Hi, I hope all having a nice day.
All people who develop diabetes were always thirsty before being diagnosed?.
In other words, if a person has all the symptoms of diabetes except for thirst, is it possible that they do not have the disease?
Thanks for ur reply.
I was not thirsty. In addition, I never had the "frequent urination" that is supposed to be the usual symptom for diabetes, and instead I had and have fluid retention.
The medical view at the moment is that T2 diabetes is diagnosed with a BG level of +48mmol/mol, regardless of what symptoms present. 48 was chosen (according to the
Handbook of Diabetes) because diabetic retinopathy is relatively rare below that figure. So - if you've had a confirmed HbA1c reading of over 48, you are, as far as the medics are concerned, diabetic and that will be recorded on your medical notes and inform the treatment you get from health care providers, insurance companies, etc.
I had diabetes symptoms going back over ten years but was firmly told that I
didn't have diabetes (because I hadn't reached 48 then). I know individuals with BGs in the diabetic range who report no symptoms at all. My personal feeling is that while the medics may want/need to intervene where someone has a high BG without symptoms, ignoring the diabetic symptoms of people with BGs lower than 48 is a mistake.