Two weeks ago, the National Health Research Institutes discovered that children with severe enterovirus infections had also been found to have hyperglycemia or high blood sugar.
As such, they inferred that people with enterovirus should avoid eating sugary foods.
Although the research on the prevention of severe symptoms is commendable, the underlying cause has not been fully identified.
Researchers hastily announced that families should not allow their kids to consume sugar while fighting off an enterovirus infection, and that they could be unexpectedly harmed.
For the most part, enterovirus infections present with mild symptoms, and those who are hospitalized can easily be dehydrated due to fever, vomiting, a refusal to eat due to mouth ulcers, electrolyte imbalance or low blood sugar.
The current standard of treatment is for an infected person to stay at home and replenish their electrolytes and fluids.
For example, the WHO recommends drinking electrolytes with a sugar content of 90 millimoles per liter.
The Centers for Disease Control suggests eating pudding or, if at an emergency clinic, to receive an intravenous drip. Both of these recommendations incorporate the ingestion of sugar.
The research team was unclear about its definition of “sweets” or “sweetened foods” when they made their announcement, creating some confusion that has led to inappropriate care by some families of people with mild symptoms, resulting in hypoglycemic shock or severe dehydration.
The reasoning is murky for “non-diabetic hyperglycemia” causing severe enterovirus symptoms.
Studies are leaning toward people with severe symptoms sometimes having excessive secretions of stress hormones such as cortisone, adrenaline and glucagon, which can cause temporary hyperglycemia.
Between hyperglycemia and severe symptoms, how do we determine which is the cause and which is the effect? Conclusions are being drawn at an unclear stage.
Promoting the idea that eating sweet foods leads to severe symptoms is unfortunately resulting in parents feeling uneasy, doctors administering clinical treatments without a factual basis and the inadvertent harming of kids.
Lin Sung-lien is a pediatrician at the Children’s Clinical Center in Keelung.
Translated by Tim Smith
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS