Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
Farewell
avatar
davedsel57 posted:
I have been a member of WebMD for over 10 years. A recent change in the communities has led me to a decision to have my membership deleted and no longer post in any community.

WebMD has decided to have all communities be 'self-moderating'. There are no more moderators. In some of the communities I have seen that inappropriate posts are not being deleted. There is a lot of bickering among members. Spam stays on the boards far too long before being deleted. New members are posting with rather radical ideas and trying to convince others that they are right.

WebMD is a public, world-wide site with the communities open to anyone. Without moderation I no longer feel safe posting here. I have enjoyed my time here and learned a great deal. I wish everyone in this community success in managing their health concerns.
Click on my user name or avatar picture to read my story.

Blessings,

Dave
Reply
 
avatar
mrscora01 responded:
I'm sorry to see you go Dave. There are too few of us who have remained here over all the changes during the years (I've been around about 15 or more). Please reconsider. You help so many people.

Anyway, hope you stay well and will contribute as you can to other groups.

Cora
T1 1966, Dialysis 2001, kidney transplant and pump 2002, pancreas transplant 2008
 
avatar
auriga1 responded:
Dave, ditto with Cora. Reconsider. You have a positive attitue and thoughful insight. We need people like you and, I think, myself. LOL. And, of course, Cora who has a wealth of knowledge and experience.
 
avatar
nutrijoy responded:
With or without moderation, forum members need not worry about "safety." There is nothing that spammers or scammers can do to jeopardize your online identity or safety that isn't already exposed. The only real danger, if you're hyper-sensitive emotionally, is that flaming (insults, name-calling, etc.) could increase. However, since most of us don't use our full real names nor post our email addresses in the forums, fears of compromised safety are probably misplaced.

I haven't been that active in forums for quite a different reason: personal time constraints. I also disagree very strongly with the "established protocols" that seem to dominate the thinking of many medical professionals, nurses and dietitians and often feel that the "one size fits all" advice that they dole out is more detrimental than beneficial. Surveys have shown that over two-thirds to as much as NINETY-PERCENT of all adult diabetics in the U.S. alone are considered to be inadequately treated/controlled. This article , published in Science Digest , was a bit of a shocker but I couldn't help but wonder if part of the blame lay in the questionable dietary advice that many medical caregivers are giving to their patients. I prefer to help people on a one-on-one basis where the results can actually be seen (and modified as needed) for a spiritually rewarding payback. However, I will continue to post as time permits (translation: when I have nothing else more urgent to do).
 
avatar
brunosbud replied to nutrijoy's response:
Are you suggesting that:

1. The emphasis of drugs in the treatment of type 2 diabetes isn't actually producing the results we were led to believe?
2. If patients disregard their doctor's recommendations on diet and exercise, then, in effect, its a waste of both time & money?
3. As much as we want to believe that "we're all different" and that our problems are unique and require "special attention", we're actually not so different at all?
5. When surrounded by over abundance, self discipline is a tough pill to swallow?
6. All that advice about "You need to see your doctor, asap", statistically speaking, is about a useful as a solar powered flashlight?
 
avatar
mrscora01 responded:
I'll pretend to be a moderator here for a moment and suggest that rather than hijacking a "farewell" thread like this, you start a new one on the separate topic.

Sorry Dave. I see your point.

Cora
T1 1966, Dialysis 2001, kidney transplant and pump 2002, pancreas transplant 2008
 
avatar
auriga1 replied to mrscora01's response:
Thank you, Cora. Couldn't respond because my brain was all scrambled.

I'm sorry, thank you pretend moderator. Good job.
 
avatar
nutrijoy replied to brunosbud's response:

Didn't mean to rain on your parade, brunosbud, but obviously I was NOT suggesting that one should not listen to their doctors or comply with taking medication prescribed. However, I have always maintained that the successful treatment of diabetes is 90% patient and only 10% doctor/caregiver. A diabetic has to develop and hone the ability to "listen to their own bodies" and engage in respective actions accordingly. There is a lot of "trial and error" in fine tuning a strategy that is optimal for each individual person and a lot of the ivory tower advice being given by those not affected by the disease may or may not apply to a particular patient. You can find all the evidence you need by simply viewing the poor (i.e., sorry/disappointing) results achieved by many/most diabetics based on the actual statistics. My primary focus in treating my own diabetes and those to whom I advise is to add life to my years which simply means, avoid complications and anything that will destroy quality of life issues. I am far less concerned about adding years to my life. What good is living to 100 if the last ten or twenty years are occupied with chronic pain, going to dialysis clinics several times a week, living in a wheel chair, chained to an oxygen tank, etc. etc. Anyway, you get the picture. Focus on adding life to your years and less on adding years to your life and you will find it to be far more enjoyable and rewarding.

