I havn’t read most of your article but I would point out that the definition of diabetes (type 2) was defined downwards around 1997. Your glucose levels needed to define you as diabetic suddenly dropped 20% or so.
Medical diagnostics are about as accurate as throwing darts a target blindfolded, so it's not surprising the numbers changed. Maybe they weren't pulling in enough revenue with this scam.
Also, as the EMF frequencies continue to be adjusted upward, the effects on the body will get more and more destructive. When they hit 60 gHZ the oxygen molecules get extremely effected and people will start dropping like flies from lack of oxygen in the blood. It will be blamed on Climate Change, and/or with something like Bird Flu or eating meat or not enough bugs.
No offense taken. There's still a lot we don't know about how EMF affects the body, since most 'scientists' and their funding organizations aren't interested in considering health damaging effects, although there are thousands of studies discussing some of these health issues.
When it comes to standard models in the biological 'sciences' and the Medical Industry in general, I've always been skeptical, but my level of skepticism has risen dramatically since I became aware that the murderous plandemic we're continuing to suffer through was based on a non-existent virus. Viruses don't even exist. This is a monumental lie that has resulted and will continue to result in countless numbers of deaths.
True no virus ever isolated, examined under a microscope Ie 'virology' is fraud & the 'big'names in that area of study such as Pasteur & others turn out to have committed fraud to to create the whole edifice of 'vaccines that the world
grew to trust for 200 yrs I got very severe 'Covid' or the symptoms described as 'Covid', months ago and still not fully well I assumed I acquired the illness when I attended a l meeting with hundreds of people, or on the public transport to get there ie 'Contagion' theory of illness which we are taught as fact...But Terrain' theory posits that we don't 'catch' illnesses (a book I started to read called 'Pasteur or Deschamp?' which tells how Pasteur admitted his experimental results were lies such as that viruses exist and can travel from person to person causing illnesses. The whole industry is profit of trillions a year for Pharma, Governments & shareholders & also depopulates vast numbers of people for globalist ( eg Gates, WEF, Rockefellers etc) agenda.
I found this article really interesting and I do think you raise some issues that need to be investigated further but I have some major issues with it too.
I think it is vital that you distinguish clearly and accurately between type 1 and type 2. I know you do it in the second half of the article but there is a much bigger difference between the two types than you seem to realise or have conveyed in the article.
It is also important because there are somethings that just don't add up or are not true because you haven't made the distinction.
For example "people are developing diabetes at younger ages.... ." this may be true for type 2 but not type 1. Type 1 most commonly develops in childhood, at least that was the case for the most of history. What is actually occurring with type 1 is that it is starting to occur in adults more frequently recently. So it's actually the reverse to type 2.
Also, most, if not all case of diabetes prior 1900's was type 1, type 2 is a more recent illness. Which you touch on but don't make clear when you say this "Insulin resistance—which accounts for the vast majority of diabetes in the world today—did not exist before the late nineteenth century. " Insulin resistance to natural insulin only occurs in type 2, type 1's do not produce insulin whatsoever but may have some resistance to synthetic insulin after using it for sometime or they are pregnant.
"The standard model for diabetes essentially revolves around the consumption of refined sugar overwhelming the ability of the body to maintain metabolic equilibrium."
For type 1, they generally argue it is genetic, not from over consumption of refined sugar. That's type 2 not type 1. Children as young as 2 (ie only been eating for over a year) or even younger get type 1, they simply haven't lived long enough to abuse the body in the way described.
Because of the different history and causes of type 1 and type 2, and especially for the theory you are proposing in this article, it's important to make the distinction in claims like this - "In 2004, 634 new cases of diabetes were reported in Bhutan. The next year, 944. The year after that, 1,470. The following year, 1,732. The next year, 2,541, with 15 deaths... " are these type 2 or type 1?
To me it seems like the theory that EMFs contribute to diabetes, only really holds water when it comes to type 2 and not type 1. Because as with the refined sugar argument - why do such young children get type 1 when they haven't been exposed to these "causative agents" for long enough? Also, type 1 has been around since ancient times way before EMFs but type 2 hasn't.
