-im upvoting this question b/c it would be very difficult to treat complex medical problems without intensive resources and technology, sometimes anarchist goals may not work in favor of helping people with diabetes or even higher maintenance diseases (from my understand, diabetes is a pain in the ass but is fairly low maintenance), which is one of the reasons i don't care much for anarchist goals besides making my life less-shitty and more fun.-While the medical system as is wouldn't be supported by green anarchism/green nihilism, development of technologies, or continuation of them to help ppl in your situation don't necessarily need centralized authority figures and industry. It would of course be tougher to find solutions to these problems without massive destruction of the non-human environment, but here we have one versus the other and i am not enough of an asshole to presume that i can make a value judgment about what should be sacrificed for what.-i honestly care more about making life less shitty for people more than i do about my grand perspectives about the collective misery of the human race. In fact, i think that human suffering needs to be alleviated in order for the other stuff to be alleviated or fixed. Or, we all will die as a result of our large populations and destruction of the planet, which is honestly fine with me. I don't want humans as a species to live forever.-Even though i am against the state, you won't find me opposing a universal welfare system, or at least a less oppressive capitalist/state medical system than the one we have in the US. I have thought a lot about the plight of people being dependent on the modern medical system, and i have carpal tunnel and probably the only way im going to be able to fix it is through surgery, which is a real annoying conundrum (it might even get to the point where i would trade it for diabetes lol) so i know how you feel.
A rapid change in incidence within a genetically stable population implies that nongenetic factors are active and that the influence of genes is relative to population, time, and place. It suggests that something has changed in the environment our children encounter or in the way they are reared.
Not to say this is definitive. Possibly these children died in early infancy before anybody could detect symptoms and describe the disease. But something to think about and look into for people with Type 1 diabetes.