Re: gangs

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/01 10:12:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

rpierce@... writes:

> Having a chronic medical problem, or worse, more than one, seems to

> bring out " moral attack dogs " . They feel that any misfortune, illness or

> unfortunate circumstances HAVE to be at least partly the fault of the

>

Hi Randall,

I have not run into any of these situations when I had cancer or with

diabetes. People in this area are really supportive, understanding. Most of

the time when discussing health problems, they want to know all about it, not

being nosey, but want the information and how to handle any illness, should

they have the misfortune of getting it. Guess that is why I love this area

of VA so much.

Eunice

[Guest guest]

I think that some " moral attack dogs " attack out of subconscious fear. They

are trying to find ways to distance themselves from the health condition they

fear, so that (in their opinion) they don't have to worry about getting it.

One way to try to do that is to arbitrarily decide that the person who has

diabetes must have done some " wrong " thing that they, the attack dogs, would

never do.

Of course that is not the case, and it's no excuse for their behavior. It's

also stupid and futile. But it does help explain why they may stubbornly

refuse to listen to rational factual information. Their attitudes will not

serve them well when they have their own health misfortunes, which they

inevitably will. Illness isn't the only condition feared by " moral attack

dogs " -- they may also decide that poor people are to blame for their

poverty, crime victims are to blame for the crimes, etc. I know that

occasionally I hear my own inner " moral attack dog " barking as I read and

hear about bad news. It's hard to be rational when you're afraid, but I

hope I don't let my attack dog run my brain too often.

[Guest guest]

Randall, I know what you mean and has a good insight here.

The one overriding input I seem to hear a lot is the connection

between illness and state of mind. It is as though, if one

simply " thinks positively " all the time, nothing bad will

happen. Wish this fairytale could be true. I agree that folks

often feel the need to distance themselves from the " oppressed "

so as not to become " tainted " themselves. I invite those folks

to walk in my shoes for a week. Sad commentary.

Rennie

> I think that some " moral attack dogs " attack out of subconscious

fear. They

> are trying to find ways to distance themselves from the health

condition they

> fear, so that (in their opinion) they don't have to worry about

getting it.

> One way to try to do that is to arbitrarily decide that the person

who has

> diabetes must have done some " wrong " thing that they, the attack

dogs, would

> never do.

>

> Of course that is not the case, and it's no excuse for their

behavior. It's

> also stupid and futile. But it does help explain why they may

stubbornly

> refuse to listen to rational factual information. Their attitudes

will not

> serve them well when they have their own health misfortunes, which

they

> inevitably will. Illness isn't the only condition feared by

" moral attack

> dogs " -- they may also decide that poor people are to blame for

their

> poverty, crime victims are to blame for the crimes, etc. I know

that

> occasionally I hear my own inner " moral attack dog " barking as I

read and

> hear about bad news. It's hard to be rational when you're afraid,

but I

> hope I don't let my attack dog run my brain too often.

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have

[Guest guest]

I must admit to some confusion myself as to the cause(s) of Type II diabetes,

and the confusion is increased by media coverage. On one hand, I read that

Type II is at least partly a genetic disease, which is one reason why a lot

of people who are overweight and sedentary never get it, and some thin active

people do get it. On the other hand, there was an article in the newspaper

just a few weeks ago in which a doctor said that Type II diabetes was a " hoof

and mouth disease " caused by eating too much and exercising too little.

And of course diabetes is increasing in the United States, and Americans, on

average, weigh more and exercise less than in previous decades, and I saw a

TV reporter basically saying that there is more diabetes in America now

because of lifestyles. And to top it off, I've read about one theory that

diabetics tend to eat more precisely BECAUSE the carbs they eat aren't

processed properly, causing them to crave more, meaning that the diabetes

comes before, and partly causes, the obesity.

So I can't figure out the extent to which my former lifestyle, which included

a lot more cookies than exercise, might have contributed to my having

diabetes now (not that I spend much time trying). And I suppose it may be

all too easy for certain people who only encounter information like the " hoof

and mouth " article to decide that Type II diabetics are partly or mostly to

blame for having diabetes. I'm glad the people I know are sympathetic

instead of being attack dogs, and meanwhile, it's back to counting carbs and

exercising.