"If your pancreas becomes worn out and stops producing insulin, you have Type 1 diabetes. " Again, type 1 is not caused by this, you are describing how they think type 2 happens . I can use the young child argument again here. Or I can also point to the fact that type 1 also often occurs after what people call trigger moments like head injuries, emotional trauma or other physical trauma - following these incidents the pancreas stops producing insulin almost immediately and there is no wearing down. This never happens with type 2- type 2 is slow onset, type 1 is not.
Also prior to diagnosis and treatment they are two very different diseases - Type 1, experience weight-loss, thirst, frequent urination, extreme fatigue and can even go into a coma. This is not the case with a type 2 prior to diagnosis and treatment. Type 2, usually an overweight person (usually due to bad diet) , goes to a doctor who checks their levels and says they are elevated, that's it - there is no weight loss or thirst etc etc prior thereto.
If you make the distinction between type 1 and type 2, claims like this will also make sense and be plausible.
"Today the disease has changed entirely."
Type 1 hasn't changed at all throughout history , the only thing that has changed is now you have type 2 which is prevelant and perhaps type 1 has become more prevalent. The mordern epidemic is definitely referring to type 2 diabetes though and not type 1. Also, type 2 is completely reverseable or curable whereas type 1 is not
A type 1, as explained above, usually start off very skinny prior to diagnosis - because their bodies are essentially starved of resources - and stay skinny after diagnosis if they follow the correct diet. They can, however, easily become fat once they start taking insulin if they do not eat properly and have to constantly inject insulin to lower their sugar levels. Insulin is anabolic, a steroid, and builds everything into muscle or fat of you do not exercise enough. Type 2 start off overweight and will stay that way unless they make dietary changes but they don't start off with serious weight loss as is the case with type 1.
From what I gather the issue with fat metabolism may apply to type 1 only because you are mainly relying on historical sources there but it's hard to tell.
The radio wave section seems like it could be a plausible origin story for type 2 diabetes but not type 1.
I hope all the above doesn't offend you. I love that you took the time to write about diabetes and, like I said, you raised some interesting points but it is hard to tell if they are valid or plausible without making the distinction between the two types.
My feeling is it will be a stronger theory if you narrow it down to only type 2 diabetes. But I don't have your information and maybe if you do make the distinction you will be able to explain why it applies to both - in its current form, however, the article just doesn't do that.
I havn’t read most of your article but I would point out that the definition of diabetes (type 2) was defined downwards around 1997. Your glucose levels needed to define you as diabetic suddenly dropped 20% or so.
Medical diagnostics are about as accurate as throwing darts a target blindfolded, so it's not surprising the numbers changed. Maybe they weren't pulling in enough revenue with this scam.
Also, as the EMF frequencies continue to be adjusted upward, the effects on the body will get more and more destructive. When they hit 60 gHZ the oxygen molecules get extremely effected and people will start dropping like flies from lack of oxygen in the blood. It will be blamed on Climate Change, and/or with something like Bird Flu or eating meat or not enough bugs.
Problems posting at the moment. Deleted the double.
No offense taken. There's still a lot we don't know about how EMF affects the body, since most 'scientists' and their funding organizations aren't interested in considering health damaging effects, although there are thousands of studies discussing some of these health issues.
When it comes to standard models in the biological 'sciences' and the Medical Industry in general, I've always been skeptical, but my level of skepticism has risen dramatically since I became aware that the murderous plandemic we're continuing to suffer through was based on a non-existent virus. Viruses don't even exist. This is a monumental lie that has resulted and will continue to result in countless numbers of deaths.
True no virus ever isolated, examined under a microscope Ie 'virology' is fraud & the 'big'names in that area of study such as Pasteur & others turn out to have committed fraud to to create the whole edifice of 'vaccines that the world
grew to trust for 200 yrs I got very severe 'Covid' or the symptoms described as 'Covid', months ago and still not fully well I assumed I acquired the illness when I attended a l meeting with hundreds of people, or on the public transport to get there ie 'Contagion' theory of illness which we are taught as fact...But Terrain' theory posits that we don't 'catch' illnesses (a book I started to read called 'Pasteur or Deschamp?' which tells how Pasteur admitted his experimental results were lies such as that viruses exist and can travel from person to person causing illnesses. The whole industry is profit of trillions a year for Pharma, Governments & shareholders & also depopulates vast numbers of people for globalist ( eg Gates, WEF, Rockefellers etc) agenda.
I found this article really interesting and I do think you raise some issues that need to be investigated further but I have some major issues with it too.
