Diabetes history

[Ewelina]

I thought you would like this link. Great slideshow about diabetes history. It really made me feel grateful to all scientists who work on finding cure to diabetes

http://www.diabeticconnect.com/slid...ium=Social&utm_campaign=History+of+Diabetes#0

 

[megga]

That was very interesting, allways wondered why the doctor wants a urine sample, he's after a sneeky sweet drink lol.

 

[Northerner]

That was very interesting, allways wondered why the doctor wants a urine sample, he's after a sneeky sweet drink lol.

Here's what we could use all that sweet urine for

http://diabetespoetry.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/wee-dram.html

 

[mcdonagh47]

pretty basic and heavily skewed towards the Canadian version, with glaring omissions e.g. Minkowski who identified the Pancreas as the organ concerned in 1889 and Sharpley-Shafer who named the missing hormone as Insulin in 1910. Banting and Best are presented as coming out of nowhere.
Heavily skewed towards Type 1s and insulin therapy as well.

 

[trophywench]

True.

I've often wondered a) when they actually decided there were two distinct types and b) what they treated T2 with before they discovered Metformin and the sulphonureas, or were they the other way about? sulphs before Met?

I know I assumed for a long long while that elderly onset D was actually caused by much the same thing as T1, ie the Beta cells dying (you get old, summat packs up, in this case the B cells) as opposed to it not being that at all.

But there again you see, I didn't bother reading much about T2 at all, because it 'didn't apply to me'.

I don't know lots of things about lots of things. The things I may know a bit about are subjects that have caught my interest for whatever reason.

 

[Northerner]

I don't know, but I imagine that most cases of what we now call Type 2 went unrecognised - even today there are millions of people walking this earth without knowing they have diabetes, so surely there must have been even more back in the day. Plus, I would imagine that more people died younger, possibly due to complications like heart disease and stroke, without knowing that diabetes may have been a primary cause. Other symptoms may have just been dismissed as age-related - where 'old' might be considered late 40s/50s. So maybe if people were generally just deteriorating it was not seen as a consideration for treatment? Plus, they didn't have the sort of testing (more of a 'tasting' back then?) we now have, or knowledge of what was 'normal'.

Will have to revisit some of my books and see what they say! 🙂

 

[trophywench]

Well - I was thinking (dangerous, LOL)

Whenever it was they discovered Met was helpful for lowering BG was when people were put on it to lose weight, cos it was originally marketed as an appetite suppressant.

So the people were fat because of what? - overeating or insulinaemia? or both? or neither?

Were they known diabetics prior to this happening? Were they on sulphs - or were they treated by insulin?

No matter, but there must have been a way to test their BG at this time, anyway.

As an aside, yes - in the clinic waiting room there were no healthy looking elderly diabetics. Many in wheelchairs or with sticks and Zimmers. The only healthy looking post middle aged people, were accompanying some of those people.

V V depressing place to make a trendy 22 yo sit for a couple of hours on a Monday, I know THAT.

 

[Northerner]

..As an aside, yes - in the clinic waiting room there were no healthy looking el.derly diabetics. Many in wheelchairs or with sticks and Zimmers. The only healthy looking post middle aged people, were accompanying some of those people.

V V depressing place to make a trendy 22 yo sit for a couple of hours on a
, I know THAT.

Plus ca change - much the same when I used to go to the Diabetes Centre shortly after I was diagnosed (the clinic now comes to my GP surgery, so you're in with the hoi polloi 😉).