Sad. Another journalist who doesn’t know the difference between a T1 and a T2.
EDIT: ANOTHER ARTICLE THAT HAS NO REFERENCES
So I think we can safely assume that it is BS.
Apparently the CDC also said that democrats cause COVID-19.
Here’s the real article:
I actually got that from Forbes; they too were pulling the irrelevant link trick of the original article, but they at least had a footnote pointing to the “study”.
Yeah, right; you can find it, I can find it. It’s still ■■■■journalism.
I found it before as well, but posted the link to the summary article as it is easier to read , nothing non journalistic about it
Sad, but true.
I haven’t read too much lately about it but I remember hearing early on it was causing type 1 and type 2 diabetes while/after you had covid. Sars a few years ago caused it too but I think 75% of people returned to normal months afterwards. They had said it was too early to know if it reversed after time in the current covid. I do not have that article. It has been known for quite a while that a virus, one or more set off type 1. On type 2 I think they weren’t sure if someone already had a preexisting issue and it tipped them over the edge.
This is back in May-July 2020
I think the data is problematic but the link is plausible both from a mechanistic point of view and because similar trends have been reported in smaller studies from around the world.
But understanding why this link exists will be almost completely impossible if they can’t disaggregate T1D and T2D.
This is an incorrect conclusion by the CDC based upon a flawed analysis per this MD Professor’s review of this study. He dismantles it thoroughly:
As I am not permitted to post a link here: Just search: Vinay Prasad, Diabetes and you’ll see the Youtube link to a short explanation of just how poor this so CDC paper is.
I haven’t read the debunking but would call your attention to the table originally referenced by @jbowler .
I’ve taken a few snips from it so you can see the actual data from the study, which is very interesting:
It seems to me to be a fairly straightforward study with lots of kids and shows a much higher (like 2.5 times higher) diabetes incidence. I’d be interested in understanding the critique. Is it possible for someone to respond with the substance of the critique?
@PP777 – as a person diagnosed with T1 Diabetes at 50, I have also wondered about what could have triggered the autoimmune response. We’ll never know as you say, but it makes me always interested in what possible triggers are.
I tend to trust the cdc more than random drs on youtube
I think that they are only questioning that the initial study combines type 1 and 2…in future work they will be able to separate the 2 , but the fact remains that there is still higher diabetes incidence even if folks don’t care to believe it bad case of covid can lead to a situation in which excessive cytokine production causes an immune response that can damage organs, pancreas included
“Doctors” like Stella Immanuel make videos on Youtube…
exactly
Vinay Prasad is not some random youtube doctor, but a UCSF associate professor with a reasonable track record as a researcher, judging by his h-index on Google Scholar (a measure that is not without flaws of course).
That being said, he did write some nutty stuff about covid measures:
That does not necessarily invalidate his criticism of the diabetes study, though. Here’s his article for you to judge:
Type one diabetes is caused by a messed up immune system covid has been shown to mess with immune system …it is not a big leap to connect the 2 …
That’s true for lots of things. The challenge for scientists is to provide good quality scientific evidence for or against the existence of such connection.
Thanks Boerenkool. I think Dr Prasad’s critique is a methodological one: that the CDC did not do any correcting for other factors that could explain the findings. All they are reporting is a correlation.
This is true, but that doesn’t make the evidence any less compelling. My wife, who is a medical professional, is also skeptical of the causality.
So there will be debate. That said, the CDCs is a provocative finding from a credible source. Personally I prefer studies with simpler methodologies rather than more complicated ones.