Preliminary "cure" for diabetesFollow

Took me all the way to the BBC to find this, but I'm surprised it hasn't been reported more. Goodness knows CNN loves sensationalist news, so why "Diabetes CURED!" isn't listed on their front page must mean something. Still...



Sorry if it was already reported here, but all I saw was Imus and McCain. It might not be a conclusive cure, but it seems like going more than 20 months without a shot is better than daily injections. At the very least it is a nice step forward, and shows some promise in stem cells.

Very true, Jophiel, thanks for clarifying that.

In other news, you can nowget sperm from bone marrow. And, again clarifying, it is immature sperm right now; they want to make viable sperm within 5 years. Possible uses for it include restoring virility to chemo-treated males. Hurray for science!

Hah. I wasn't going with that take, however it is interesting that an article about a "cure" using adult stem cells made a point of talking about embryonic stem cells (why?).

Which lead to my initial answer as to why this isn't being covered here in the US. It would undermine the whole "We must fund embryonic stem cell research" argument. Afterall, showing how adult stem cells produce usable cures *today* is a component of the counterargument. Preventing the public from learning how adult stem cells are useful allows the ESC proponents to propagate the "only ESC can save us!!!" argument.

But then I read a bit further...



Exactly right. They didn't actually cure anything. They simply removed the need for injections for a period of time (max 35 months in the study). They also are still collecting data to see what long term effect the treatment had. There was some suggestion that they may have simply increased the "strength" of the immune response that incorrectly targets the pancreas and potentially made those patients worse off in the long run, not better.

It's a long way from something that should be announced as front page news as a cure. Promising research? yes. But there's a heck of a long way left to go.

Um. Not that I was making the argument too seriously, but you're exactly wrong.

Any cure involving adult stem cells will either be redirected to make it appear that it's embryonic stem cells, or simply not be reported. And not by the Right, but by the left. They want to mandate federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research. The Right wants to only fund Adult Stem Cell research, Umbilical Stem Cell research, and Amnionic Stem Cell research.

If some nefarious group were trying to prevent the public from learning about this, it would *not* be the Right. It would be the Left. Cause they're the ones who stand to lose position on this issue if the public at large knew that non-Embryonic stem cells could produce cures too...

Not to be obvious, but the reason he's vetoing the bill is because it mandates federal funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Why else do you think they keep talking about the "sanctity of human live".

The issue is about using human embryo's to generate stem cells. Not about stem cell research itself. That's a huge strawman. Conservatives support and fund stem cell research using adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells, and umbilical stem cells. While I'm sure you can find the occasional outspoken Church Lady who's confused on what type of Stem Cell research is which, those who actually act on the policies understand this and act in a very consistent manner.


A report on a cure using adult stem cells would bolster the Rights argument that ESC is not the be-all and end-all of stem cell research, and that other forms of stem cell research can and do bear fruit and perhaps we should focus on what we can do with those before grinding up embryos...


Do *you* understand the difference between Embryonic Stem Cells and Adult Stem Cells? Cause it appears that you don't. Which is (sadly) not surprising. Again, a good portion of the Left's argument relies on getting as many people as possible to believe that Stem Cell research *is* ESC and that by blocking one, Bush is blocking the whole thing, is opposed to science in general, does not want to find any cures, etc...

Appears to have worked on you. ;)

Ah. Makes sense. Darn hyper links!!! ;)


Makes for an even better "tinfoilhat" explanation as to why this isn't big news here though. Again. Can't have a story showing that adult stem cells can do anything more then fail next to embryonic stem cells, now can we? ;)

Just read this interesting topic and because I'm suffering from diabetes type 1 I wanted to add my 2 cents.
As I'm from Europe I cannot add to your stem cell discussion as I'm not up to date with the debate in the US.

But to this new "treatment" I have a few things to say.

For me this does not sound promising. They have found no mechanism thats makes your body to produce insuline again, only a way to stop your immune system to desctruct the cells producing insuline further.

Thus, if all runs perfect your sitting at a partial working insuline production. As diabetes can only be diagnosed by it symptoms which is to few insuline, instant treatment would not help very much.

