Talk:Diabetes/Archive 13

Effect of Diabetes on Male Sexual Performance

In the article is was stated that DM may result in male impotence. Technically this isn't quite true. DM, if sufficiently progressed, may prevent one from achieving an erection of any kind, let alone one sufficient for sexual penetration, which condition we would refer to as erectile dysfunction (ED). It does not mean, however, that said individual cannot experience sexual arousal, orgasm and ejaculation. I have not been able to determine in researching available literature whether true impotence is directly related to DM itself.

The term impotence refers to the inability to sexually perform, and while many dictionary definitions simplistically consider impotence the same as ED, the relationship is not that cut–and–dried. Impotence often has psychological origins that have nothing to do with the general health and well-being of the subject person. For example, during periods of high stress—due to money problems, acrimonious breakup with his girl friend or wife, etc.—a man may become temporarily impotent. He can't relax and "let loose," which is a necessary precursor to sexual arousal. His ability to achieve an erection has not been physiologically impeded in any way, so by definition, this would not be a case of ED.

Impotence could also result from episodes of pedophilia experienced in childhood, causing one to experience apprehension or outright fear when the possibility of sexual activity looms. In such a case, all the Viagra or Cialis in the world will be of no help.

It may be that other factors that are responsible for impotence are aggravated in some fashion by DM. Again, there is an apparent paucity of research on that matter. Obviously, the medical community's focus on DM has been one of attempting to control the disease and thus mitigate the damage it can cause, rather than that of addressing its annoying but otherwise "harmless" effects. Although younger readers might be inclined to think that inability to have an erection is indeed harmful, I can assure you—speaking from personal experience—that relative to the other things DM can do to you, not being able to get it up when sexually aroused is a minor consideration in the scheme of things.

I edited the article to remove the reference to impotence and instead directly reference ED.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are wrong, diabetes is caused mainly from cortisol excess, impotence too. Low testosterone levels can causes diabetes and impotence. Therefore there is a tight correlation between impotence and diabetes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pls add this topic to the article

Diabetic retinopathy--165.228.190.54 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already in the article. See the chronic complications section. ww (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see more information on the CD4T+ cells response and similar pathway for destruction of beta cells in the article. At a minimum, could we have a small section listing autoimmune response? My Doctor, 30 years ago, stated my diabetes was due to an autoimmune response. I think providing the root cause of the immune response to beta cell destruction would be beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.81.17 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diabetes Is Reversible! per the webpage: [1] Can a doctor look into this and make this news helpful to all?Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertisonline (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer mortality

Owgh. Having diabetes increases the risk of a cancer patient dying by 40%. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/300/23/2754 JFW | T@lk 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "butter will kill you..." Statistical data applies, but don't take it as law. Individual results will vary. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.81.17 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

beta blockers

should something be mentioned about using beta blockers with caution in diabetes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.86.24 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but it's not a solidly established result as I understand it. And in any case, we'll need a citation for it. At most a line or two, I'd think. ww (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removal of 'Benefits' section

This text was removed from the article today:

Benefits

Diabetes and the use of insulin is a huge benefit to body builders. It is very dangerous to use insulin if not a diabetic, but is still abused in the sport of body building. Insulin is sought after and used much like anabolic steroids. It is used to control blood glucose ranges, so that the body cannot store elevated glucose as fat. Type 1 diabetics usually have a normal bmi and if bulk up easily with minimal weight training. Having diabetes is not always a bad thing.

This is factually wrong (the reference to storing elevated glucose as fat) and clinically wrong (diabetes mellitus is dangerous and the drugs used in its treatement are not benign). If you want this to remain in the article, please discuss it here. ww (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ww, you are absolutely right to remove this section. The paragraph, as written, has no business being here. If there is a reliable citation for this information, it belongs under an "Abuse" heading in the Insulin therapy article (without the positive spin shown here). But if we're going out on a limb to call it a Benefit of diabetes, we might as well add some other so-called benefits (easy access to syringes, can't be drafted in the military, etc) - an addition I also strongly oppose.-Sme3 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in worldwide numbers

From the first paragraph: "Diabetes affects aproximately 18,000,000 children and adults in the United States, and perhaps 420,000,000 persons worldwide."

From the second under "classification": "The World Health Organization projects that the number of diabetics will exceed 350 million by 2030."

It seems that one of these figure must be in gross error.

Felosele (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism of Damage

I added section about AGEs with explanation. KeithBeltham (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it temporarily. I think this is relevant but should probably be discussed in the context of the complications and it needs some jolly good sources (there was a review in JAMA a few years ago). JFW | T@lk 07:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image gone awry

In Signs and Symptoms, there is presently an image of a torso with various locations of complications and such, mixed with presenting symptoms and signs. Aside from mixing apples and oranges (a presenting symptom or sign might not (and isn't in some present cases) a complication), the image leaves out one of the most common and dangerous complications, diabetic ulcers, especially on the feet. This is a major cause of amputation even in the developed world with diabetics under treatment. Perhaps the image can be expanded, added to, or even replaced by a stick figure with appropriate annotations? Not satisifactory as it stands. ww (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try and persuade the chap in the image not to plaster himself over large numbers of pages. The images have no merit; nobody can alter them directly, the words are not clickable etc etc. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment

In the treatment section, please mention the drug AR9281 (originally found by Bruce Hammock) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.203.223 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it is about to be approved by the FDA. We couldn't possibly list all experimental diabetes treatments, as the majority will fall by the wayside rather than get marketed. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#The diabetes quagmire for a proposal on how to organise the diabetes content on Wikipedia. Comments invited on that page please. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to link to all diabetes-related articles:

An explanation of why the top of the article is now very crowded. Article "Diabetes Mellitus" is the "main" article to which a search on "Diabetes" links. Additionally, there are over 15 related articles on diabetes. Most of them now appear in Template:Diabetes. That template needs to be at the top of the article so a user can see what other articles exist.