The "Thermometer" graphic is based on or inspired by the one posted on Bayer's A1cNow website . In both cases, the data used is from information published by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). You may recall that back in the eighties and nineties, the medical community adamantly insisted that only patients with FBG levels of 140 or higher should be considered as diabetic. It was not until 1997 that the medical community finally lowered this level to a FBG level of 126 or higher (still much too high in my personal opinion). For the sake of argument and an illustrative example of poor treatment protocols, let us assume that FBG's of 126 and higher are diabetic levels; levels that can lead, over time, to lots of long term complications if not properly treated.

So if 126 is the magic marker for diagnosing diabetes, why do treatment protocols insist that keeping patients at FBG levels above this diabetic threshold is "well-controlled"? Take a peek at virtually any A1c Conversion Chart (just do a search for same but add the term, "images" to your search string) and you will see that "good" or "well controlled" diabetes is portrayed as A1c blood sugar levels up to 6.9 or 7.0. Yet, at those levels, it translates to an average blood plasma glucose level of approximately 170. Gosh, that's nearly fifty points above the level that diagnoses a patient as diabetic! Why on earth would anyone want to maintain elevated blood glucose levels above the diagnostic point where significant glycation-damage can occur and result in long term complications in the patient? Haven't you ever wondered about that?

Take for example, this WebMD slideshow (exact quote from slide #2):

"No food is off limits with diabetes, but this brunch will blow your carb and calorie budget in a hurry. Experts suggest that meals for people with diabetes should contain 45-75 grams of carbohydrates, depending on individual goals. Body weight, activity, and medications all play a role. This meal packs enough carbs for four to five meals."

Undoubtedly, there are many diabetics who can properly metabolize diets based on the preceding advice but many more of us cannot (i.e., without surging our blood glucose levels). Some forum members have complained that my posts are too long but whenever I use summarized sound bites, invariably a more detailed explanation is required or requested. As my own endo stated "I can't agree with everything you're doing but I can't disagree with your results." and then added, "I wish I had more patients like you."
 
avatar
nutrijoy replied to nutrijoy's response:

The graphic above is a more accurate depiction of blood glucose levels than the commercial ones shown in my preceding post. I adapted this from Bayer's A1cNow graphic but didn't bother to color code the text portions.

For the sake of argument and an illustrative example of poor treatment protocols, let us assume that FBG's of 126 and higher are diabetic levels; levels that can lead, over time, to lots of long term complications if not properly treated.

So if 126 is the magic marker for diagnosing diabetes, why do established treatment protocols insist that keeping patients at FBG levels above this diabetic threshold is "well-controlled"? Take a peek at virtually any A1c Conversion Chart (just do a search for same but add the term, "images" to your search string) and you will see that "good" or "well controlled" diabetes is portrayed as A1c blood sugar levels up to 6.9 or 7.0. Yet, at those levels, it translates to an average blood plasma glucose level of approximately 170. Gosh, that's nearly fifty points above the level that diagnoses a patient as diabetic! Why on earth would anyone want to maintain elevated blood glucose levels above the diagnostic point where significant glycation-damage can occur and result in long term complications in the patient? Haven't you ever wondered about that yourself?
 
avatar
brunosbud replied to nutrijoy's response:
There are those who believe that many diabetics are not consulting their doctor, regularly, when, in fact, they are. There are those who believe that many diabetics are neglecting to take prescribed medication, when, in fact, they are. There are those who believe that many diabetics are frequently consuming unhealthy foods when, in fact, they are not. There are those who believe that many diabetics are not exercising daily, when, in fact, they are.

The point I'm making is the same as yours, Nutrijoy. Diabetes is complex. Control of the disease is not always easy to come by...even by those who are doing everything "right".

I will not go into detail what needs to be done if control of the disease is elusive. I'm just not as smart as all the other "regulars". What I will say is I agree that each person must be diligent, patient and very "clinical" when it comes to weighing the effectiveness of each control used. Eating beans is wonderful advice but rather useless if you won't eat them.


You didn't rain on my parade, Nutrijoy. Actually, I found your comments spot on. Particularly appropriate for those who feel compelled and qualified to judge what content needs to be presented, here. Thank you.
 
avatar
Anon_999 replied to mrscora01's response:
It has been made very clear why people are leaving this site. All the bickering back and worth, hijacking peoples posts. thank for trying to step in but it is obivous that some people have their own agenda's and don't care about others.

I see why Dave left and I am leaving as well. There was "no reason" for Nurtrijoy to do what she did coming against Dave like that. You even suggested she start her own post but that was also clear she doesn't listen to anyone but herself.

I am out of here for good.


Helpful Tips

Eliminating "Popular" Discussions Confusion
WebMD continues to post older (i.e., inactive) discussions under the heading [POPULAR Discussions>. This often triggers fresh responses ... More
Was this Helpful?
3 of 10 found this helpful

Expert Blog

Conquering Diabetes - Michael Dansinger, MD

Dr. Michael Dansinger provides thoughtful tips for those with type 2 diabetes or pre-diabetes who want to reclaim their health...Read More

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.