An AI word predictor is not a source, and is not an appropriate way to back up your claims. Either provide real sources or retract the claims.
Sure

Insulin and its salts exports to United States |2023

Directly from the world bank.

The largest non european source is the UAE with 575 kg which mostly functions as middle man for india and malaysia.

There already is a shortage of insulin in the USA now:

What is behind the insulin shortage in the US?

My claim is supported by the worldbank data.

Even with current imports the USA needs for insulin are barely reached.

Insulin Imports Are Not Meeting Countries’ Needs

"Import-dependent countries rely mostly on Denmark, France and Germany to source insulin for their patients,” says study lead author and WHF Emerging Leader Abhishek Sharma (SPH’15), who is an adjunct researcher in the Department of Global Health, an Emerging Leader at the World Heart Federation, and a senior research scientist at PRECISIONheor. “These three countries host manufacturing or corporate headquarters of Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Sanofi. Exports from other companies, like those located in India, China, and UAE, appear limited in terms of their outreach and export relatively smaller quantities.” "

So its save to say that a EU ban on insulin exports to the US would have catastrophic results
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Sure

Insulin and its salts exports to United States |2023

Directly from the world bank.

The largest non european source is the UAE with 575 kg which mostly functions as middle man for india and malaysia.

There already is a shortage of insulin in the USA now:

What is behind the insulin shortage in the US?

My claim is supported by the worldbank data.

Even with current imports the USA needs for insulin are barely reached.

Insulin Imports Are Not Meeting Countries’ Needs

"Import-dependent countries rely mostly on Denmark, France and Germany to source insulin for their patients,” says study lead author and WHF Emerging Leader Abhishek Sharma (SPH’15), who is an adjunct researcher in the Department of Global Health, an Emerging Leader at the World Heart Federation, and a senior research scientist at PRECISIONheor. “These three countries host manufacturing or corporate headquarters of Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Sanofi. Exports from other companies, like those located in India, China, and UAE, appear limited in terms of their outreach and export relatively smaller quantities.” "

So its save to say that a EU ban on insulin exports to the US would have catastrophic results
If the premise is that a restriction on exporting insulin to the US from Europe would have a negative impact, then I would agree. It would not, IMO, be a 'catastrophic' impact though.

However, the assertions as well as the sources provided fail to support claims of a catastrophic impact, largely due to either the source being incorrect, or the data provided not actually meaning what one appears to think and/or the data being incomplete.

Take the linked Al Jazeera article specifically this quoted section, which was also repeated in a captioned image;

More than 38.4 million people in the United States have diabetes and rely on insulin for their survival. In context, that is more than the population of Tokyo, one of the world’s most populous cities.
Now if one takes a look at a US's CDC page on national diabetes statistics posted in 2024 with estimates from 2021, approx. 38.4 mil. people of all ages in the US had diabetes. That tracks with the first part of the Al Jazeera article. Where the article went seriously wrong though is that most diabetics are not insulin dependent, having non-insulin dependent Type 2 diabetes, rather than being either Type 1 diabetes, or long-term Type 2 diabetics that have become insulin dependent. Basically the Al Jazeera article asserted that all diabetics in the US are dependent on insulin, which is absolutely false if one is talking about external sources. If one is talking about internal sources, then everyone, diabetics and non-diabetics alike, are all insulin dependent, it is just that the vast majority of people produce enough insulin within their own bodies for their needs. A failure of getting such a basic fact correct then calls into question everything else in the article itself.

BTW similar supporting statistics are also available from the American Diabetes Association, which can be found here.

As for the data on US insulin imports from 2023... IMO that also does not mean what one seems to think, for a few different reasons.

There is this World Bank table showing US insulin exports to the world, also from 2023. Basically, insulin as well as precursors and components for insulin are traded back and forth between the US and Europe, with the US being a net importer (i.e. the value of US insulin exports was exceeded by the value of insulin imports). What the tables do not really provide information on is what degree different insulin-producing countries are dependent on imports of materials to produce insulin or where they are dependent on.

What the articles also do not address is what capacity exists in the US to increase domestic production of insulin as well as to develop alternate sources for insulin precursors and components.