To accommodate many with diabetes and impaired vision (see WT:ACCESS) will have ramped up 800x600 resolution and/or have an electronic reader device. Only in very high resolution does the Diabetes template even begin to stand out unless it is placed at the top.

An alternative is to move down the article series box with the large diabetes blue circle (which should be smaller). However, that move was reverted on 7/3/09. Other suggestions welcome. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the template make the top crowded, it is also very ugly now. I think you should stop trying to shove absolutely everything in the first few inches of article, and appreciate that this article is meant to be a stepping stone to all diabetes content rather than a disambiguation page.

I think the template should be positioned at the right margin, and I would strongly encourage its placement in the first section (i.e. "Classification"). The interested reader will not object to reading a few lines if this will enlighten them in the process. Please await the opinion of other contributors before making any further change. JFW | T@lk 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I think many of Afaprof01's edits have been improvements to the article, I agree with Jfdwolff on this one -- the template doesn't belong at the top. Either a hatnote of some sort linking to the template or a disambig (disambig-like) page, or moving the template lower, would be a better option. -Sme3 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate Afaprof01's point, his idea doesn't really work for cosmetic reasons. I might try and ask someone to make a drop-down box (like the one already there) for the bottom of the article to include all the Diabetes articles, they're much more common than these weird templates being shoved around at the top. They're more common in usage too. The idea to have it at the top is hardly a life saving one, if anyone needs immediate information on diabetes they should be contacting there physician, and that's that in my honest opinion. An infobox at the bottom would be more suitable, equally accessible and better looking cosmetically. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

intro changes

I know I havent looked at this article for years, and perhaps some of these have already been thrashed out, but what I just changed included some flatly false statements or major omissions, even for a brief intro. If I have stepped on toes or upset a delicate consensus, I apologize. If anyone needs more detail as to why a change was more accurate, please ask and I will be happy to explain. PS, I agree with keeping links to the far left or the end. alteripse (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insulin resistance and saturated fat

I made small changes to the intro to mention resistance. Searching google ect ... looks like consumption of saturated fat (cells saturated with saturated fat are insulin resistant) is a key problem ... lead me to "Dr. Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes: The Scientifically Proven System for Reversing Diabetes Without Drugs" Cites peer reviewed studies ect ... as many as 80% of type 2 diabetics can come off medication if they cut out fats. Any comments?Zinbarg (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization/USA template

This article has unrepresentative examples specific to the USA. The article is about a particular medical condition not a single nation. 95% of human population is not covered by these examples and also the USA has, amongst developed countries, a uniquely corrupted and socially primitive health care system and unusual population health demographics. Examples included such as the following

The American Diabetes Association reported in 2009 that there are 23.6 million children and adults in the United States—7.8% of the population, living with diabetes. While an estimated 17.9 million in the US alone have been diagnosed with diabetes, nearly one in four (5.7 million) diabetics are unaware that they have the disease

are interesting and informative but not global. What for instance are these figures internationally and how do they vary. Why should a specific locale have such prominence that the statistics stated distort the articles integrity. The articles subject is Diabetes mellitus not Diabetes mellitus in the United States. --Theo Pardilla (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your political opinions on US health care are neither pertinent nor constructive to any such discussion.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone and cortisol

It is sure that cortisol and testosterone are the most important hormones for insulin response, I do not know why it is not possible to say that in the article? It is an essential information for readres.

Because all information must be accompanied by a reliable source. The only source which you have provided, is to a site which requires payment to view it. Please find better sources for your information before adding it. The standard for inclusion to Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. What you have added may in fact be true. Wperdue (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely free, it is possible to watch the HTML and the PDF version of it. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3G-4RRFNGH-1&_user=990403&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000049942&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=990403&md5=ca14e56fabff9a1c70229fddab292929

It is an article, it is a reliable source.

I think it is very important to insert that information in order to give a correct and complete information to the readers. I hope you are agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to verify, I have found that the article itself is not available on a free basis. What is free is the abstract. The abstract seems to suggest a role for cortisol, but I couldn't find any mention of testosterone in the abstract. At present I am not committed enough to willingly spend the $31.50 required for access to the actual article itself, and will have to leave that for someone else. --Coro (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's about metabolic syndrome, not diabetes.[2]--Nutriveg (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, ALL article is free (indeed the link is the COMPLETE article in HTML form, it is possible to download the PDF version too). No money for the full article. The article is focused on subclinical Cushing's syndrome (the main cause of diabetes mellitus) and not testosterone. If you want I may find citations about testosterone too.

