Diabetes

[77TA]

You said if you spend a few short minutes to get injected you will then meet vaccination requirements for travel.

That is incorrect information as usual.

*removed* my comment is there for anyone to read, the information is correct, as usual.
You can say whatever you want, does not change the fact that the anyone could have gotten the vaccination in just a few short minutes, anytime in the last year. How do you think 80% or so of canadians managed to do it? Anyone who travels is responsible for finding out the requirements, and knows there are many requirements that have to be fulfilled before getting on a plane. You want the freedom to do whatever you want, but you don't want to live with your choices.

You want to force people to do what you want or take away their choices. You can say whatever you want but won't change that a few minutes is not enough to meet the requirements of vaccination for travel.

[Silverstarqueen]

I have not seen any study that showed the course of covid could be changed by taking people with, say, diabetes or obesity, and somehow magically reversing their condition, and therefore having a better outcome, mainly because if there is already a 99% survival rate after these people get covid, it would take a huge study to show that a) these conditions could be cured b) and then that this improved their survival rate by much. Yet, if they get vaccinated, and good hospital treatment(if needed), they have a survival rate compared to other covid patients.

This science to your statement above is absolutely proven and documented in pretty much every single medical website you can find. But we could just do a search through out WHO, WOF and CDC. There are many links and information clearly showing the direct link to covid that Diabetes and overweight/obese condition's have. Like the negative result a ventilator has when dealing with someone with these conditions.
Look, the magic has been in place all along. It's sometimes hard work. Takes a wack of commitment but as these medical site's state, its very possible for most people to change or at least assist in the horrible health complications that it contributes to.
Do as you like with the science. The absolute truth is, addresses your personal health can contribute overall drastically to everyone's covid vulnerability.
Like it or not, its the fact. And a lot of people have achieved success in adjusting their conditions to better protect themselves. What is the next virus going to be? Are you ready or are you dependant on waiting for pfizer?
Can you prove that you are more protected with the vaccine than say myself, being unvaccinated?

Please make my choice for me with facts and science.

Then post a study or studies which prove that people have reversed diabetes or obesity and had a better outcome from covid. You say it's proven, that doesn't show the evidence that it has been proven.
If there are sooooo many studies on this, let's have them.

[Silverstarqueen]

*removed* my comment is there for anyone to read, the information is correct, as usual.
You can say whatever you want, does not change the fact that the anyone could have gotten the vaccination in just a few short minutes, anytime in the last year. How do you think 80% or so of canadians managed to do it? Anyone who travels is responsible for finding out the requirements, and knows there are many requirements that have to be fulfilled before getting on a plane. You want the freedom to do whatever you want, but you don't want to live with your choices.

You want to force people to do what you want or take away their choices. You can say whatever you want but won't change that a few minutes is not enough to meet the requirements of vaccination for travel.

Please quote anywhere that I said I want to force people to do what I want. People have choices, I think that's great. I don't see a problem there at all. If they don't want to meet the requirements of the airlines, or the countries receiving them, or Canada upon entry, they they can see what the consequences are. Travelling requires some responsibility to make sure that a person has met the regulations. Getting the covid vaccine was quick and easy, so no excuse why anyone could not have got one. Most of the people I know have been fully vaccinated for almost a year, or longer.

[77TA]

You want to force people to do what you want or take away their choices. You can say whatever you want but won't change that a few minutes is not enough to meet the requirements of vaccination for travel.

Please quote anywhere that I said I want to force people to do what I want. People have choices, I think that's great. I don't see a problem there at all. If they don't want to meet the requirements of the airlines, or the countries receiving them, or Canada upon entry, they they can see what the consequences are. Travelling requires some responsibility to make sure that a person has met the regulations. Getting the covid vaccine was quick and easy, so no excuse why anyone could not have got one. Most of the people I know have been fully vaccinated for almost a year, or longer.

Please quote anywhere I said I want the freedom to do whatever I want, but I don't want to live with my choices. Sheesh, Some are quick to label and perhaps don't realize the lies they spread.

