ITV News: Misrepresentation of Diabetes

[mark4785]

Having watched the National ITV News today at 6:30 pm I came across a VT of theirs which put forth the following statement: "The sugar tax [being proposed by the UK government] is estimated to stop 300,000 people from developing Diabetes".

Given that ITV is so big in structure and assets to the point that they are able to employ medical correspondents, it does beg the question as to why they show no interest in differentiating between the different forms of diabetes in the above statement. Differentiation, in terms of the above statement, would be very important and respectful towards people like myself, with type 1 Diabetes, who acquired the illness as an active and healthy person who had a balanced diet with no excesses in sugary drinks or snacks. Thus, my type 1 Diabetes could not have been caused by excess sugar in-take.

If the evidence points to excess sugar playing no part in type 1 Diabetes onset why is this news corporation misinforming the public and deluding themselves?

I encourage people with type 1 Diabetes to get in-touch with ITV News to issue a complaint by clicking here and either emailing or phoning them. I certainly will be pursuing a complaint.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

In addition to the lack of respect it shows you I don't agree that taxing sugar will achieve anything. It didn't in the case of cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

Ironically, your post is just as offensive as what you're complaining about.

What does this have to do with type 1? How about the active and healthy people who developed type 2, or any other form of diabetes for that matter?

The irony lies in the fact that you're lobbying for differentiation, yet you've failed to differentiate the (majority of) people with type 2 diabetes who didn't acquire the disease due to excess sugar.

The reality is: neither your post nor what it's about is offensive, but if you're looking to get offended about something, that game can backfire.

 

[chris.k]

It may a good idea if the money raised goes back onto the nhs

 

[mark4785]

Ironically, your post is just as offensive as what you're complaining about.

What does this have to do with type 1? How about the active and healthy people who developed type 2, or any other form of diabetes for that matter?

The irony lies in the fact that you're lobbying for differentiation, yet you've failed to differentiate the (majority of) people with type 2 diabetes who didn't acquire the disease due to excess sugar.

The reality is: neither your post nor what it's about is offensive, but if you're looking to get offended about something, that game can backfire.

I didn't raise type 2 on a type 1 forum. Thanks.

 

[AndBreathe]

Having watched the National ITV News today at 6:30 pm I came across a VT of theirs which put forth the following statement: "The sugar tax [being proposed by the UK government] is estimated to stop 300,000 people from developing Diabetes".

Given that ITV is so big in structure and assets to the point that they are able to employ medical correspondents, it does beg the question as to why they show no interest in differentiating between the different forms of diabetes in the above statement. Differentiation, in terms of the above statement, would be very important and respectful towards people like myself, with type 1 Diabetes, who acquired the illness as an active and healthy person who had a balanced diet with no excesses in sugary drinks or snacks. Thus, my type 1 Diabetes could not have been caused by excess sugar in-take.

If the evidence points to excess sugar playing no part in type 1 Diabetes onset why is this news corporation misinforming the public and deluding themselves?

I encourage people with type 1 Diabetes to get in-touch with ITV News to issue a complaint by clicking here and either emailing or phoning them. I certainly will be pursuing a complaint.

Bearing in mind the lack of understanding of some clinical medical staff relating to diabetes, it's hardly surprising the correspondent's knowledge is sketchy at best. My understanding TV news correspondent are usually journalists, not medical staff (in this instance).

Whilst it doesn't make it right, it's hardly surprising to me.

On the wider note though, even if a sugar tax is introduced, I can't see it doing incredible things for consumption. If we think smoking, taxation may have trimmed the edges of the smoker population, with the real difference appearing to come after the ban in workplaces/pubs etc.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

I didn't raise type 2 on a type 1 forum. Thanks.

Ah, so I should have considered the context of your post to understand that you were talking about type 1 diabetes?

Hmmm.....it's almost as if we should consider the context of this news report to assume they're talking about type 2 diabetes?

 

[Avocado Sevenfold]

Here is the VT in question. They do not mention sugar as causing type one at all. I watched it and assumed they were talking about type fatty (joke)

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-07/sugar-tax-back-on-the-table-in-fight-against-obesity/

 

[mark4785]

Bearing in mind the lack of understanding of some clinical medical staff relating to diabetes, it's hardly surprising the correspondent's knowledge is sketchy at best. My understanding TV news correspondent are usually journalists, not medical staff (in this instance).

Whilst it doesn't make it right, it's hardly surprising to me.

On the wider note though, even if a sugar tax is introduced, I can't see it doing incredible things for consumption. If we think smoking, taxation may have trimmed the edges of the smoker population, with the real difference appearing to come after the ban in workplaces/pubs etc.