You're not allowed to make your own conclusions from the article.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC

It is not my own conclusion...it is strange that you do not know that diabetes mallitus is one of the symptoms (the main) of metabolic syndrome, it is strange that you are speaking about another article. Speaking about metabolic syndrome means speak about diabetes too. You should know that. Wikipedia should say that. Without speaking about tight cortisol-diabetes relationship, the article is misleading and it lacks of essential arguments, instead it is rich of nonscientific arguments. It is completely false and misleading to speak about diabetes mellitus without speaking about cortisol and testosterone (which is much more effective than metformin agianst diabetes, you should say that).

It is clear that you do not want to say the truth, before you invented the story of expensive article (instead it was clearly free of charge), then the story of metabolic syndrome (instead diabetes mellitus is the main symptoms of diabetes mellitus, moreover you spoke about another article). You know it is clear that diabetes mellitus is caused by subclinical Cushing's syndrome, but in order to disinformate readers (in order to buy metformin, which is unuseful against diabetes and it has also many side effects) you say it is false. When our society will be full of diabetic people you will continue with the story of metformin and diet...

Of course, in order to helps industrial pharmaceutical industries to sell unuseful drugs (as metformin in example) you do not say nothing about testosterone therapy, which completely readily recover diabetes mellitus (try and you will see it). It is clear the metformin is sold just for economic issues (testosterone is just one injection per month, common "anti-diabetic" drugs many per day).

Wikipeida articles about diseases should contain the generally accepted treatment regimes, and it appears that testosterone treatment is at best frontier science. Also please note the distinction between the different types of diabetes, for surely you don't mean that testosterone is a treatment for every type of the disease?Sjö (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, testosterone can be used for every kind of diabetes because it decreases insulin resistance, of course in case of diabetes mellitus type 1 is always necesary to use insulin too. The use of testosterone against diabetes is not frontier science, but it is a verified therapy. Since 1932 we know that low testosterone/cortisol ratio can easily cause diabetes mellitus type 2.

For the reasons explained upward, I've edited the articli in order to make it more correct and complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have failed to find any mention of testosterone replacement therapy in any overview or information material about diabetes. It seems to be used very little or not at all in the treatment of diabetes. Also, the mention of diabetes type 2 as subclinical Cushing's syndrome doesn't seem to be supported by the part of the source that's available without subscription. Thirdly, your last edits undid several improvements to the article. For those reasons I will revert them. May I suggest that you reference textbooks, overviews of treatment options, treatment recommendations and the like, to show that what you say is generally accepted to be true?Sjö (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are completely wrong! There are two citations about testosterone replacement therapy (53, 54). Look better please! the article about subclinical Cushing's syndrome speaks clearly: the subclinical Cushing's syndrome can cause diabetes mellitus type 2. You reverted citations, for that reason I revert too! Stop with vandalism please! If you ewant to add informations do it, but do no delete valid informations as testosterone replacement therapy. Before reverting, control better please! And if you do not say that testosterone replacement therapy is not the best anti-diabetes therapy...study a boook of basic endocrinology instead than reverting things that you do not know (without offence). If YOU DELETE THESE INFORMATION YOU DAMEGE WIKIPEDIA AND ITS READERS! Let's stop vandalism, ok?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to "study a book". The burden is on you to provide the sources for your claims. If you continue to add unsourced information without regard to consensus, your edits will be marked as vandalism. Wperdue (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look the citations 22, 53, 54. You really can not claim about citations deficiency! If you want I can insert more citations of course, but i really think that 3 scientific articles published in higly scientific reviews are enough. I also remember you that deletion of scientific article is vandalism, so stop with vandalism please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone raplacement therapy

I do not understand why it is not possble to write that testosterone replacement therapy is very efficient to cure diabetes mellitus and to normalize glucose blood levels.

Testosterone censorship

It is sure that usually diabetes is due to low testosterone/cortisol ratio. I do not understand why you cancel the fact that testosterone is the most safe and effective cure against diabetes mellitus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sjo is damaging the article deleting correlations between Cushing's syndrome and diabetes mellitus type 2. I ask to the administrators to stop his vandalism in order to improve Wikipedia.

You stated "The main cause of diabetes mellitus type 2 is subclinical Cushing's syndrome". This is completely unsupported by the reference. Please add sources that support your claims. This has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with providing reliable sources for your claims.Sjö (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation number 22 is an article intitled:" Is the metabolic syndrome an intracellular Cushing's state?", so the artcle confirm that the main cause of diabetes mellitus type 2 is subclinical cortisol excess then it says that cortisol play an important role in sugar absorption and diabetes, I also remeber that one of the (probably the main) symptom of metabolic syndrom is diabetes.The article later speaks about the enzyme that convert the inactive cortisone into the active cortisol, but that's not important for our discussion. If you want I can insert other articles.--158.194.199.13 (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is written:"Subclinical Cushing's syndrome is associated with diabetes mellitus type 2". Exactly like the article.--158.194.199.13 (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three sources you added require registration and/or payment to view. These are not acceptable sources under the reliable sources policy of Wikipedia. Please read that section. The last source you added [3] links to a home page of journals and references with no specific information. I would have to search thousands of publications to find the reference. The proper procedure is as outlined in Wikipedia policy is to be bold and add the information, revert it if someone disagrees, then discuss it on the talk page to gain consensus before re-adding it. You have skipped the third step, just adding your reasons and then putting the information back in the article before gaining a consensus. Please let others weigh in on the issue before re-adding the information. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Wperdue (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely false!!!!Again this story... All the article ARE COMPLETELY FREE! Indeed the link are already complete article which link to the PDF version too. Read better instead than making vandalism and removing COMPLETELY FREE SCIENTIFIC ARTCLES!--158.194.199.13 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem insistent to harass, accuse, and ignore policy, I have asked for a third opinion on the matter as 2 of the 3 sources ask to purchase a membership to view the source. I have tried both the HTML and PDF links. In the meantime, please tone down your uncivil comments while we wait for an answer. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi, I come from WP:3O. I am a molecular biologist (even if I do not work at all in endocrinology), so I hope to give a helpful opinion. My impressions are:

The article is, technically, a RS: it is an academic paper and such sources are generally accepted as RS
The article is, indeed, not free. I guess the IP above writes from an academia that has access to the paper (whois tells me it is from a Czech university), but here at home I can only access the abstract.
The free access/non free access is however, in my opinion completely irrelevant -all WP scientific article source non-free academic journals, and rightly so.
I think there are two serious issues with the position of the IP above. First: is the article cited expressing an opinion which is scientific consensus? Citing WP:RS: The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. This seems to be the biggest problem with the position of the IP above.
Second, if there is no evidence of scientific consensus, the article can be cited, but without giving undue weight to it.

Hope it helps giving a correct frame to the dispute. I feel that the additions of the IP editor cannot be accepted as such, but it could be interesting to look for consensus about the opinion of the paper and then arrive at a correct wording for its inclusion. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I was unaware of the non-free scientific journal use as a source, but it makes sense. I would be happy to work with the IP editor to come to an agreement to include some of this information that would not violate undue weight. As someone who has more knowledge on the subject than I, can you make any suggestions? Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do would be: looking on Pubmed and Google scholar and see:

if there is a broad consensus on the hypothesis or not (e.g. presented in some review)
if the paper above is well cited by other papers, and how -this is indication of how recognized is the work in the scientific community
from searches above, understand how strong is the hypothesis and if there are competing hypothesis in the literature
eventually, including a brief sentence like "It has been proposed that...".

I'd say that, given the probably enormous amount of literature and research on the subject of diabete endocrinology, the main problem is that one can find papers supporting more or less everything possible -I know of that firsthand in other fields. Being published on academic journals does not mean you are not doing fringe research. I would evaluate taking into account this. While I'm not going to do the search myself now, I will be happy to help in the discussion. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First af all this is not academy but it is student dormitory...however concerning to the testosterone/cortisol issues you should know that there is full scientific consensus about it. If you do not believe: study more! You are molecular biologist, it means you should know that cortisol is the main antagonist of insulin...if you want to make professional and serious argumentations ok, if you want to say completely false and wrong things as you did: no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted citations, if you remove them you make vandalism and you damage wikipedia and its readers. Study more instead than make vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious you plan to ignore everyone and revert against consensus. I have asked for and received a third-opinion which is the next step in the dispute resolution process. You have chosen to ignore this editor's advice as well. I am more than happy to work with you to resolve the dispute yet you continue to make accusations here and on my talk page. I will escalate this to the next step of the dispute resolution process. I hope that you choose to change your attitude and work with the community to reach a consensus on what should and should not be included in this entry. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why so much vandalism about testosterone?

It is clear that low testosterone/cortisol ratio causes diabetes mellitus type 2, it is clear that testosterone repalcement therapy is the most safe and effective cure against this desease, it is clear some user like cyclopedia and wp...have not good faith because thay make vandalism by SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES REMOTION because probably they are paid form industries of medicines that are interested to sell low effective (but economically convenient) therapy as metformin.

In order to protect the freedom and the quality of informations and the NPOV content I ASK THE ADMINISTRATOR TO BAN OR TO STOP THAT USERS.

I also remember to the administrators that a diabetes mellitus article without cortisol/testosterone argoments is false and low scientific. If my sentences will be removed wikipedia reliability will slow down and the vandalistic remotion of articles will win... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.194.199.13 (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

158.194... poster -- I am an administrator on this Wikipedia and so one of the folks to whom you appeal just above.

I've reviewed the discussion, and the Third Opinion, and must disagree with your evaluation of the situation. WP does not reflect TRUTH (there are a considerable number of views on what constitutes that about a great many subjects). What it aims to reflect is a balanced account of reliable sources (ie, competent opinion) on subjects. which is the extent of its own reliability. That's the reason for the "undue weight" policy. There are lots of fringe science opinions which have managed to get into print, even in referred scientific journals.

You have made several hostile and derogatory statements about the actions and/or motives of other editors here, which itself violates various WP policies about "civility" and "assume good faith". The business you cite about testosterone and other steroids and their interaction with diabetes may indeed be correct, but at this point in the discussion it seems that it is one of several alleged causes of (or cures for) one or another type of diabetes, and somewhat at odds with the standard view of causation or cure.

If continued, your tone here will continue to draw reaction, with which you will almost certainly not agree, on past form. And until you can cite more than an article or two, your edits along the line you've adopted will continue to be evaluated as one of the many exotic claims as to diabetes' causation or cure and will, I expect, be revised to reflect that evaluation.