[Silverstarqueen]

Another study in Italy, risk factors of those who had ICU admission. Being male, aged, OR having COPD was a higher risk factor than having type 2 diabetes.
" Independent risk factors associated with mortality included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.92), male sex (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.88), high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), high positive end-expiratory pressure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) or low Pao2:Fio2 ratio (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) on ICU admission, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.19), hypercholesterolemia (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), and type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39). No medication was independently associated with mortality (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.42; angiotensin receptor blockers HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29).
Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (1643 [42.1%; 95% CI, 40.5%-43.6%]), followed by hypercholesterolemia (545 [16.5%; 95% CI, 15.3%-17.8%]) and heart disease (533 [16.2%; 95% CI, 14.9%-17.4%])."
No mention of hyperglycemia or hyperinsulinism as being in the highest risk factors.

[zoo]

Another study in Italy, risk factors of those who had ICU admission. Being male, aged, OR having COPD was a higher risk factor than having type 2 diabetes.
" Independent risk factors associated with mortality included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.92), male sex (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.88), high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), high positive end-expiratory pressure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) or low Pao2:Fio2 ratio (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) on ICU admission, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.19), hypercholesterolemia (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), and type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39). No medication was independently associated with mortality (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.42; angiotensin receptor blockers HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29).
Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (1643 [42.1%; 95% CI, 40.5%-43.6%]), followed by hypercholesterolemia (545 [16.5%; 95% CI, 15.3%-17.8%]) and heart disease (533 [16.2%; 95% CI, 14.9%-17.4%])."
No mention of hyperglycemia or hyperinsulinism as being in the highest risk factors.

Go figure, Most common comorbidity and its treatable. Seems the area of concern to all of us is being ignored yet it is one of the most related conditions to covid severity and death.
Wouldn't it be great if government and individuals could respect science. Looks like we need to stop being just plain stupid and actually treat this for what it is. Instead of busy mandating, removing freedoms of travel, shaming and blaming unvaccinated as the chosen attack group.
Surviving covid means making sure these select vulnerable groups get vaccinated, not worrying that your neighbour does.
Maybe our government needs to grow up and be responsible.


Can be dangerous or life threatening if untreated
How common is condition?
Very common (More than 500,000 cases per year in Canada)
Is condition treatable?
Treatable by a medical professional

The analysis reported a total of 130,468 deaths that had been registered, Italy. (For the latest data on the country, see the Reuters tracker, here )

Of those who died in hospital, data was available for 7,910 people on their comorbidities diagnosed before the SARS-CoV-2 infection (meaning having two or more diseases at the same time) ( here ): 2.9% presented with no comorbidities and 97.1% had one or more condition listed aside from COVID-19, such as ischemic heart disease, heart failure, type-2 diabetes, obesity or autoimmune disease (see Table 1 here).
Electing to define death from COVID-19 in this way may have resulted in an overestimation of the case-fatality rate. A subsample of 355 patients with COVID-19 who died in Italy underwent detailed chart review. Among these patients, the mean age was 79.5 years (SD, 8.1) and 106 (30.0%) were women. In this sample, 117 patients (30%) had ischemic heart disease, 126 (35.5%) had diabetes, 72 (20.3%) had active cancer, 87 (24.5%) had atrial fibrillation, 24 (6.8%) had dementia, and 34 (9.6%) had a history of stroke. The mean number of preexisting diseases was 2.7 (SD, 1.6). Overall, only 3 patients (0.8%) had no diseases, 89 (25.1%) had a single disease, 91 (25.6%) had 2 diseases, and 172 (48.5%) had 3 or more underlying diseases. The presence of these comorbidities might have increased the risk of mortality independent of COVID-19 infection.

[Merry]

I don’t consider age to be a comorbidity. Age is a natural process that eventually affects everyone. So, although it’s true that advancing age is the greatest risk factor for a poor Covid outcome, diabetes is the most prevalent “comorbidity” associated with complications of Covid.

It should also be noted that advancing age alone was rarely responsible for severe Covid. Most of the old folks who succumbed also had 3 or more comordidities, of which diabetes was the most prevalent.

