On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:17:57 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:38:06 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> >Well, guess what? Your doctor determines when you are a diabetic. If
>> >you don't like it, find another doctor. They all have different
>> >criteria.
>>
>> Um...your doctor may decide to TREAT you as if you were a diabetic,
>> but if s/he diagnoses you as such and you do not meet the standard
>> medical criteria established for the disorder, guess what...your
>> doctor is wrong. Being diagnosed as a diabetic has tremendous
>> repercussions for acquiring health or life insurance. It isn't
>> something you want for fun on your records.
>
>
>I was diagnosed in 1972. It's a little late to worry about it being on
>my records. I have no life insurance. We have no need for it. I've
>had the same health insurance for 30 years. I will have it for the rest
>of my life, at minimal cost. I currently pay US$2.39 a month for the
>three of us. My daughter will fall off in less than a year. I expect
>that my cost will drop to zero at that point.

Diagnostic criteria for diabetes was quite different then, and more
likely based on OGTT and urine testing, maybe a fasting BG - I have no
history I can check on that quickly. In fact, the fasting BG levels
for a diagnosis were much higher even within the past decade.

I am not saying YOU were misdiagnosed, by the way. Things have come a
long, long way in the past 35 years, and protocols and pathways and
all sorts of ways of dealing with these things are in place. Ties have
changed.


>I have to agree that there may be criteria for diagnoses of diabetes,
>and that I was really referring to treatment. My sister is diabetic.
>She takes no medications, and has a fasting blood sugar below 100. Why
>is she diabetic? Before she lost those 20 pounds, her FBS was higher,
>and she has a family history on both sides for serious diabetes (the
>needle). It's just prudent to consider her as diabetic, even though she
>isn't on meds.

Once the diagnosis is made, there isn't any going back. T2 doesn't go
away, although it can be controlled to the point that it does not
"show" in lab testing. Nevertheless, if one goes off the wagon, gains
weight, eats a poorly,etc, it'll show up again.
>
>
>> >I thought the GTT was dead. That's what my doctor told me back in the
>> >70's. Maybe it's back?
>>
>> 70s, huh? Dead for what reason?
>
>Don't know. I had three of them. Flunked them all, but no treatment.
>I was told to take one every year. When it was time for number four, I
>told the doctor. He said they didn't do those any more. Perhaps he
>meant not for people in my situation, but he didn't explain that. They
>had some other test. After a few years, they didn't do that one either.
>Now they have even another test.

No one had HbA1Cs in those days. They are pretty nice and should be
done every 3 months or so. They are much less bothersome than GTT and
more accurate in showing overall control, too.
>
>
>> commonly used to determine gestational diabetes, too.
>
>
>Not worried about that.
>
>:-)

Last time I had one, I was carrying twins.
>

>I knew that they still did them, but rarely. It's dead as the routine
>tool for diagnosis of diabetes, at least to my knowledge, unless it's
>changed again.

You are correct,. They are used more for diagnosing nowadays.

Boron