this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
512 points (97.2% liked)
Comedy Heaven
1806 readers
4 users here now
So bad it's ascended.
For comedy that's so bad it's good.
Unsure if your post fits our community? See our guide.
Partnered communities:
Rules:
-
Follow Comedy Heaven's posting guidelines. In short, images should be ironically funny, but originally intended unironically or passable as such.
-
Follow Lemmy's Code of Conduct. No form of discrimination or hate will be tolerated.
-
Follow lemmy.world's Code of Conduct. This community is hosted on lemmy.world, and therefore must abide its rules (and mastodon.world's rules by extension).
-
Tag posts as NSFW if they are sexual in nature. If you are unsure, err on the safe side.
-
No politics. This is not a place for serious discussion, debate, or argument.
-
No violence or gore.
-
No set of rules is exhaustive. The mods reserve the right to update or expand this list in order to maintain an inviting and on-topic space.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are confidently incorrect.
So if your immune system is attacking your pancreas but you are still producing some insulin then you actually have type 2?
If your body is producing “enough” then you don’t have diabetes, type 1 or 2. That’s where you are incorrect.
Type 1/2 terminology came about before any understanding of the pathology. “Diabetes mellitus” specifically refers to glucosuria. Its a symptom of insulin deficiency - absolute (typical type 1) or relative (typical type 2). It’s like calling pneumonia “cough type 1” and lung cancer “cough type 2”.
When you say “not necessarily… not enough [insulin]” You managed to get wrong what diabetes is entirely - it is necessarily “not enough” insulin again whether type 1 or 2.
Regarding your question about autoimmune destruction of the pancreas- if it is happening but there is enough insulin to maintain glycemic control, then again it is not diabetes type 1 or 2. I’m not sure if there’s uniform widely accepted terminology for it but something like “pre-type 1” is reasonable for layman terms . You have to be careful though because there’s cases of folks who had an autoimmune response but it abated and they ended up not developing (type 1) diabetes.
Its better to think of diabetes as beta cell function (and insulin) +/- and autoantibodies +/-. That leads to 4 combinations, typical type 1 is -,+ and typical type 2 is +,- but the other combinations are like 10+ % of cases (mostly being +,+ as in many “typical” type 2s have some autoantibodies but still produce insulin).
I did not imply this. The text you quoted was in response to this:
That is an incorrect statement as this is not what distinguishes the two diagnoses. A type 1 diabetic who is not insulin dependent (yet) will have a very different treatment profile than a type 2 who is producing the same amount of insulin, but obviously both are not producing enough or they would not be diabetic. Hell, if you tell a doctor you're type 1 they often ask you if you're insulin dependent.
However, type 2 is (generally) characterized by insulin resistance as you indicated.
That seems to be the pattern of your replies here, factual information with a common layman's misunderstanding peppered on top. I took the bait, so that's on me.