This is what they teach them in schools these days!

[Sally71]

This is what my daughter is learning in science this week - wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!! (See pictures)
It also says that the target blood glucose range is only 6-8 and that type 1 is managed with only 2 injections per day (very archaic these days, my mum has been on MDI for at least 30 years I think...)
I would like to think that when they are back in classrooms properly that they will learn about it in a bit more detail, the science teacher that my daughter had in year 8 said that she would put her in charge of the class for the day when they got onto this topic, sadly that teacher isn’t at the school any more
My daughter is extremely cross about this of course, I’ve told her to tell the teacher and have forwarded the pictures to her DSN, not that they will be able to do anything but it gets it off our chests! Had a school first aider on the phone last week panicking because she had been low (but wasn’t any more) and had eaten all her packed lunch by 10am and was refusing apples or any other food they offered her, little wonder they get confused with stuff like this around.

It makes you wonder what else they teach them that is wrong that we don’t have inside knowledge of

 

[helli]

Reading "Type 1 develops during childhood" is enough to make my blood boil.
Probably not relevant to your daughter but many people miss Type 1 diagnosis (or misdiagnose it as type 2) because they don't realise more than 50% are diagnosed as adults.

It's very sad that this is (and the other points you highlight) what is in your daughter's science books and, when you know this is wrong, it makes it hard to believe everything else that is in it.

 

[Amity Island]

This is what my daughter is learning in science this week - wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!! (See pictures)
It also says that the target blood glucose range is only 6-8 and that type 1 is managed with only 2 injections per day (very archaic these days, my mum has been on MDI for at least 30 years I think...)
I would like to think that when they are back in classrooms properly that they will learn about it in a bit more detail, the science teacher that my daughter had in year 8 said that she would put her in charge of the class for the day when they got onto this topic, sadly that teacher isn’t at the school any more
My daughter is extremely cross about this of course, I’ve told her to tell the teacher and have forwarded the pictures to her DSN, not that they will be able to do anything but it gets it off our chests! Had a school first aider on the phone last week panicking because she had been low (but wasn’t any more) and had eaten all her packed lunch by 10am and was refusing apples or any other food they offered her, little wonder they get confused with stuff like this around.

It makes you wonder what else they teach them that is wrong that we don’t have inside knowledge of

Hi Sally 71,

There's even bigger things, that's being mis-taught in schools and to the the world at large.

Take the very current topic greenhouse gases. The current teaching is that 84% of greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (of which apparantly humans are partly to blame). However this is just not true.

What they leave out of that "fact" is that Carbon Dioxide is only a tiny percentage of the total greenhouse gases, water vapour being by far the largest at 95% and carbon dioxide is actually only 3.6% of total greenhouse gases and only a small proportion of that carbon dioxide is man made.

I bumped into someone just the other week, his business is based around advising clients about this "84%" carbon dioxide problem. When I said its only 3.6% he was absolutely adamant, totally convinced, had proof etc that he was right! later with amazement he had to admit he had been mis-informed for years and that as a result of that had also been mis-informing his clients for years. I'm not saying carbon dioxide isn't effecting climate change, but at least give people the complete picture.

There are probably lots of instances where we are being mis-informed (not given all the facts, intentionally or through ignorance).

 

[Inamuddle]

Grrrr what rubbish information

 

[Docb]

Your problem would be solved if my plan to get the use of percentages banned is successful.

 

[Inka]

Reading "Type 1 develops during childhood" is enough to make my blood boil.
Probably not relevant to your daughter but many people miss Type 1 diagnosis (or misdiagnose it as type 2) because they don't realise more than 50% are diagnosed as adults.

It's very sad that this is (and the other points you highlight) what is in your daughter's science books and, when you know this is wrong, it makes it hard to believe everything else that is in it.

Not as bad as reading that the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is that people with a Type 1 are born with it!! I had to complain about that on a major national website once.

@Sally71 That looks very old-fashioned and like it’s not been updated for decades. You and your daughter are quite right to be annoyed. I hope she gets a chance to teach the correct information!

 

[Ralph-YK]

I've heard there are plenty of T2s on insulin. If it doesn't help, how come healthcare professionals prescribing it.

 

[Drummer]

Not as bad as reading that the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 is that people with a Type 1 are born with it!! I had to complain about that on a major national website once.

@Sally71 That looks very old-fashioned and like it’s not been updated for decades. You and your daughter are quite right to be annoyed. I hope she gets a chance to teach the correct information!

I was always going to be a type 2 diabetic because I inherited it. It runs in the family. It might take many decades to develop even eating a diet lower in carbs than most people. Pushed into eating a high carb diet, I slid into full blown diabetes, but I could never eat carbs right from childhood.
It might be argued that I was in some state other than diabetic when I was young and had a 24 inch waist, but I am the same person with the same DNA I was born with. It really needs less generalization.

 

[DaveB]

I've heard there are plenty of T2s on insulin. If it doesn't help, how come healthcare professionals prescribing it.

Sadly many GPs just keep adding more meds including insulin to a T2 with excess weight rather then considering the possibility of high insulin resistance and the need to bring that down thru the right diet or the weekly injection. Part of the problem is the group of mis-diagnosed T1s, like myself, where insulin will be needed and are part of the 'T2' group. The C-Peptide test should be used more often to check whether adding insulin is relevant. It's a low-cost test but how many GPs know about it?