Of course, there are always exceptions to every commonality, but diabetes was, and is, a very great risk factor for severe Covid.

Aging is a natural process, but age is the greatest, and independent, risk factor for severe covid, every decade of additional years, increases a person's risk. So to ignore that as a contributing factor is really ignoring everything that our PHO's and the studies have shown us to date. Co morbidities multiply that risk again, so an aged person with the same level of heart disease (for example), as a younger person, will have a much higher risk of severe outcomes.
Over 3 million people in canada are living with diabetes, and at 1 million more undiagnosed, 40,000 Canadians died of covid (obviously not all diabetic). That means that about 1% of diabetics did not die of covid. Diabetes is certainly a risk factor, but it is not nearly the only risk factor. I posted yesterday a study which looked at the odds ratios for various comorbidities of people who died of covid.

I never said diabetes was the ONLY risk factor. I said it’s the comorbidity that is the greatest risk factor for developing complications of Covid.

People with diabetes were almost twice as likely to die from Covid and almost three times as likely ...
https://www.onmanorama.com/lifestyle/he ... study.html

[liisgo]

Bottom line, ignorance and commitment at all levels to address the so very proven, most contributing factor to covid death and severity is being ignored. The fact is, unhealthy is why and who covid focused its attack. Not dealing with this, not being able to acknowledge this is the failing of it all.
Stopping a healthy, young, fit individual from an airplane, gym, restaurant while allowing in societies weakest, most vulnerable is with out a doubt a poor excuse for dealing with this pandemic. Basing the decision on who is to be disciplined and punished in this society by taking a vaccine is a complete disgusting handling of this.
The cause of severe related covid and death is well proven to be a person's personal health status and weakness.
Not being whether or not someone took a vaccine.
If people do not want to focus their energy and address their own vulnerability to these concerns, then good luck at the next variant, the next virus.
Because you will be waiting and looking pretty stupid doing it, you can wait for the super rich to manufacture up a sync drug, and then you can start your vicious attack on the others.
The stupidity of so many, ignoring at all cost's the relevance of health in this is a pretty major disappointment for those that are expecting more. Expecting government and people to do the "right thing", to contribute. To at least try instead of having to be so damn politically correct over the safety of its people.

[Silverstarqueen]

Just take your Vit D stops diabetes? Not quite so simple, and not the best method. Nurse Campbell missed on the message here. Which is why we consult real doctors about health issues and not online retired Nurses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzaKro5Bt0

What an encocrinaologist actually said about the study:
"Dr. Rose Lin, an endocrinologist at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in California.

“The level of vitamin D associated with a nonsignificant reduction in diabetes is much higher than the generally recommended safe dosage, so recommendations for the general population to raise their vitamin D levels to this degree is not advised at this time,”

Read the study, because Campbell's take away is not helpful for prediabetics, the study only applies to prediabetics,and really only for those who are deficient in Vit D.

For those considering what type of diet, changes might work: The traditional Okinawan diet and way of life confers an extraordinary long and healthy life, low rate of heart disease, diabetes, etc.most of the ills plaguing those living our modern lifestyle. Essentially, you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet.

About half a million in Canada have prediabetes. Let's say from following the study that in three years 25% might go diabetic (if they don't make life-style or medication changes). Vit D (if people are actually deficient in it) could reduce that to 22%, a slight improvement, and still not likely to work unless the needed changes are made.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... in-D-study

[rustled]

Just take your Vit D stops diabetes? Not quite so simple, and not the best method. Nurse Campbell missed on the message here. Which is why we consult real doctors about health issues and not online retired Nurses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzaKro5Bt0

This takes what he actually said out of context - again! It seems having a mad on for Dr. Campbell has again blinded those trying to discredit him from sharing what should be considered good news: the study reviewed shows taking adequate vitamin D can reduce the likelihood of pre-diabetes becoming full-fledged diabetes. And he takes the UK's public health system to task for not doing a better job of helping people know when they can benefit from inexpensive preventives like vitamin D.

