The O.N.S. meets Dr. Fox

I saw this headline on the BBC website yesterday and my mind went into overdrive, because the headline was so utterly bereft of any critical rigour as to be meaningless. It made on question the editorial standards that allowed such a headline to be even written. And here it is:

‘One million have undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in England’

Exactly how can one put a figure on something if that something hasn’t even been quantified? Well the BBC got around this by providing a link to some research by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) which apparently proves this fantastical claim. I haven’t read the whole thing – because in all probability the ONS will, knowing my luck, publish research that proves that the more statical research one reads, the more one increases their likelihood of dying early – but have just skimmed the main points and it is by turn both unintentionally hilarious and alarmingly contradictory

‘An estimated 7% of adults in England showed evidence of type 2 diabetes, and 3 in 10 (30%) of those were undiagnosed; this equates to approximately 1 million adults with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.’

Ah good, our old friend ‘estimated’ making a not unexpected appearance in a piece of statistical scaremongering. One wonders if his trusty companions ‘projection’, ‘possibility’, and ‘eventually’ are lurking deep in the research paper? And then, just to ratchet up the fear still further, it added

Those with type 2 diabetes were also more likely to be undiagnosed if they were in better general health, and women were more likely to be undiagnosed if they had a lower body mass index (BMI), lower waist circumference, or were not prescribed antidepressants.

So hang on! I thought having better general health was a good thing? Also, isn’t women having a lower BMI an equally desirable thing? Or am I wrong? But there was no time to dwell on this, because;

‘Pre-diabetes affected around 1 in 9 adults in England (12%), which equates to approximately 5.1 million adults.’

What’s this now? ‘Pre-diabetes’? When did we start living in the world of ‘Minority Report‘? It follows that if there is a thing, then there has to be a time when that thing didn’t exist. If we accept that pre-diabetes is a thing, then aren’t 100% of people pre-death?

‘Groups most at risk of having pre-diabetes were those with known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as older age or being in the BMI categories “overweight” or “obese”; however, there was also considerable prevalence in groups typically considered “low risk”, for example, 4% of those aged 16 to 44 years and 8% of those who were not overweight or obese had pre-diabetes.’

So just to recap then. There are two things – undiagnosed and pre-diabetes – that can’t be proven, but are nonetheless presented as fact. The healthier one is the greater the risk of it being undiagnosed and even if you’re younger and slimmer, you’re still in the woods for the pre- version.

A few seconds before I posted this, I re-read the BBC article for any hint of healthy scepticism on the part of the reporter who posted this. They would’ve had access to the same, hopefully much more, information than I had, but there was not even a scintilla of doubt. It was presented as fact, whereas to me it reads like a last piece of ‘churnalism – a press release basically presented as news.

No wonder Dr. Andrew Wakefield got such an easy ride!