[Guest guest]

Randall: I understand how you feel completely. Bob

has just begun telling people that he has diabetes,

especially when they offer him food or beer, etc. He

always felt embarrassed because he feels " defective "

in some way. But most people understand and are

sympathetic about his disease and our friends go out

of their way to make Bob feel comfortable.

Marie

--- Randall Pierce wrote:

> Having a chronic medical problem, or worse, more

> than one, seems to

> bring out " moral attack dogs " . They feel that any

> misfortune, illness or

> unfortunate circumstances HAVE to be at least partly

> the fault of the

> person with the problem. I have been asked about my

> diabetes, " What did

> you do to get that?. " I have been accused of

> gluttony, drunkeness and

> drug abuse. I have found that there is much

> ignorance about diabetes,

> and the most ignorant people " know " that some

> failure of moderation,

> hygiene or just plain laziness causes diabetes. I

> have to consider that

> these people are speaking from deep ignorance, or

> what I call

> " self-induced stupidity " for those who feel that

> anything but their

> version is nonsense and get annoyed at your attempt

> to explain. I shut

> them off. I am very formal and correct, but I offer

> no opening to let

> them vent their poison. Well, this is my view.

> Agape, Randall

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

My friends are very supportive and non judgemental.

----------

To: diabetes

Subject: Re: " gangs "

Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2001, 7:17 PM

Randall: I understand how you feel completely. Bob

has just begun telling people that he has diabetes,

especially when they offer him food or beer, etc. He

always felt embarrassed because he feels " defective "

in some way. But most people understand and are

sympathetic about his disease and our friends go out

of their way to make Bob feel comfortable.

[Guest guest]

Madge, you are right. It didn't occur to me at the time to resent that

doctor's comment, probably because it activated my guilt gland. But now I

agree that it was essentially an unhelpful remark. And you are certainly

right about the need for nutrition education.

[Guest guest]

Yes, it is a mystery to try and figure it out. However, my mother has

diabetes, her brother, her grandmother, her great grandmother, and on

and on, so genetics are definitely there for me. However, in an effort

to lose weight went to two different dieticians and they put me on

high carb diets to rev up my metabolism. Well, it sure did, to the

tune of 30+lbs to go with what I already had. Then I was diagnosed

with diabetes.

A person can have diabetes as long as 10 years or more before doctors

find it. Now, I am wondering if they did an A1C test in routine

physicals on all patients they would be able to catch diabetes

earlier. The fasting one shot glucose test does not seem to be

sufficient.

Also, people in the US are eating out more frequently, cooking less

from scratch at home and eating more fast foods, frozen dinners, etc.

Most resturants serve what people like (what sells), the nice tasty

rich foods in large quanity. When they do have green veggies on the

menu they are drowned in fat and sugar.

While on vacation recently there were only 3 resturants that had green

veg (green beans) and I had to ask for them. Other veggies were

battered and fried. Yes, delicious and would have loved to have had my

share but did not dare!

Check out resturant menus, they contribute to a high starch/fat diet.

Of course we go out to eat good tasting food, right?

In my case I got shoved overboard by dieticians.

Marie

> I must admit to some confusion myself as to the cause(s) of Type II

diabetes,

> and the confusion is increased by media coverage. On one hand, I

read that

> Type II is at least partly a genetic disease, which is one reason

why a lot

> of people who are overweight and sedentary never get it, and some

thin active

> people do get it. On the other hand, there was an article in the

newspaper

> just a few weeks ago in which a doctor said that Type II diabetes

was a " hoof

> and mouth disease " caused by eating too much and exercising too

little.

>

> And of course diabetes is increasing in the United States, and

Americans, on

> average, weigh more and exercise less than in previous decades, and

I saw a

> TV reporter basically saying that there is more diabetes in America

now

> because of lifestyles. And to top it off, I've read about one

theory that

> diabetics tend to eat more precisely BECAUSE the carbs they eat

aren't

> processed properly, causing them to crave more, meaning that the

diabetes

> comes before, and partly causes, the obesity.