They do indeed have people they refer to has journalists but you don't have to be classed as medical staff to know that there are different forms of diabetes with different causes. In the case of type 1, there is absolutely no link between increased sugar intake causing or even operating alongside increased instances of type 1 diabetes onset so there is a duty there to exclude it from VT's relating to sugar tax.

 

[mark4785]

Ah, so I should have considered the context of your post to understand that you were talking about type 1 diabetes?

Hmmm.....it's almost as if we should consider the context of this news report to assume they're talking about type 2 diabetes?

No, you would refer to the structure of the forum:
Forums > Diabetes Discussion > Type 1 Diabetes

 

[mark4785]

In addition to the lack of respect it shows you I don't agree that taxing sugar will achieve anything. It didn't in the case of cigarettes and alcohol.

It doesn't make any sense to tax something that is used to prevent hypoglycaemic symptoms and coma which is what a person like me uses sugar for.

 

[mrspuddleduck]

Hi @mark4785 I totally understand your point if view and share your frustrations. For me, the whole sugar tax debate is just 'distraction politics'. It's being linked to the cost if diabetes care, implying that we (all diabetes regardless of type or cause) are partly responsible for the financial crisis in the NHS. What frustrates me more is there appears to be no national, government media or NHS debate about the standard, education and (often lack of) content of care that people recieve before and once they are diagnosed - of course not, that would mean the government admitting their failing. Easier and cheaper to blame Joe Public!!

 

[mrspuddleduck]

It doesn't make any sense to tax something that is used to prevent hypoglycaemic symptoms and coma which is what a person like me uses sugar for.

Dr Woolaston, chairwoman of the health select committee was quoted in the Times today "the advantage of a sugary drinks tax is that you can completely avoid it because there are directly equivilant products that aren't stuffed full if sugar. Nobody has to pay it, so its not regressive"
Mmmmm think we can guess her level of diabetes knowledge then...

 

[mark4785]

Hi @mark4785 I totally understand your point if view and share your frustrations. For me, the whole sugar tax debate is just 'distraction politics'. It's being linked to the cost if diabetes care, implying that we (all diabetes regardless of type or cause) are partly responsible for the financial crisis in the NHS. What frustrates me more is there appears to be no national, government media or NHS debate about the standard, education and (often lack of) content of care that people recieve before and once they are diagnosed - of course not, that would mean the government admitting their failing. Easier and cheaper to blame Joe Public!!

I believe the amount of money the NHS spends on correcting diabetes complications is phenomenal but some of these complications won't have been directly caused by what a person chooses to eat or do beforehand. On the other hand, there will be some people with type 2 diabetes who have been told to cut down on fat and sugar intake to reduce their chances of acquiring diabetic retinopathy, kidney disease/failure, foot / full leg amputation and heart attack that respond by doing the exact opposite. I do feel sympathy for those who are doing their best to mitigate their type 2 diabetes, especially if they are being deemed 'responsible', as you put it, for NHS debt.

The idea that a type 1 can be blamed for NHS debt is not even a possibility since the cause of the immune system destroying the cells of the pancreas isn't known.

 

[mark4785]

Dr Woolaston, chairwoman of the health select committee was quoted in the Times today "the advantage of a sugary drinks tax is that you can completely avoid it because there are directly equivilant products that aren't stuffed full if sugar. Nobody has to pay it, so its not regressive"
Mmmmm think we can guess her level of diabetes knowledge then...

She should have ended her sentence with 'I believe nobody has to pay it" so its in the open that its just her incompetent belief and not a fact.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

Has anybody voted? I haven't since having seen the VT it seems they never said that.

 

[AndBreathe]

I believe the amount of money the NHS spends on correcting diabetes complications is phenomenal but some of these complications won't have been directly caused by what a person chooses to eat or do beforehand. On the other hand, there will be some people with type 2 diabetes who have been told to cut down on fat and sugar intake to reduce their chances of acquiring diabetic retinopathy, kidney disease/failure, foot / full leg amputation and heart attack that respond by doing the exact opposite. I do feel sympathy for those who are doing their best to mitigate their type 2 diabetes, especially if they are being deemed 'responsible', as you put it, for NHS debt.

The idea that a type 1 can be blamed for NHS debt is not even a possibility since the cause of the immune system destroying the cells of the pancreas isn't known.

And of course, T1s and other worthy types never would ignore medical advice.......

Don't worry, I'll report my own post.

 

[mark4785]

And of course, T1s and other worthy types never would ignore medical advice.......

Don't worry, I'll report my own post.

Thank you for your input there.

 

[AndBreathe]

Thank you for your input there.

You're most welcome.

 

[dannyw]

I think it's just another angle the Gov't has seen to enable themselves to make more money and raise taxes. If they were really interested in our health, why not make healthier options cheaper ?