 

[Inka]

I was always going to be a type 2 diabetic because I inherited it. It runs in the family. It might take many decades to develop even eating a diet lower in carbs than most people. Pushed into eating a high carb diet, I slid into full blown diabetes, but I could never eat carbs right from childhood.
It might be argued that I was in some state other than diabetic when I was young and had a 24 inch waist, but I am the same person with the same DNA I was born with. It really needs less generalization.

Type 2 is more linked with genetics than Type 1, yes. Type 1 is believed to be more ‘environmental’ - ie caused by an outside/environmental trigger eg a virus, cows milk, etc etc.

My point was that nobody is ‘born with’ Type 1. When people wrongly say that, it’s just another form of “Type 1 is a childhood condition” (which it isn’t) No baby is born with Type 1. Neo-natal Diabetes is a separate condition and comes under the MODY umbrella, I think, as it’s monogenic.

If you’re interested in genes, then have a google of “epigenetics type 2 diabetes”. A number of studies come up. I didn’t read them so can’t comment on their comment, but they may be of interest.

 

[KARNAK]

I've been DX for 3.5 years as a T1 and plenty of members will also confirm that they where DX later on in life. I'm now approaching 67 so let the scientists work that out.

 

[Sally71]

My mum always used to say that you inherit the tendency towards diabetes but then it takes some sort of external influence to trigger it (I presume she’s only talking about type 1). She was diagnosed aged 22 and thinks the stress from my dad having a motorbike accident which nearly killed him probably triggered it. My daughter was diagnosed aged 6 and I’m pretty certain a virus caused it. Mum also had an aunt that had it, so fairly sure there’s some sort of genetic link!

 

[trophywench]

Chap my first husband worked alongside was apparently AOK when he climbed a tree aged about 10. After he fell out of it and broke a few bones - he was T1. Whether he'd have simply been ill thereafter and found to be T1, so the hospital stay and blood test just made him get diagnosed sooner - nobody can know.

 

[Sally71]

Check these out too (more pics). Graph shows difference between blood sugar levels of people with and without diabetes and asks some questions. Graph shows blood sugar levels in milligrams per litre. I thought the American system was milligrams per decilitre? Which means it’s wrong - 100 mg/l = 10 mg/dl, we divide mg/dl by 18 to get mmol/l which is the numbers we understand. So from the top end of this graph, 300 mg/l = 30 mg/dl, divide by 18 = 1.6 mmol/l!! So at the top end of their graph you’d be well hypo! From lower down, 75 mg/l = 7.5 mg/dl = 0.41 mmol/l = probably dead! Or have I got it wrong? If you divide the numbers on the graph by 18 they come out the same as ours, so I guess they put litre instead of decilitre.

Now I know the point of the question is just to check whether you can read a graph and explain the differences between the blood sugar levels of people with and without diabetes, but does anyone else get very cross that they can’t even be bothered to get the units right?? Better make sure I’ve understood correctly before we complain to the teacher lol!

 

[Bexlee]

All I can say is ...... I teach science (not bio!!) and some teachers (colleagues) seem to really struggle understanding diabetes.

We had a similar incident 2 weeks ago with very rigid descriptions of diabetes from a poor source and even poorer explanation ! Shame the staff don’t have access to and “expert” in the subject teacher and a number of “expert” children !

It was funny really as “the diabetic kid” emailed me and said miss check it out ... it was worse as it went on to talk about reversing diabetes through diet and not a clear distinction between T1 and T2.

the question seems to imply diabetes makes you unhealthy.....if the this is the blood glucose of a healthy person!

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

*sigh* How frustrating for you both @Sally71

 

[Deleted member 25429]

Reading "Type 1 develops during childhood" is enough to make my blood boil.
Probably not relevant to your daughter but many people miss Type 1 diagnosis (or misdiagnose it as type 2) because they don't realise more than 50% are diagnosed as adults.

It's very sad that this is (and the other points you highlight) what is in your daughter's science books and, when you know this is wrong, it makes it hard to believe everything else that is in it.

Me to I was diagnosed after a DKA and I had a consultant say to me you’re too old for it to be type 1 , it’s ok we’ll take you off insulin after we get the blood test results. Luckily they came back as conclusive that I was type 1

 

[Ljc]

Me to I was diagnosed after a DKA and I had a consultant say to me you’re too old for it to be type 1 , it’s ok we’ll take you off insulin after we get the blood test results. Luckily they came back as conclusive that I was type 1

Erm, I wonder what he was a consultant of

 

[helli]

Me to I was diagnosed after a DKA and I had a consultant say to me you’re too old for it to be type 1 , it’s ok we’ll take you off insulin after we get the blood test results. Luckily they came back as conclusive that I was type 1

Thankfully, at the age of 36, my experience was the opposite - "You are too think to have type 2 so it must be Type 1".
I now know how ill-informed this was but, thankfully, the diagnosis was correct even if the reasoning was not.

 

[trophywench]

Well that was bollards in 1972 when Adam was a lad and myself and @Flutterby were both diagnosed, she as a child and myself as a 22 you married woman - so begs the question why the D of E are using at least 50+ year old medical info in their current textbooks?