As many as 1 in 3 U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050, federal officials announced Friday in a dramatic new projection that represents a threefold increase.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 1 in 10 have diabetes now, but the number could grow to 1 in 5 or even 1 in 3 by mid-century if current trends continue.
"This is alarming," said Ann Albright, director of the CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation.
The agency's projections have been a work in progress. The last revision put the number at 39 million in 2050. The new estimate takes it to the range of 76 million to 100 million.
An estimated 24 million Americans have diabetes currently.
Years ago, they told us a nuclear power plant leak could create a hole in the earth straight through from Pennsylvania to China ("The China Syndrome"). The story sold lots of tickets, and nearly killed the (carbon neutral!) U.S. nuclear power industry, but of course it never happened.
More recently, they told us that New York City would imminently be covered by glaciers as a result of global warming on "The Day After Tomorrow". Again, they sold lots of books and tickets, and people now blame everything they don't like about the weather anywhere on any day on global warming (they even blame it for things like earthquakes, which no scientist has ever said is in any way impacted by global warming). But, by now it's been well over one thousand days after tomorrow, and still no glaciers in Central Park.
The newest junk science media manipulation involves obesity, fast food and sweet drinks. By linking increasing obesity rates to increasing diabetes rates, and then projecting out increasing diabetes rates in a straight line, they get to scream "1 in 3 U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050!" . . . unless the food cops get to ban McDonald's and Coke and salt on your fries. That's nonsense. If you straight line project increasing rates of anything, your numbers always "prove" that eventually it will be universal. That never happens.
There are obvious dangers involved in nuclear power, carbon pollution and obesity. Why don't these busybodies ever honestly state their arguments and reasons, without resorting to lies, distortion and gross exaggeration?