>

> So I can't figure out the extent to which my former lifestyle, which

included

> a lot more cookies than exercise, might have contributed to my

having

> diabetes now (not that I spend much time trying). And I suppose it

may be

> all too easy for certain people who only encounter information like

the " hoof

> and mouth " article to decide that Type II diabetics are partly or

mostly to

> blame for having diabetes. I'm glad the people I know are

sympathetic

> instead of being attack dogs, and meanwhile, it's back to counting

carbs and

> exercising.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

---This can definitely be a guilt ridden disease if we let it be. It

is hereditary but we are told it can be avoided with watching weight

and what we eat. Since I was overweight forever and didn't watch what

I ate, I now think if I had done the right things could I have

avoided it even though it ran amuk in the family history on both

sides? But that does nothing to help the situation. What is, is,

and has to be dealt with in the present. Looking back does no good

at all except bring a depressive sort of state especially when I am

in a I hate this disease mode. So, never look back, go forward and

do what is supposed to be done to prevent anything else from

striking. May not be able to avoid everything but at least give it a

good shot by being good.

I have told people I have it just in case I pass out or something.

Thought it best they be aware. Never had an adverse reaction to it.

Madge

In diabetes@y..., Marie Hagan <mhagan50@y...> wrote:

> Randall: I understand how you feel completely. Bob

> has just begun telling people that he has diabetes,

> especially when they offer him food or beer, etc. He

> always felt embarrassed because he feels " defective "

> in some way. But most people understand and are

> sympathetic about his disease and our friends go out

> of their way to make Bob feel comfortable.

>

> Marie

> --- Randall Pierce <rpierce@j...> wrote:

> > Having a chronic medical problem, or worse, more

> > than one, seems to

> > bring out " moral attack dogs " . They feel that any

> > misfortune, illness or

> > unfortunate circumstances HAVE to be at least partly

> > the fault of the

> > person with the problem. I have been asked about my

> > diabetes, " What did

> > you do to get that?. " I have been accused of

> > gluttony, drunkeness and

> > drug abuse. I have found that there is much

> > ignorance about diabetes,

> > and the most ignorant people " know " that some

> > failure of moderation,

> > hygiene or just plain laziness causes diabetes. I

> > have to consider that

> > these people are speaking from deep ignorance, or

> > what I call

> > " self-induced stupidity " for those who feel that

> > anything but their

> > version is nonsense and get annoyed at your attempt

> > to explain. I shut

> > them off. I am very formal and correct, but I offer

> > no opening to let

> > them vent their poison. Well, this is my view.

> > Agape, Randall

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

---I resent what that Doctor said, . I think he was totally

unfair and disrespectful. His lame attempt at humor is lost in the

ridicule that his words reflect. I have no time for people like

that, doctor or not.

Let them spend more time getting out among the younger adults and

teach them about this disease the right way. How to help avoid it,

not neccessarily so if in family history, how to eat properly for

general good health. Nutrition is not taught the way it should be I

don't think anyway. Also we do have tooooo many fast food places

which are fat and carb laden. Not healthy for anyone.

Madge

In diabetes@y..., Grantridge@a... wrote:

> I must admit to some confusion myself as to the cause(s) of Type II

diabetes,

> and the confusion is increased by media coverage. On one hand, I

read that

> Type II is at least partly a genetic disease, which is one reason

why a lot

> of people who are overweight and sedentary never get it, and some

thin active

> people do get it. On the other hand, there was an article in the

newspaper

> just a few weeks ago in which a doctor said that Type II diabetes

was a " hoof

> and mouth disease " caused by eating too much and exercising too

little.

>

> And of course diabetes is increasing in the United States, and

Americans, on

> average, weigh more and exercise less than in previous decades, and

I saw a

> TV reporter basically saying that there is more diabetes in America

now

> because of lifestyles. And to top it off, I've read about one

theory that

> diabetics tend to eat more precisely BECAUSE the carbs they eat

aren't

> processed properly, causing them to crave more, meaning that the

diabetes

> comes before, and partly causes, the obesity.

>

> So I can't figure out the extent to which my former lifestyle,

which included

> a lot more cookies than exercise, might have contributed to my

having

> diabetes now (not that I spend much time trying). And I suppose it

may be

> all too easy for certain people who only encounter information like

the " hoof

> and mouth " article to decide that Type II diabetics are partly or

mostly to

> blame for having diabetes. I'm glad the people I know are

sympathetic

> instead of being attack dogs, and meanwhile, it's back to counting

carbs and

> exercising.

>

>

>

>

>