I think it is vital that you distinguish clearly and accurately between type 1 and type 2. I know you do it in the second half of the article but there is a much bigger difference between the two types than you seem to realise or have conveyed in the article.
It is also important because there are somethings that just don't add up or are not true because you haven't made the distinction.
For example "people are developing diabetes at younger ages.... ." this may be true for type 2 but not type 1. Type 1 most commonly develops in childhood, at least that was the case for the most of history. What is actually occurring with type 1 is that it is starting to occur in adults more frequently recently. So it's actually the reverse to type 2.
Also, most, if not all case of diabetes prior 1900's was type 1, type 2 is a more recent illness. Which you touch on but don't make clear when you say this "Insulin resistance—which accounts for the vast majority of diabetes in the world today—did not exist before the late nineteenth century. " Insulin resistance to natural insulin only occurs in type 2, type 1's do not produce insulin whatsoever but may have some resistance to synthetic insulin after using it for sometime or they are pregnant.
"The standard model for diabetes essentially revolves around the consumption of refined sugar overwhelming the ability of the body to maintain metabolic equilibrium."
For type 1, they generally argue it is genetic, not from over consumption of refined sugar. That's type 2 not type 1. Children as young as 2 (ie only been eating for over a year) or even younger get type 1, they simply haven't lived long enough to abuse the body in the way described.
Because of the different history and causes of type 1 and type 2, and especially for the theory you are proposing in this article, it's important to make the distinction in claims like this - "In 2004, 634 new cases of diabetes were reported in Bhutan. The next year, 944. The year after that, 1,470. The following year, 1,732. The next year, 2,541, with 15 deaths... " are these type 2 or type 1?
To me it seems like the theory that EMFs contribute to diabetes, only really holds water when it comes to type 2 and not type 1. Because as with the refined sugar argument - why do such young children get type 1 when they haven't been exposed to these "causative agents" for long enough? Also, type 1 has been around since ancient times way before EMFs but type 2 hasn't.
"If your pancreas becomes worn out and stops producing insulin, you have Type 1 diabetes. " Again, type 1 is not caused by this, you are describing how they think type 2 happens . I can use the young child argument again here. Or I can also point to the fact that type 1 also often occurs after what people call trigger moments like head injuries, emotional trauma or other physical trauma - following these incidents the pancreas stops producing insulin almost immediately and there is no wearing down. This never happens with type 2- type 2 is slow onset, type 1 is not.
Also prior to diagnosis and treatment they are two very different diseases - Type 1, experience weight-loss, thirst, frequent urination, extreme fatigue and can even go into a coma. This is not the case with a type 2 prior to diagnosis and treatment. Type 2, usually an overweight person (usually due to bad diet) , goes to a doctor who checks their levels and says they are elevated, that's it - there is no weight loss or thirst etc etc prior thereto.
If you make the distinction between type 1 and type 2, claims like this will also make sense and be plausible.
"Today the disease has changed entirely."
Type 1 hasn't changed at all throughout history , the only thing that has changed is now you have type 2 which is prevelant and perhaps type 1 has become more prevalent. The mordern epidemic is definitely referring to type 2 diabetes though and not type 1. Also, type 2 is completely reverseable or curable whereas type 1 is not
A type 1, as explained above, usually start off very skinny prior to diagnosis - because their bodies are essentially starved of resources - and stay skinny after diagnosis if they follow the correct diet. They can, however, easily become fat once they start taking insulin if they do not eat properly and have to constantly inject insulin to lower their sugar levels. Insulin is anabolic, a steroid, and builds everything into muscle or fat of you do not exercise enough. Type 2 start off overweight and will stay that way unless they make dietary changes but they don't start off with serious weight loss as is the case with type 1.
From what I gather the issue with fat metabolism may apply to type 1 only because you are mainly relying on historical sources there but it's hard to tell.
The radio wave section seems like it could be a plausible origin story for type 2 diabetes but not type 1.
I hope all the above doesn't offend you. I love that you took the time to write about diabetes and, like I said, you raised some interesting points but it is hard to tell if they are valid or plausible without making the distinction between the two types.
My feeling is it will be a stronger theory if you narrow it down to only type 2 diabetes. But I don't have your information and maybe if you do make the distinction you will be able to explain why it applies to both - in its current form, however, the article just doesn't do that.