You have not, thus far been treated harshly or specially, despite your reaction, but rather in accordance with WP standards, and thus your have few grounds on which to complain of ill treatment, either here or as to your edits. The other editors you've interacted with here have not earned a ban or block, and I cannot do so without evidence, so I must refrain from implementing your request to do so.

Your suspicions as to the motives of the pharma industry and its interest in continuing to sell expensive pills and injections to the rapidly increasing numbers of diabetics (and parallel lack of interest in less remunerative alternative treatments) may be correct, but probably belongs in an article here on the distortions in medicine caused by profit seeking suppliers. And will also require reliable sources, not your or my or any other editor's personal opinions. And will be subject to editing by others, perhaps not to your taste. WP in not a Platonic ideal enterprise with respect to content, but may be with perhaps to collaboration. Your distress is likely to be lessened if your can come to see it thus.

And finally, may I suggest that you avail yourself of a free account on this Wikipedia? It makes several things rather easier and more pleasant. ww (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've appreciated your comment, but I think you did a basic mistake: the extreme importance of low testosterone/cortisol (or also IGF-I/cortisol) ratio on diabetes mellitus type 2 development is a fact accepted from ALL SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS! No discussion! It is not frontier science or fringe science! It is an undisputed fact since 1932. You will never find some article that denies this fact.

In order to understand this extreme importance of testosterone/cortisol on diabetes, let's consider other facts:

if you give testosterone to a diabetic individual (in the right dosage of course) you can see that him/her sugar blood levels get normal.
if you remove surrenal glands (which synthesize cortisol too) from diabetic people you can see that they lose completely insulin resistance (phenomenon at the base of diabetes mellitus type 2) (but they have a lethal hypoglycemia without corticosteroids treatment)
one of the main symptoms of cortisol excess (Cushing's syndrome, does not matter if clinical or sub-clinical) is indeed diabetes mellitus type 2
long time treatment with corticosteroids causes diabetes mellitus.

Fot the upward reason I really think that deleting testosterone/cortisol issues in the diabetes mellitus article is against the wikipedia pillars, because it is a lack of freedom and correctness of contents.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testosterone, I probably need to study more about the subject, since my field of expertise is protein folding and not endocrinology. However I hope you're not going to shout like that at the other postdocs you will meet in your student career, otherwise I guess your career will be quite hard.

Now, basicall all you have to do for your claims to be taken seriously is giving us a couple of papers which state explicitly and uncontroversially that -to use your words- the extreme importance of low testosterone/cortisol (or also IGF-I/cortisol) ratio on diabetes mellitus type 2 development is a fact. Also, read WP:RS#Academic consensus which I am quoting below for your use:

“

The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue.

”

.

I hope it helps. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the artcles that you vandalistically removed speak clearly: cortisol excess (even subclicical) causes diabetes mellitus, testosterone replacement therapy is very effective versus diabetes mellitus type 2. There is full scientific consensus on it. It is excatly what I wrote in the article. The articles are very reliable, if you say no it means you have no good faith.

PS: Here we do not talk about ourselves, it is not important who you are or who I' am, what I do or what you do. We do not care if you study protein folding or glucocorticoid's receptor because it is not a forum.--158.194.199.13 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personal attacks and behave in a civilized manner. I am not doing anything "vandalistically" -I am reverted changes that you are pushing in disregard of the objections on this page. Now, please post here links to the articles that you say claim scientific consensus on the subject, as required by the policy quoted above. I am at university now so I should be able to check. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, our fellow -provided he/she stops edit warring-, may have a point. One of the articles he cites indeed says:

“

Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated an association between low testosterone and T2DM since the early 1990s (Ding et al., 2006a;Corona et al., 2008e, 2009a). Some authors (Simon et al., 1997) have questioned this association because of the reduction in sex hormone binding globulin induced by the condition of insulin resistance, observed in diabetic subjects. However, others have demonstrated not only a reduction of total testosterone but also a decrease of both bioavailable and free testosterone in patients with diabetes mellitus (Barrett-Connor, 1992; Kapoor et al., 2007a; Corona et al., 2008e, 2009a). Following these studies, several longitudinal studies reported that a lower androgen milieu increased the risk of developing diabetes and vice versa (Tibblin et al., 1996; Haffner et al., 1996; Stellato et al., 2000; Oh et al., 2002; Laaksonen et al., 2004; Corona et al., 2008e, 2009a; Kupelian et al., 2006; Derby et al., 2006; Laaksonen et al., 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2007). Furthermore, it has been reported that, in T2DM, androgen deficiency is commonly associated with an impaired gonadotropin response, leading to hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (Dhindsa et al., 2004; Corona et al., 2006a).

from [4]

”

Not exactly what the IP is pushing for (it doesn't say that it is "the most important hormone" involved), but it seems there is a wide discussion on the subject and a broad consensus on the involvement of the hormone. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they confirm what I say, they also confirm the high importance of the cortisol and testosterone levels on the diabetes development. You will never find something like:"testosterone and cortisol are not involved in the sugar absorption", "cortisol excess can not cause diabetes mellitus"... If you want to change the words in my edits in the article, do it without deleting the basic meaning and the citations of course. --Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will never find something like "Americium is not involved in sugar absorption", FWIW -it is obvious that you won't find a lot of negative sentences like that. What we need is proof of broad scientific consensus, and the quote above provides proof of consensus of the association (not causation!) between low testosterone and diabetes mellitus.