To recap the discussion so far: Yes, Europe could take steps to disrupt insulin supplies to the US, which would likely cause scarcity, price surges and hardships for those in the US who are dependent on insulin. However, only a small percentage of the US population would be really impacted by that, about 2.5%, and alternate sources exist and could be further developed or re-established. Further, the US also has the potential to cause disruptions to insulin supplies and production within Europe, which would likely negatively impact global insulin production and supplies.
 
If the premise is that a restriction on exporting insulin to the US from Europe would have a negative impact, then I would agree. It would not, IMO, be a 'catastrophic' impact though.

However, the assertions as well as the sources provided fail to support claims of a catastrophic impact, largely due to either the source being incorrect, or the data provided not actually meaning what one appears to think and/or the data being incomplete.

Take the linked Al Jazeera article specifically this quoted section, which was also repeated in a captioned image;



Now if one takes a look at a US's CDC page on national diabetes statistics posted in 2024 with estimates from 2021, approx. 38.4 mil. people of all ages in the US had diabetes. That tracks with the first part of the Al Jazeera article. Where the article went seriously wrong though is that most diabetics are not insulin dependent, having non-insulin dependent Type 2 diabetes, rather than being either Type 1 diabetes, or long-term Type 2 diabetics that have become insulin dependent. Basically the Al Jazeera article asserted that all diabetics in the US are dependent on insulin, which is absolutely false if one is talking about external sources. If one is talking about internal sources, then everyone, diabetics and non-diabetics alike, are all insulin dependent, it is just that the vast majority of people produce enough insulin within their own bodies for their needs. A failure of getting such a basic fact correct then calls into question everything else in the article itself.

BTW similar supporting statistics are also available from the American Diabetes Association, which can be found here.

As for the data on US insulin imports from 2023... IMO that also does not mean what one seems to think, for a few different reasons.

There is this World Bank table showing US insulin exports to the world, also from 2023. Basically, insulin as well as precursors and components for insulin are traded back and forth between the US and Europe, with the US being a net importer (i.e. the value of US insulin exports was exceeded by the value of insulin imports). What the tables do not really provide information on is what degree different insulin-producing countries are dependent on imports of materials to produce insulin or where they are dependent on.

What the articles also do not address is what capacity exists in the US to increase domestic production of insulin as well as to develop alternate sources for insulin precursors and components.

To recap the discussion so far: Yes, Europe could take steps to disrupt insulin supplies to the US, which would likely cause scarcity, price surges and hardships for those in the US who are dependent on insulin. However, only a small percentage of the US population would be really impacted by that, about 2.5%, and alternate sources exist and could be further developed or re-established. Further, the US also has the potential to cause disruptions to insulin supplies and production within Europe, which would likely negatively impact global insulin production and supplies.
I dont see why not, because it has little effect on us. We have the entire line in Europe running. USA has not. Keep in mind that the effect of insulin supression is severe and has a huge psychological effect for those affected. Denmark, Germany and France have the complete prodution line and scale. The horrendous effects on the people who need it can be directed towards the Washington Junta.

I assume that is not just for Insulin but many other medications as well.

This is total new terrain since US was never hostile to Europe so i think that this also will lead to new tactics. The new situation now creates a strong unity in Europeans to strike back. Never seen such strong anti US sentiment through so many nations.

The insulin option was debated on TV here as one option.

I think what we will see in next months is that vulnerable nations like Iceland will join the EU fast to seek security from US imperialism. NATO basicly is dead now anyways.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I dont see why not, because it has little effect on us. We have the entire line in Europe running. USA has not. Keep in mind that the effect of insulin supression is severe and has a huge psychological effect for those affected. Denmark, Germany and France have the complete prodution line and scale. The horrendous effects on the people who need it can be directed towards the Washington Junta.

I assume that is not just for Insulin but many other medications as well.

This is total new terrain since US was never hostile to Europe so i think that this also will lead to new tactics. The new situation now creates a strong unity in Europeans to strike back. Never seen such strong anti US sentiment through so many nations.

The insulin option was debated on TV here as one option.

I think what we will see in next months is that vulnerable nations like Iceland will join the EU fast to seek security from US imperialism. NATO basicly is dead now anyways.
Explain to me the difference between what the EU security offers versus NATO without the US.
 
