fair and balanced, and certainly not supportive! On page 2, Andriote has a "listing" of facts, and goes on to say that "Although there is a genetic predisposition for type 2 diabetes, the vast number of cases are the outcome of poor diet, obesity, and a sedentary lifestyle." Of course, this is contradictory... because ALL cases are of genetic predisposition. If not, then ALL obese persons would have diabetes -- and this is simply not the case. (I won't even go into his usage of the phrase "people of color" to talk about African-Americans, Latinos, and other minorities...) 
The Bad in this Article: 
  • Andriote, sort of, implies that most Type 2 Diabetics could manage their condition without the need for medications, if they just try a little hard, and then they would be cured. There is a BIG disconnect in here: 
    • For one -- he fails to realize that by the time the average person is diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes, their disease is so advanced, they have lost nearly 40-80% of their beta cell function, making it extremely challenging to near impossible to control blood glucose levels without the assistance of oral medications, or insulin. Again, being the multi-faceted disease that it is, diabetes NEEDS a more aggressive and aware medical community, as well as increasing efforts in continuous education FOR the medical professionals, as well as patients. A medical professional who cannot think diabetes, and catch all the symptoms and markers of diabetes, in an age when it's being considered as an "epidemic," is a medical professional who will endanger lives, and contribute to the rising costs of the disease when it comes to complications that are not being caught on time. 
    • Secondly -- The kind of lifestyle changes to achieve true remission and euglycemia, are a lot more stringent than what the ADA might tout. You *cannot* reach euglycemia -- true euglycemia -- while thinking that blood glucose numbers below 180 mg/dL are normal. True euglycemia are levels that are below 140 mg/dL or lower, after 2 hours of eating, and in fact, rarely exceed that. In fact, some might even say below 120 mg/dL at 2 hours, or less. Not everyone can achieve those levels -- especially, if they struggle with hypoglycemia, or  have other health related dietary considerations to make that might not allow them to easily cut back on carbohydrates, or increase certain levels of exercise, etc. I, for example, have to consume 80-100 grams of carbohydrate a day, at a MAXIMUM, in order to maintain my euglycemia. This is unrealistic to many people... and it's not a character flaw! It is HARD, often unrealistic, work. 
    • Thirdly, he goes on to claim that if folks worked hard at it, they could "cure themselves," and he uses an opinion paper, mind you, to try to back up his assertions. He even goes as far as claiming that this is the opinion of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), by claiming that the ADA says that "maintaining normal blood sugar without medication for at least a year could be considered a "complete remission,"" when in fact, the ADA specifically highlights a the end of the second paragraph, in that same opinion paper that "The opinions and recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and not the official position of the American Diabetes Association." Moreover, the panel of those expressing their opinions recognized that they had clear conflicts of interest in the matter, and also, found it difficult to reach consensus considering the wide arrange of questions to be considered. The group does, though, make a very telling distinction between a cure, and a remission... which the author of this article seems to gloss over, quite nicely, to what he could take out of context, and better fit into his piece: "Medically, cure may be defined as restoration to good health, while remission is defined as abatement or disappearance of the signs and symptoms of a disease (3). Implicit in the latter is the possibility of recurrence of the disease. Many clinicians consider true cure to be limited to acute diseases. Infectious diseases could be seen as a model: acute bacterial pneumonia can be cured with antibiotics, but HIV infection, currently, can at best be stated to be in remission or converted to a chronic disease. The consensus group considered the history of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which evolved from a uniformly fatal disease to one that could be put into remission to one that can now often be considered cured (4). Conversely, chronic myelocytic leukemia is now considered to be in prolonged remission, but not cured, with therapies such as imatinib ... For a chronic illness such as diabetes, it may be more accurate to use the term remission than cure. Current or potential future therapies for type 1 or type 2 diabetes will likely always leave patients at risk for relapse, given underlying pathophysiologic abnormalities and/or genetic predisposition. However, terminology such as “prolonged remission” is probably less satisfactory to patients than use of the more hopeful and definitive term “cure” after some period of time has elapsed. Additionally, if cure means remission that lasts for a lifetime, then by definition a patient could never be considered cured while still alive. Hence, it may make sense operationally to consider prolonged remission of diabetes essentially equivalent to cure. This is analogous to certain cancers, where cure is defined as complete remission of sufficient duration that the future risk of recurrence is felt to be very low."
You see, it is one thing to call something a "cure," because it is more hopeful, and more satisfactory to a patient... than for that to be, actually, a cure. The likelihood might be low, but it is, in fact, not a cure. As a comparison to HIV made above, for example, people like Magic Johnson have had their HIV infection in remission for years, but would would we say that he's cured? Not in a million years. Just because I can't "infect you" with diabetes does not mean I'm cured. This debate among colleagues does not equate to something actually being "officially" considered a cure. Obviously, operationally, we cannot treat presently uncontrolled diabetes in the same way as diabetes in tight control, or in remission... So DUH, it can be "operationally" a cure, but not in truth. Remission is remission. A cure, is a cure. This is truly, irresponsible journaling at it's best. 
I would add that the amount of mental focus that is required in maintaining diet, food carbohydrate counts, exercise, and meal planning often borders on obsessive and unhealthy, and ends in many an eating disorder for many diabetes patients. The psychological ramifications of attaining euglycemia, at all costs, for many... have NOT been assessed, and yet, they are just as much a part of the disease as hyperglycemia and other markers. Diabetes is NOT just a disease of high blood glucose!  

