Sorry to weigh in so late. It appears to me that
during this conversation people have been confusing
the types of diabetes. The current conventional names
for the main two types of diabetes are:
type I diabetes (which used to be called type II
diabetes)
type II diabetes (which used to be called adult-onset
diabetes)
Conventionally, while both types can produce the same
symptoms and complications, they have different
starting points. These starting points are significant
for alternative treatment of people with these
conditions: type I means the doctors consider an
autoimmune response triggered the diabetes. Type II
means factors such as stress, weight, genetics, and
exercise have created a situation where there is
insulin - often enough or too much insulin - in the
body, but the cells can't use it correctly. These are
two very different disease triggers and paths. In
terms of homoeopathy, this is quite important
miasmatically.
There is no age link that dictates which type of
diabetes. Currently there is an epidemic of type II
diabetes amongst children in the United States, linked
to poor diet and no exerise. I was diagnosed with type
I diabetes at the age of 27. Indeed, I have met people
who were incorrectly diagnosed as type II based on
older disease classifications, because these people
were 'too old' to be type I.
Also, saying someone is on insulin is, I think, a
minor point in terms of constitutional treatment. It
tells us nothing about the disease path. It may
actually be telling us that someone with type II
diabetes has an enlightened/aggressive/ignorant
doctor, depending on context. Someone with type II
diabetes may very well be on a multiple daily
injection insulin regime for 20 years, preceeded by
years of one or two shots a day. But they still have
type II diabetes even though they superficially appear
to be type I.
elizabeth oshea
sastacht@yahoo.co.uk
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html