Also, your edits changed a lot of small stuff here and there without citation. Since we still have not reached a consensus, and since debate is still ongoing, I am going to revert it for the last time: please note that a further revert of yours would make you violate WP:3RR, and this could lead to blocking of your account. We are showing good will to collaborate; please do the same. Then, since we're not in a hurry, we can discuss about sources and stuff on this talk page, and only after we reached satisfying consensus here, we can collaborate to put back information in the article. I hope everyone will agree. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the (ex) citation 22 there is the sentence:"subclinical Cushing's syndrome is associated with diabetes mellitus"! It is also written that testosterone replacement therapy is very effective against diabetes mellitus. As I thought you revert citations and make this article mutilated. You make vandalism and with arogance you menace me (you can do edit war and me not? you do edit war not me). I think it is enough to write it. All this vandalism happens just because doctors are paid to prescribe noneffective (but higly remunerative, that's important for industries) drugs as metformin.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TvD, again, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. Please read them. You simply cannot call other editors "vandals" just because they disagree with your edits. And I am not menacing you, I am simply stating that a further revert of yours is going to break a strict policy and this could lead to problems with your account. And I don't want this to happen. I am actually trying to help you, and I would appreciate if you could make it a little more pleasant. No one here is going to censor information, it's just that we want to be sure of what we're putting in the article and we prefer to double-check and discuss it. I think it is reasonable. Now, could you please post the link you're talking about so that I can check it and quote it for discussion with other editors? Thanks. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some link, but there are many others:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18362453?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313835?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&log$=citationsensor,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19444934?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum (leterally" low testosterone levels are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, dramatically illustrated by androgen deprivation in men with prostate carcinoma),

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18832284?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18832284?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum (title: "Low testosterone and the association with type 2 diabetes"),

http://tde.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/5_suppl/97S

I think there is big scientific consensus about the big importance of cortisol and testosterone levels on diabetes mellitus onset, and about the high safety and effectiveness of testosterone replacement therapy versus this disease. --158.194.199.13 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I will have a look as soon as I can. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I gave the links a first look. Sadly I cannot access full text of several of them. I'd say that what comes out by articles I can read and abstracts of the others is:

Cortisol is consensually recognized as a glucose regulator and there is literature debating its relationship with diabetes, see also Cushing syndrome, even if the picture is very complex and it is not easy to figure out what is the state of the consensus.
On testosterone, the picture from the links above looks much more fuzzy; there is consensus on the existence of a relationship between testosterone levels and diabetes, but I can't find consensus about a causative relationship, and only an abstract about the possibility of testosterone therapy.
There is no evidence to conclude that testosterone/cortisol are consensually considered the main causative agents of diabetes, nor that subclinical Cushing is consensually considered a leading cause of it.

More sources are probably needed to get a better idea. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a quick PubMed found this which is interesting read on the subject. I am gonna read it as soon as I can. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view there is the full scientific consensus about testosterone/cortisol involvment on diabetes mellitus development. It is very clear that there is tight correlationship between low testosterone levels and diabetes mellitus, this correlationship however is not very tight (it means that castrated people run higher risks of diabetes mellitus, but they can also not have diabetes mellitus). It is sure that subclinical Cushing's syndrome is more related with diabetes mellitus (it is very difficult to have high cortisol levels for long time without diabetes, but when there is cortisol excess there is also testosterone deficiency), anyway there are discussions focused on the percentage of subclinical Cushing's syndrome on the diabetic population. It seems that this percentage is higher than previously believed.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I must say I am very appreciating your change in tone and your willingness to discuss. That's the right approach, and I hope we continue on this way. Now, you may be right, but our problem is that to include something in an article as scientific consensus, Wikipedia policies require that a paper explicitly states the existence of such consensus. If you read the policy I quoted above, even if all sources agree that the sky is blue, we cannot write that there is consensus on it until we found another source stating "There is consensus on the fact that sky is blue". The review found above may be (or may be not) such a source, for example. I suggest you to look for reviews in the literature and if you find something useful, report it here.

Anyway, even if consensus is not found, we can report the material in the article, if it's not violating WP:UNDUE. Only, it should not be reported as a plain fact, but as a statement of the kind "There have been studies suggesting that..." or "A study has shown that..." --Cyclopia ^talk 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view sentences like "there have been studies suggesting..." are not the maximum but it is better than nothing. Tomorrow I will write something like that, or if you want you may also start--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait for a bit more digging into sources -after all, it is entirely possible that there is a source of such consensus. If you like, you could look for further sources (especially reviews) and propose some paragraph here. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Ok, I've had a look to the review I found above. It seems a recent and good assessment of the consensus on the matter. I quote below what I think are the most important sentences there found (T2D = type 2 diabetes, IR=insulin resistance, T=testosterone):