My diabetes was discovered rather early as doctors said. However my body was only able to produce insuline at around 20 to 30% of the normal amount.
So even you can stop the further process you still need treatment. At least special diet and things like that. This treatment involves suppressing your immune system and starting it again with help of your own stem cells. That sounds like very hard medication for a rather mediocre result. You cannot reverse the damage, you can only stop it at a rather low level or slow down the process.
If that is the treatment I'd rather take my insuline by shots. Not very hard, not very painful (in fact not painful at all except some small blue spots on your skin now and then).
You can stop all effects of diabetes by self medication, so where is actually the problem with diabetes so that you are willingly taking such drastic treatment?
I mean nuking my immune system so that a simple cold might have devastating effects to my health? No thanks.

You're right I understood it a bit different.

Unfortunately diabetes type 1 is a tricky one. You pancreas is not able to recover. So if your immune systems stops attacking the cells producing insuline, they will not recover. So without external treatment (which is non existent until now) there is no way your insuline production will go up.
The process of destruction of cells can be slowed. The immune system only attacks this cells which are currently producing insuline. So by early treatment with shots of insuline (you have to give yourself shots whenever you eat carbohydrates) your body is produdcing less insuline and thus this cells are destructed at a slower pace. The downturn to this is that you have to adapt your insuline shots over the time as the body's production of insuline slowly decreases. The benefit is, that you can prevent the extremes. If you forget to give you a shot, the body can compensate somewhat.

However the main problem of diagnosing diabetes is, especially with type 1, that you learn of the problem when it is to late, that means when you cannot produce enough insuline on your own. You discover diabetes through either increased concentration of sugar in your blood system or by symptoms of this fact (very thirsty all the time, loosing weight, and many other).

I actually was at 20-30% when it has been diagnosed. Now 5 years later I'm at 0-3%, which also is quite normal. When firstly diagnosed concentration of sugar in my blood was 4 times above normal values which is very unhealthy and dangerous in the long term.
Until now there is no reliable way of diagnosing type 1 diabetes as long the patient can produce "enough" insuline since no external symptoms are available. The person appears to be totally healthy. The reason for this is that your body can normally produce 300-400% more insuline than normally is needed.
You discover diabetes by its symptoms which only occur when there is not enough insuline production left to keep your body working in a normal way. So every type 1 diabetes patient had the illness for a few months/years already andneeds some form of treatment from begin on.
If your body is able to still produce some insuline (which is the case for the first few months/years with most patients) it might be sufficient to change your diet and do a lot of sports (as this increases the effects of insuline). That however will not be sufficient for a long time.

So if they only are able to stop the process, you still don't have a sufficient level of insuline production and you will likely need shots. If they could prevent usage of shots by only a few months to a few years that is not very impressive. The first few months I needed not very much insuline. When doing sports I sometimes did not have to take a shot. So by changing my diet and doing a lot of sports I might have prevented further treatment for around a year.
The whole thing becomes viable if they can restart the body's insuline production; however there is still a far way to go on that topic.
The last decade there where experiments with pancreas transplants. This might be a viable way if you can suppress the immune system from attacking those cells producing insuline. That transplants worked (if they where accepted by your body) for around 2-4 years (since the immune system still attacked the cells which produce insuline).
However this operations had a mortality rate between 10 and 20%.
Apart from producing insuline the pancreas has many other functions and there where a lot of complications.

So until there is no viable way to restart insuline production, there is a very long way to go.
Just being able to stop immune system attacking your own body will not be sufficient for anyone having diabetes.

Oh, and fwiw,

/agree with Mulgrin - at best this has significant limitations, and Iain Frame spoke recently and sounded far more cautious to me (I'd go as far as "skeptical") about this work. Aside from its sustainability, there are serious questions about its scalability.

That is fUcking priceless.

Guns don't kill people Codyy . . . Burgers do!

You know Iain Frame (and a range of WHO specialists) regularly speaks about the link between puerile and adolescent obesity and Type 1 Diabetes right?

Nope. I said Type 1 because I meant Type 1. You might want to read Iain's recent papers there ace. (along with a few recent WHO conference reports - I'm not at work so do your own google)

Yes, Obesity is a major factor in type 2 (along with unsaturated fats, booze, smoking etc) but there are relationships becoming apparent between Type 1 and puerile obesity, with an acknowledgement that the link may be an underlying predisposition to both.

Cite Wikipedia for mainstream stuff by all means. But for cutting edge stuff, you may need to be a tad more current.

It's all about the epidemiology baby

I didn't say "cause". (And neither did Iain).

I said "relationship", cUnt.

And don't get me started on co-diagnosis, motherfUcker