  • The author uses statistical scare tactics to put the fear of God in you: But he does not put them in perspective. It's one thing to discuss how the rate of diabetes will triple, or double, or whatever. It's quite another to not discuss the rate of population growth, right along with that. Obviously, people ARE reproducing, and diabetes isn't just happening in a vacuum where the rate is growing by leaps and bounds larger than what it is. It's hard to say, because what will the population be in 2050? Our population is EXPLODING to what are potentially unsustainable levels, and of course, that's going to make numbers for any disease seem scary high, without some perspective. What would the rate be in RELATION to total population at that time? THAT is what the question should truly be... In addition, the author wrongly states that the prevalence of obesity has been increasing, year after year, when the prevalence of obesity has remained STEADY for the last 12 years.  Could it change, tomorrow? Sure... but for now, I think we can say many folks are starting to be more conscious of obesity, and their health, even if they might not see themselves as 'overweight.' Andriote fails to keep balance in the picture he's trying to paint.
  • While Andriote wants to instill a sense of seriousness to diabetes, while claiming we need support, he attacks commercials with friendly faces and role models, claiming that persons who are fit, or joggers, or younger folks -- are not what most Type 2 Diabetics are like. Perhaps not (some) newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetics, but is it wrong to have positive role models to aspire to? Is it wrong to see that some of us HAVE made changes, and CAN live a healthful life? Is it wrong for me to see another 35 year old I can relate to, on the tv? I fail to see just what he wants to accomplish, here. Does he want a fat, old Joe, sitting on a sofa, not able to move, and popping pills, or doing 'leg exercises' from a chair, because he can't move? Would THAT be more appropriate? Or perhaps, he wants people with their limbs amputated, like the city of New York's shocking diabetes ad campaign? I'm not sure what's the alternative he's looking for, here, and what's running through his mind. 
Of course, I can't end without discussing... that headline. "Curing Diabetes: How Type 2 Became an Accepted Lifestyle" ... I'm guessing he's trying to say most people just "accept" and take the diagnosis as a given, that they will need to live with this disease, forever... and take pills forever. But boy, is it an uneducated headline. Yes, people can live pill free, for a while... and depending WHEN they were diagnosed, if it was late in life -- maybe they might never have to take any meds, ever. But no, it's not a cure. Type 2 Diabetes IS a progressive illness, and the likelihood of a need for medications increases with the LENGTH of time we've had this disease -- and not exactly with how well we've taken care of it. Time goes by, and not in vain... our bodies DO age. Things break down. My father was in remission for years, yet he was never cured; diabetes still progressed, and still took his life. It happens.

Diabetes is not an "accepted lifestyle" anyone chose, anymore than people who got AIDS or HIV (by whatever method), CHOSE that as their lifestyle. I bet you $1,000,000 that this author would NEVER dream of writing "Curing HIV: How HIV Became an Accepted Lifestyle," merely because he read an opinion piece on how one can keep HIV in remission for YEARS. The headline even seems to sort of imply that we "coddle" people into being lazy about their care, and lazy about "curing themselves," so that we don't need to support them. It's not a disease, if you would, it's a "lifestyle." Yes, because Type 2 Diabetes is sooooooo glamorous. It's the lifestyle of the fat, and sloppy, and just give me my Metformin, over here. I'll take it with a side of that value meal, please. 

Sadly, Andriote could have done SO MUCH to advocate and help our community, but instead he chose the low road of blame, and veiled vitriol in between his lines. How someone who has written for the AIDS community can be so close minded about the needs of another equally ostracized community is BEYOND me.