"Low concentrations of T are linked with IR and implicated in hyperglycemia, hypertension,dyslipidemia, and an increased risk of vascular disease(Simon et al, 1997; Stellato et al, 2000; Oh et al, 2002; Dhindsa et al, 2004; Pitteloud et al, 2005a,b; Rhoden et al, 2005b; Corona et al, 2006; Kapoor et al, 2006, 2007;Fukui et al, 2007, 2008; Selvin et al, 2007)"
"These observations suggest that androgen deficiency plays a central role in the various pathologies encompassing the components of MetS, including T2D, IR, obesity, and ED"
"More work is needed to determine whether T replacement in hypogonadal men will ameliorate the parameters of T2D, IR, and MetS, as suggested above, and in doing so reduce cardiovascular risks."
"Androgen deficiency may be central to the components of MetS, which encompasses IR, T2D, and obesity"
"T plays a crucial role in maintaining metabolic homeostasis; thus, this hormone may play a vital role in maintaining glycemic control. The exact mechanism by which diabetes and/or IR impairs T biosynthesis and how reduced T levels increase IR and development of T2D remain poorly understood. Low T levels in men with hypogonadism or patients receiving ADT for prostate cancer are considered risk factors for IR and T2D. T therapy may provide protective effects against the onset of diabetes or may ameliorate the pathology of diabetic complications. Low T levels represent a risk factor for IR and T2D, [...] We postulate that androgen deficiency plays a central role in the pathology of MetS, T2D, and IR [...]"

The last two quotes comes from the conclusion. Emphasis mine: it seems apparent that there is considerable discussion and hypothesis on the thing, but no clear definitive consensus. It seems that what we can say is that: there is for sure some kind link between testosterone deficiency and T2D; androgen therapy has produced promising results 'in hypogonadal subjects but it is still uncertain if it is a solid therapy; the mechanism of the relationship is still being debated and while a lot of studies go in the same direction, the thing is far from being set in stone. I therefore, on this basis, support inclusion of the material in the article, in the following way:

Declare as considered factual the existence of some kind of relationship between testosterone and T2M, IR etc. as per studies on hypogonadal men
Declare as still ongoing investigation the mechanism linking the two
Declare as ongoing serious consideration, but still not proven, the possibility of testosterone therapy as a therapy for diabetes 'in hypogonadal subjects.

I hope this helps in settling the issue. I invite editors which have access to the paper (which I don't think is free,unfortunately), to look it themselves to assess the situation. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page, I hope you like it. I think there are just things which are full accepted from the science.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, I am going to tweak something here and there. I suggest you to read that review I discussed above -if this is your field of interest, you will love it I guess. It more or less says what you suggest, but it is rightly a bit more cautious. There's however good material for the article there. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the additions made are completely overstating the possible link between testosterone and diabetes. This article aims to discuss both types of diabetes, with more information going into subarticles. On the whole, hypogonadism is not a leading cause of diabetes and diabetics are not screened for hypogonadism. The article presently lists a number of causes of diabetes, and it would stand to reason that Cushing's and hypogonadism are both mentioned there, supported by a single reference that is ranked as high-quality by WP:MEDRS. The whole concept of testosterone:cortisol ratio is really quite novel and certainly not employed widely in practice. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the diabetic peaple are screened for hypogonadism. If hypogonadism is the leading cause of diabetes is JUST your non supported opinion, because it is impossible to have diabetes with good free testosterone levels (>20 pg/ml). Moreover it is not written nothing about the "leading cause". What is important is that both hypogonadism than subclinical Cushing's syndrom can easily lead to diabetes mellitus. It is important to note that subclinical Cushing's syndrome lead to hypogonadism, it means that usually these conditions are together. The articles are clear, we have already discussed about it. I'm an italian PhD student in molecular biology, Cyclopedia is also a molecular biologist. Diabetes type 2 (type 1 or MODY are different) at this level is a very simple disease: if you have high cortisol and/or low testosterone you will get diabetic, otherwise not. I would like to do not repeat myself.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide one good source, ideally a review in a high impact factor journal, that would support your views. Whether you're a PhD student or a member of the Russian border guard is completely irrelevant - you haven't seen my credentials either; please let facts speak for themselves. JFW | T@lk 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look up! Are you blind? --Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing your assumptions of bad-faith and personal attacks using your IP address (the same one you have been using since before you created your username) is also not acceptable. Please read the warning(s) on your talk page regarding this behavior and work constructively with the other editors here. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was bered...sorry. Sometimes I'm log out and I do not know why.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff, the despicable behaviour of Testosterone_vs_diabetes notwithstanding, there is indeed some review debating (in much more cautious terms than the one pushed here) the relationship between the two. Check above. Whethere the inclusion is UNDUE or not, I am not able to decide because I don't have knowledge of the current literature and consensus on the subject. The review seems to indicate that there's substantial research on the subject, but I cannot be sure. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions from Uptodate is that the relationship between testosterone and diabetes is still tentative and if mentioned this should be what is reflected. : "Diabetes mellitus — Men who have type 2 diabetes mellitus are more likely to have low serum testosterone concentrations than nondiabetic men, but the nature of the relationship is unclear. In a review of 43 studies comprising 6427 men, the cross-sectional studies showed that men with type 2 diabetes had a mean serum testosterone concentration 76 ng/dL lower than nondiabetic men [33]. In the same review, the longitudinal studies showed that men who had higher testosterone concentrations had a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The relative roles of testosterone, obesity and insulin resistance in this relationship, however, have not been delineated. Not only is the total testosterone more likely to be low in men with diabetes, but the free testosterone concentration is more likely to be low as well [34]."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a tight correlationshipe between low (free especially) testosterone levels and T2D (it is very difficult to find diabetic patients with good free testosterone levels). Of course the moleculr mechanisms are not well known (trasductions patways, receptor folding, receptor CAG repeats, interactions with other hormones...) of teststerone, but we can decleare that indeed this correlation exists.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not really a difference in diabetes rates between man and women which one would expect if this relationship were causal? And fat is both an endocrine organ and associated very closely with diabetes. So if obesity causes endocrine problems such as low testosterone [5] and 65 - 75 % of diabetes is due to obesity [6] one could easily find a correlation between diabetes and testosterone were no causation exists. One would need to show that testosterone replacement works independent of weight change which studies I have seen do not. [7] I am not impressed by the number of people compared in the studies. I have not yet seen one including over 100 people but of course may have missed one. So in other words this theory is still tentative by my reading. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia makes censorship about diabetes and testosterone?