He also said, again, "don't take anything on my recommendation - talk to your doctor." And he said it more than once, as he generally does.

Finding a HealthLine piece that quotes endocrinologist who says something one can use to undermine the study Dr. Campbell reviewed is, IMO, taking a vendetta a bit too far. Especially since the same piece quotes the same endocrinologist saying “These are interesting studies, and results should prompt further investigations in the form of large randomized trials”.

HealthLine is playing it safer than Dr. Campbell by not suggesting people start taking vitamin D pending the results of "further investigation". Which is fine - their objective of reporting is different from Dr. Campbell's objective of reviewing and critiquing public health.

It's not their objective to directly address the people with pre-diabetes who could be benefiting now by upping their vitamin D intake to the daily dosage recommended by their doctor.

Of course it makes sense for us to improve our diets and get more exercise. But seriously, what is the end goal in objecting to Dr. Campbell explaining this study shows how we might benefit from increasing our vitamin D intake to within what's considered the safe limit, or talking it over with their own doctor?

Seems to me when sticking it to Dr. Campbell is the priority over helping pre-diabetics who could benefit from an increase in supplemental vitamin D, we've lost the plot.

[Fancy]

Interesting the majority of people I know with diabetes developed it under the age of 40. All were active - some were pregnancy related.

[Silverstarqueen]

Just take your Vit D stops diabetes? Not quite so simple, and not the best method. Nurse Campbell missed on the message here. Which is why we consult real doctors about health issues and not online retired Nurses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzaKro5Bt0

This takes what he actually said out of context - again! It seems having a mad on for Dr. Campbell has again blinded those trying to discredit him from sharing what should be considered good news: the study reviewed shows taking adequate vitamin D can reduce the likelihood of pre-diabetes becoming full-fledged diabetes. And he takes the UK's public health system to task for not doing a better job of helping people know when they can benefit from inexpensive preventives like vitamin D.

He also said, again, "don't take anything on my recommendation - talk to your doctor." And he said it more than once, as he generally does.

Finding a HealthLine piece that quotes endocrinologist who says something one can use to undermine the study Dr. Campbell reviewed is, IMO, taking a vendetta a bit too far. Especially since the same piece quotes the same endocrinologist saying “These are interesting studies, and results should prompt further investigations in the form of large randomized trials”.

HealthLine is playing it safer than Dr. Campbell by not suggesting people start taking vitamin D pending the results of "further investigation". Which is fine - their objective of reporting is different from Dr. Campbell's objective of reviewing and critiquing public health.

It's not their objective to directly address the people with pre-diabetes who could be benefiting now by upping their vitamin D intake to the daily dosage recommended by their doctor.

Of course it makes sense for us to improve our diets and get more exercise. But seriously, what is the end goal in objecting to Dr. Campbell explaining this study shows how we might benefit from increasing our vitamin D intake to within what's considered the safe limit, or talking it over with their own doctor?

Seems to me when sticking it to Dr. Campbell is the priority over helping pre-diabetics who could benefit from an increase in supplemental vitamin D, we've lost the plot.

Link is to Campbell's entire video, so hardly out of context.
Endocrinologist's comment does not undermine the study, at all. They are accurately stating the significance (which is small) of the results. Campbell (not even mentioned by the endocrinologist, so no vendetta) overstates the significance of the results and leaves viewers with the impression that taking Vit D should be pushed by doctors more, and would make some huge difference in the number of people who get diabetes, which is not even what the study says. Maybe doctors are focussing on steps prediabetics can take which do make a much bigger difference in whether they progress to diabetes within three years. A 22% progression instead of a 25% progression, is not a big difference, especially if doctors are spending their time and tests monitoring Vit d levels, when they really need to be monitoring HbA!C and fasting or postprandial glucose levels. The results of that study are hardly enough for doctors to go hard on Vit D, in order to put a dent in the Diabetes rates. They are also somewhat busy with looking after the whole picture for diabetics, which are not affected by this study. Why isn't campbell focussing his videos on the many advancements in the treatment of diabetes which work way better than a vit D supplement? Why not show people how to test their blood sugar? or how to reduce it? Which medications are most effective? Who needs them most, before they get to full blown diabetes, or in early stage diabetes? This could be fodder for several of his videos and he might make a huge difference, whereas just pushing Vit D will not. He could cover studies on different dietary approaches, of which there are many. Some of the newer medications (Ozempic seems to be in the news lately), give us the studies on how effective they are, for which patients?