Explain to me the difference between what the EU security offers versus NATO without the US.
NATO was a US project. With US out we have a Europe and Canada defense structure. i dont think the name NATO will remain. A country within the EU has a 2nd security layer. Eu has a similar security guarantee, an attack on one EU nation is an attack on all.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
NATO was a US project. With US out we have a Europe and Canada defense structure. i dont think the name NATO will remain. A country within the EU has a 2nd security layer. Eu has a similar security guarantee, an attack on one EU nation is an attack on all.
The UK and Canada are not EU members but are NATO members. As a nuclear power, the UK would be a significant player for EU defence if the US continues on its belligerent path.
 

Redshift

Active Member
I would strongly suggest that one double check numbers prior to throwing claims around.

Three manufacturers are together responsible for over 90% of global insulin production. These are the US company Eli Lily which has multiple manufacturing sites in the US, France, Italy, China and IIRC had facilities in Russia. Next is the Danish company Novo Nordisk which has facilities in Denmark, the US, China, and again might still have facilities in Russia. The third major world producer of insulin is the French pharmaceutical Sanofi, which has a major facility near Frankfurt in Germany. Now I am not certain what the specific percentages of world insulin production are associated with which company, or how much insulin is produced at different manufacturing facilities operated by these companies, but I would consider it unlikely that the US manufacturing facilities would produce little to no insulin for either Eli Lily or Novo Nordisk, especially since Eli Lily does produce insulin in facilities in the US. In short, whilst the 'Big Three' do indeed supply about 90% of the global insulin supply, these companies are not all based in Europe, and they all have manufacturing facilities outside of Europe as well, meaning that claims of Europe producing 91% of the global insulin supply are likely false.

Secondly, the claim that 15% of the US population is dependent on Europe to remain alive is likewise incorrect, assuming one is referring to insulin dependency. The current US population is ~348 mil., of these some ~37 mil. are diabetic, or a little over 10% of the US population. However, most diabetics in the US do not use insulin, only about 8.4 mil. people in the US are insulin dependent, which works out to only ~2.4% of the US population. That is still a significant number of people, but no where near the percentages claimed, never mind the claimed dependence on Europe as a source for insulin.

I mention all this because there is little point in putting forth an argument that is heavily reliant upon 'facts' which are actually rather divergent from reality.



Nothing controversial about such a statement, albeit not entirely accurate either. More accurately, Type 2 diabetes (the non-insulin dependent kind, usually...) often occurs in obese people, and sometimes in older people who are not obese. The major thing with Type 2 though is that it can usually be managed without insulin, though sometimes Type 2 diabetics become insulin dependent later on in life.
I was generalising a little for the sake of brevity
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The UK and Canada are not EU members but are NATO members. As a nuclear power, the UK would be a significant player for EU defence if the US continues on its belligerent path.
Although there is a large degree of commonality between NATO and EU membership, there are several countries which are a part of the EU whilst not in NATO, and even more members of NATO (including those within Europe) that are not members of the EU.

Austria, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta are all part of the EU yet not in NATO. However, Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, the UK and US are all part of NATO but not the EU.

Apart from the differences in population and the size and capabilities of the armed forces (excluding US forces) there are strategic positioning implications between the different national memberships.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Wouldn't this be one of those situations where France/UK/Germany/Dutch/Scandi each send 500 troops for a goodwill tour/training late notice exercise? I'm sure the Danish would invite them, its not a combat mission, they won't have to fight up the beach, just a good will mission to show commitment and capability.
I seem to remember an episode of "Yes Prime Minister" along these lines, a case of life imitating art.
 

Arji

Active Member
I'm hearing the Germans went home already? It doesn't look good if all it takes is some pressure.
Wasn't it supposed to be just a study for the possibility of more troop deployment in the future?

I'm not sure whether this is caving to pressure, or if they completed their task.
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Dear Jonas:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a "right of ownership" anyway? There are no written documents, it's only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.
Thank you! President DJT

So, all this, because he got a bruised ego. To add, this is the man with his finger on America's nuclear arsenal.
 
Top