To save ink. As a type 1 diabetic surely you know that when an article headline just states "diabetes" without specifying which one they rarely mean both. Sometimes it's type 1 and sometimes it's type 2.
Indeed I do. I am venting my frustration in a forum for PWD about the same-old, same-old rubbish put out by the ignorant, headline grabbing gutter press and how that generalises diabetes in such a poor manner. The fact I'm T1 and have never met any of the criteria for developing the 'diabetes' they shout out in such abysmal terms gives me all the more reason to be angry.
The article was a sop to the rubbish bin and should never have been published as it was.
By the way, that's quite offensive to characterize type 2 diabetics the way you did.
Actually, I was not characterising T2's at all; I was characterising the Mirror article, the recent Diabetes UK TV/Web ad, and nigh-on every other major media coverage of "diabetes".
Also, very ignorant. You really know very little about type 2 diabetes. You should educate yourself before making such comments.
I am a good acquaintance of a T2 who's as skinny as a rake and always has been - I understand many of the varied issues that can lead to insulin resistance (which can also affect T1's by the way).
The article (like much of the rubbish put out by DUK) also fails to mention the likelihood of developing diabetes as a result of cancer - especially cancers in the stomach areas.
I reiterate my stance: the article was 'urine poor.'