Dr. Richard Lehman’s journal review blog for The BMJ is one of my favorite weekly reads.
Today he comments on last week’s study that led to all of the news coverage claiming that half of all Americans have diabetes or pre-diabetes.
Now when I read most of the literature about diabetes I feel as if I’m trapped in revival meeting of a religion that I don’t belong to. Why does having abnormal glucose tests cost the USA $245bn? Does everybody beyond these threshold values pose an inevitable burden on the US economy? Wouldn’t it be better to do fewer of these tests and so reduce costs and spare a lot of people from needless anxiety and futile treatment? I turned in vain to the editorial on this study, with the alluring title “Prevalence of Diabetes in the United States: A Glimmer of Hope?”
It begins: “Obesity is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes” and goes on to point out that between 1980 and 2000 the prevalence of obesity in the USA doubled, but since then seems to have reached a plateau with 35% of US adults aged 20 years or older estimated to be obese. And the prevalence of diabetes seems to have actually decreased a bit since 2008, despite a higher level of detection. The American Medical Association, the author notes with approval, has classed obesity as a disease. Well, anything for a crazy society to change its habits I suppose. Maybe it would help if the AMA classed gun ownership as a disease. I feel disoriented in a strange world of category errors and reversed logic. Somebody please help me. Just what is this “type 2 diabetes”?
We published an audio interview with Dr. Victor Montori of the Mayo Clinic about that study.
And we also published a related podcast with Dr. John S. Yudkin of University College, London, about pre-diabetes and “the idolatry of the surrogate.”
If you’re interested, here’s more on that estimate of $245 billion per year for the total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the US.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Tazia K. Stagg
September 14, 2015 at 1:08 pmDr. Lehman, would it be better to do fewer of these tests?
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like