Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#51

Post by mistrial9 »

sapphicsnail wrote: post #45
mistrial9 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the founding fathers who held other humans in bondage for all sorts of free labor Actually, slavery was a bitter dividing line among the founders of the USA. It is intellectually lazy to ascribe slavery to all of the founders of the USA. It also insults those who were vocally and politically against slavery, from the very earliest days. You can find many examples with any effort at all.

Almost all of the founding fathers either owned slaves or weren't willing to stick their necks out to stop it. We absolutely should question their judgement.

less than ten seconds of research:

$googlesearch "how many signers of the US Constitution were slave owners?"

25 Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery.

Historical Context: The Constitution and Slavery

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#52

Post by mlhpdx »

AlbertCory wrote: post #35
thefifthsetpin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no credentials here, but I'm often working in this space and your take is the polar opposite of what I normally hear from the endos and diabetes researchers that I've worked with. More accurate terms might be diabetes and morbid diabetes. That the cutoff for prediabetes is close to the median level is a statement that much of the population is actually unhealthy in this regard.

No, it's a statement that the "cutoff" was chosen on questionable grounds. Defend it.

According to what I understand from researches in this area is that even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. You may not like the term, but it effectively communicates the situation.

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#53

Post by AlbertCory »

mlhpdx wrote: post #52
AlbertCory wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a statement that the "cutoff" was chosen on questionable grounds. Defend it.

According to what I understand from researches in this area is that even a slight increase in A1C is highly correlated with later progression. You may not like the term, but it effectively communicates the situation.

[flagged]

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#54

Post by ipaddr »

CSSer wrote: post #34
newshackr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions also don't always work in the interest of everyone they represent. For instance, they tend to be protective of older and longer working members in exchange for limiting upward mobility of younger members. Or building policies that encourage the growth of the union as an organization, despite potential costs.

It’s true. My first job was as a cashier at Kroger. I remember looking at the pay tables and being shocked. You could make impressive money as a cashier at Kroger… if you worked there for 30 years. Virtually no one I worked with had even worked there for more than a few years either. Meanwhile, I earned just above the federal minimum wage and multiple hours of my weekly earnings went to little more than protecting my…

He is staying in for protection. The extra money doesn't make up for having your experience count as added protection (they can't fire him, they can reduce those jobs and employees with more service time will keep the job first).

If a company can fire quickly and replace with cheaper options no one is going to last more than a few years. Many software shops do this (meta, Amazon, generic local company, etc.

I share your experiences working in a union environment when younger and having family have live long jobs. In one case I felt the union was against me or my class of worker (student employee) because we took away from regular union jobs. Still had to pay dues. The other union job just took a few dollars from my paycheck but gave me a wage I couldn't earn elsewhere.

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#55

Post by beepbooptheory »

mistrial9 wrote: post #41
7speter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Founding Fathers would be deeply ashamed of us, I think. Sorry, but the founding fathers who held other humans in bondage for all sorts of free labor? Those founding fathers, or did I wake up in a parallel universe this morning? Let me check wikipedia…

> the founding fathers who held other humans in bondage for all sorts of free labor Actually, slavery was a bitter dividing line among the founders of the USA. It is intellectually lazy to ascribe slavery to all of the founders of the USA. It also insults those who were vocally and politically against slavery, from the very earliest days. You can find many examples with any effort at all.

Is there anything at all to be said about the fact that slavery ended up being permissible anyway? Or is that just lazy?

Like, doesn't the sheer magnitude of the inhumanity that actually existed in these times kind of overshadow whatever armchair-enlightment some guys voiced?

How could you be aware of what they did in those times even the slightest bit, and yet still be concerned that one might "insult" guys who have been dead 200 years? How can that even make sense?

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#56

Post by elicash »

hawkice wrote: post #12
mustang-med wrote: post #3

My hard and fast rule in america is that everything aside from unions do not work in the interest of the people. The sooner this is taught to our kids, the better off they'll be from being indoctrinated from the trash on instagram/tiktok.

Unions aren't acting in the interest of the people generically, often not even the members of the union. Otherwise they wouldn't go to court to force people who don't even want to be in the union to pay dues, even when the dues go to political campaigns unrelated to the purpose of the union, as in Janus v. AFSCME (where the support for political causes by the union meant it violated public sector workers freedom of s…

I strongly disagree with you about Janus.

The point of that decision by a right-wing court was to make it harder for public sector workers to stand together in unions. Unions are democratic institutions, with dues and leadership decided by the membership, and the idea that some people pay and some don't even though the entire unit is represented doesn't make a ton of sense. Just like it wouldn't make sense if 2 people in a unit of 1000 wanted to be in a particular union to just say those 2 can bargain collectively.

The weird "speech" argument was basically that their worksite issues are inherently political. I disagree. Unions have separate political funds from the worksite stuff that are optional.

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#57

Post by nradov »

code_biologist wrote: post #5
GiorgioG wrote: post #2

The ADA has for a very long time told diabetics to keep eating carbs. Their tune is finally changing, but no, they don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves.

One drug advertisement I’ve seen on Pinterest lately says “diet and exercise can’t treat diabetes” which may be true of type 1 diabetes, but last time I checked 90% of the diabetes in the US is type 2 and diet improvements should absolutely be the first line intervention.

Diet and exercise are extremely effective in treating type 1 diabetes. But some exogenous insulin (and other medications) are usually still required.

For type 2 diabetes, research had shown that many patients can put the condition into remission through lifestyle changes alone. Nutritional ketosis is very effective in reversing insulin resistance.

https://www.virtahealth.com/research

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#59

Post by AlbertCory »

guerby wrote: post #48
AlbertCory wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a statement that the "cutoff" was chosen on questionable grounds. Defend it.

Did you check the litterature? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20697688/ Hba1c 6.0 to 6.5 (so called prediabetic range) has 2.5 times the hasard ratio of below 6.0. Increasing Hba1c is the leading indicator of future health issues and by far.

This comes closer to a cogent answer, which is what I was after.

> future health issues

like?

As I said, I'm not ready to publish this, but I wanted to hear some arguments that made sense. So thanks.

To me, "probability of progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes" is the only reason to say it's a real condition rather than just a risk factor.

Furthermore, it would be the derivative of the level, rather than the level itself.

And finally, it would have to be separated from other unhealthy conditions. Meaning, if they drink too much AND have pre-diabetic A1C, ERROR! Otherwise, how do you know it's not the alcohol?

Re: Does the American Diabetes Association work for patients or companies?

#60

Post by AlbertCory »

Hello71 wrote: post #38
AlbertCory wrote: post #20

> Over 100 million Americans have diabetes or prediabetes These two are not the same. It is dishonest to combine the two. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/07/29/prediabetes-the-ep... I'm not quite ready to publish my hypothesis that prediabetes is a scam. I need to research it a little more. But a statistician friend of mine responded: A handful of years ago, I looked into the National Health and Nutrition Evaluat…

> pre-diabetes [...] is rather close to the median level but according to the NIH, 30.7% of Americans are overweight, and 42.4% are obese. as the median American is overweight, it doesn't seem a stretch to claim that the median American is also pre-diabetic? I don't know whether it's true or not, but your evidence seems a bit thin.

> it doesn't seem a stretch to claim that the median American is also pre-diabetic

No, it's your evidence that's thin. You seem to have started from the premise ("Americans are unhealthy") and derived a pre-diabetes level from that.

Post reply on HN