[rustled]

This takes what he actually said out of context - again! It seems having a mad on for Dr. Campbell has again blinded those trying to discredit him from sharing what should be considered good news: the study reviewed shows taking adequate vitamin D can reduce the likelihood of pre-diabetes becoming full-fledged diabetes. And he takes the UK's public health system to task for not doing a better job of helping people know when they can benefit from inexpensive preventives like vitamin D.

He also said, again, "don't take anything on my recommendation - talk to your doctor." And he said it more than once, as he generally does.

Finding a HealthLine piece that quotes endocrinologist who says something one can use to undermine the study Dr. Campbell reviewed is, IMO, taking a vendetta a bit too far. Especially since the same piece quotes the same endocrinologist saying “These are interesting studies, and results should prompt further investigations in the form of large randomized trials”.

HealthLine is playing it safer than Dr. Campbell by not suggesting people start taking vitamin D pending the results of "further investigation". Which is fine - their objective of reporting is different from Dr. Campbell's objective of reviewing and critiquing public health.

It's not their objective to directly address the people with pre-diabetes who could be benefiting now by upping their vitamin D intake to the daily dosage recommended by their doctor.

Of course it makes sense for us to improve our diets and get more exercise. But seriously, what is the end goal in objecting to Dr. Campbell explaining this study shows how we might benefit from increasing our vitamin D intake to within what's considered the safe limit, or talking it over with their own doctor?

Seems to me when sticking it to Dr. Campbell is the priority over helping pre-diabetics who could benefit from an increase in supplemental vitamin D, we've lost the plot.

Link is to Campbell's entire video, so hardly out of context.

It is entirely out of context regardless. That's not at all what he said - instead, it's a subjective misinterpretation of what he said. Unless people watch the entire video, what they're left with is the dishonest misrepresentation.

And that dishonest misinterpretation discourages people from considering the potential benefit to increasing their vitamin D intake and talking to their doctor about it.

Where's the benefit in dissuading people from considering increasing their vitamin D intake in consultation with their doctors while the studies continuing to investigate the correlation between increased vitamin D and mitigation of diabetes in pre-diabetics are underway?

[Silverstarqueen]

Looking at the graph comparing vit D supplemented or not, I'm not seeing this huge benefit. Maybe taking a bunch of pills for four years, didn't encourage people to work on changing diet, exercise, medication or whatever else would make a bigger dent in their risk for diabetes. There's a lot more research now than there was 20 or 30 years ago on what works, it seems a lot of people don't know about it, or are not following it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... betes.html

[rustled]

Looking at the graph comparing vit D supplemented or not, I'm not seeing this huge benefit. Maybe taking a bunch of pills for four years, didn't encourage people to work on changing diet, exercise, medication or whatever else would make a bigger dent in their risk for diabetes. There's a lot more research now than there was 20 or 30 years ago on what works, it seems a lot of people don't know about it, or are not following it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... betes.html

Researchers found that over a four-year span, pre-diabetics who regularly used vitamin D supplements (dotted line) were 15 percent less likely to have their condition convert into diabetes than those who did not (solid line)

Fifteen percent is a pretty good reduction, IMO. Shows promise.

Doesn't have to be either/or:

Diet and exercise are the usual tips for preventing the next stage from developing, but scientists believe they have found a new tool for preventing the disease.

and the suggestion they were taking "a bunch of pills" instead of using diet and exercise seems to show a misunderstanding of the study:

Because the studies were looking at other factors, none gave an explanation as to why the vitamin helped combat high blood sugar.

But, experts have long suspected vitamin D could be a treatment to prevent diabetes.

Seems Dr. Campbell was helping get useful information about new developments in research out to people after all.