It is evident that wikipedia helps profit associations and it wants to improve the business of drug industries. Otherwise there are no explanations about this incredible events:

many users told there are not references about the evidence that testosterone deficiency can easily lead to diabetes mellitus. Even when many scientific articles were inserted.

many users told that the relationship between testosterone and diabetes is fringe science, even when this is an undisputted fact, nobody say the contrary.

many users (also vandalic administrators) make vandalism and remove citations related to the real causes of diabetes mellitus type 2 (subclinical Cushing's syndrome and/or testosterone deficiency)

many users insert economically remunerative informations (never proved relationships between diet, in order to sell low fat foods, and cholesterol, to increase low cholesterol food). They do not insert scientific articles, because simply there are not.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to users whose opinion differs from yours as "vandals." Doing so is a personal attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry deletion of scientific articles is vandalistic! For example Cyclopedia is a correct user with a good faith, he did not know about cortisol and testosterone, when I saw the article he was agree with me. Relationships about cortisol/testosterone and diabetes are NOT opinions. They are facts! And who try to delete that articles is censor! --Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, TvD, you are getting it wrong, and the other editors are completely right. What I did above was examining your claims and finding that some of the mechanisms you talked about are described as possible contributors of diabete when associated with hypogonadism. Read above. That's all we can say. Now, I am going to say it very clearly: You cannot toss around conspiracy theories about WP , nor you can toss around vandalism accusations to anyone who disagrees with your edits, and expect to be taken seriously (and not to get blocked soon).

About the case in point: We arrived at the conclusion that there is some interesting literature and some interesting hypothesis on the thing, and that these could be worth a mention if being within WP:UNDUE. Someone else may disagree: in this case you are expected to discuss such edits with good manners and assuming good faith. So, please, Testosterone_vs_diabetes, take a good breath and read the following documents:

Read them well, and when you finished to do it, do it again. Then read again the scientific literature above. See objectively what they claim. And then, relaxed, come back. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chyclopia you should have some form of schizophrenia because we (me and you) were agree with the changes, so if you were coerent (it seems defenitely not) you should say that the authors (like you too) that remove citations are simply vandals. Moreover you removed sentences that WERE NOT redundant (as you told) like the hormones related with insulin respond (not cortisol and testosterone only). I reinsert that sentences. I also would like to insert a sentece taken by an italian book of hormones, but I do not know if it is possible.--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make another personal attack like this and you will be reblocked for a longer period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TvD, read above. Apart that my username is Cyclopia, you're still engaging in personal attacks against me and fellow editors. Removing material is not vandalism by default. I asked you to read the pages above: did you do it? If not, please do it before further editing, otherwise contributing to Wikipedia will be difficult for you. You already earned yourself a block, and you should have learned from that. Moreover, do not simply revert stuff like you did in the latest revision, without checking revisions in between -you disrupted a lot of references doing that. Then, the part of your edits I agreed with, is still in the article -the studies etc. about testosterone involvement in diabetes are appropriately discussed, look for yourself. I gave you my email address on your talk page -feel free to write me in Italian, because I feel that also the language barrier is sort of a problem. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of false stereotypes! Must we help food industries?

Reading the article is similar to listen a mantra. Always it repeats how it is important to control cholesterol levels! But how? Are there correlations between diabetes mellitus and cholesterol levels? NO!. There are no scientific articles about it! I do not understand why wikipedia always says lies in order to help food industries to sell unnecessary and expensive products!

Are we sure that high carb diet causes T2D? There are no articles that show a significant correlation.

Are we sure that low carb diet helps insulin respond and therefore glucose blood level normalization? It is true the contrary! Low carb diet increases cortisol levels (cortisol avoid hypoglycemia) and therefore insulin resistance!

I think it is necessary to remove all the sentences like that! And whatever is not scientifically established--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TvD, never, ever again remove other people comments from talk pages. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say? I've never removed comments--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably did it without noticing, but check this diff, you did it. Next time be more careful. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could not know. I started my edit on the latest version, during my writing you inserted your comment, then (again I was not editing your version) I have made my edit without your comment--Testosterone vs diabetes (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC). Just a time issue.[reply]

Uh, strange. Usually the WP software detects edit conflicts. Anyway, incident solved, no problem. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the statement relating diabestes and cholesterol is not followed by a references than tag it with ^{[citation needed]}.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the recommendation to reduce cholesterol is not due to a supposed connection between elevated levels and diabetes but rather to avoid the additional risk factor for heart disease. ww (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]