Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Trials for Type 1 Diabetes Cure 66

Posted by michael from the avoid-sugary-foods dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to this New York Times article, the pharmaceutical companies and NIH are shunning research for a cure for Type 1 diabetes. There's no money in a cure using medicine with an expired patent. Dr Faustman (researcher/professor at Harvard Medical School) has cured type 1 diabetes in mice and has been approved for Phase 1 clinical trials in humans. The only problem is raising the money, which Lee Iacocca is helping with."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trials for Type 1 Diabetes Cure More

Trials for Type 1 Diabetes Cure

Comments Filter:

  • Non-NYT article link (Score:5, Informative)

    by vslashg ( 209560 ) * on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @07:57PM (#10771524)
    The NYT must be cracking down; the first dozen logins from bugmenot.com didn't work for me.

    No problem, I found a copy of the NYT article [joinleenow.org] on Lee Iacocca's page. (Hopefully the server holds up.) Enjoy.

    • The article is mixed up. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by waterbear ( 190559 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @09:59PM (#10772741)
      The article is mixed up. Nobody is shunning islet-cell transplantation for (IDDM) diabetes. Many people in the field believe that the currently most promising procedure is one developed by surgeon James Shapiro in Canada. It is in human patient trials in more than one country already now. A drawback of course (a big one for some who would otherwise be potential patients) is the need for immunosuppressant therapy after the surgical procedure.

      The 'big bad pharmaceutical co' angle is mixed up too. This is a surgical procedure. There is no new pharmaceutical at the centre of it. But if new combinations of immunosuppressants prove specially well adapted to patients who have this procedure, that would quite likely be a new combination of features, and patent protection would likely be available for whatever it turns out to be, anyway.

      -wb-

      • RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

        by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @10:10PM (#10772828) Journal
        Read the article again till the end.

        They found that the treatment/drugs supposed to prepare the mice for transplant actually _cured_ the mice. The treatment was supposed to stop the immune system from blowing away the transplanted islet cells. But after the treatment the islet cells _regrew_ back. So there was no need for a transplant.

        ""No one had cured them," he said. "Here was this treatment that we thought would get them ready for a transplant but - eureka! - the diabetes was cured.""

        • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

          by waterbear ( 190559 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @10:28PM (#10772965)
          TheLink wrote "Read the article again till the end."

          I suggest reading the literature on the subject as well. It is well known that immune destruction starts off IDDM, but there is no evidence -- including regard to what is reported in the article -- that immune suppression revives beta-cells in patients who have none left. I.e. the large majority of humans with IDDM have long since lost all their beta cells to the destructive process that has run its course, and there is no bringing those cells back from the dead.

          And I stick to what I said about the big bad pharma angle being mixed up too. If a drug or combination of drugs has a surprising new effect then patent protection is likely to be available on the usual conditions no matter how much noise to the contrary is made on /. If this is a useful new application of BCG there is no rule nowadays that stops a patent for the new use.

          -wb-

          • Re:RTFA (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            It still sounds like you haven't read the article. In the mice, the spleen seems capable of regenerating islet cells.
        • Once you've digested the NYT article, have a look at the original research article published in the journal Science. The original paper is linked from the PubMed abstract, which is linked from this (brief) discussion discussion [meddot.org] on a slashsite called MedDot.org.

    • The NYT must be cracking down; the first dozen logins from bugmenot.com didn't work for me

      On the other hand, this is the first time I've ever clicked a link from Google News [google.ca], and ended up back at Slashdot. :)
    • For most registration required sites I usually just go through the first few qwerty:qwerty, asdfg:asdfg, aaaaa:aaaaa, etc. Usually won't take more than 3 or 4 tries. For me at least I've found it to pretty much be the least troublesome way to go about it. Like they say, the old tricks are the best tricks..

  • Summary: "If we can't bleed you dry with it, we're not interested in developing it."

    I think that's all you really need to know about the current state of play WRT patents and the like. Now how does a little inventor set about getting the protection that patents should have offered him, but don't?

    • Re:We see true motivation of the big "IP" players (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:27PM (#10771901) Journal
      Without a patent, drug companies face competition from those who put no money into research, trials, and FDA approval. Whoever pays for the drug research would incur severe losses. We'd depend almost entirely on government funding, academic research, chance, and philanthropy to develop new drugs.

      When it becomes uneconomical to develop a promising drug, usually because it treats too rare of a disease, but sometimes due to other reasons, we call those orphan drugs. Sometimes the government intervenes [fda.gov] and finishes the research. Maybe it'll happen this time.
      • Well, I guess it's a good thing Vioxx [vioxx.com] and Phen-Fen [fda.gov] are patented. I mean wow, what a money maker those 2 turned out to be.
        • I'm wondering who moderated you as "Insightful" when your comment proves nothing. Vioxx and Phen-Fen held promise of a huge return on investment during the period they were under development. Those two turned out to fail but a certain percentage of lucrative drugs are expected to fail. This puts them in a different class than drugs which from the very start can be ruled out as showing little promise of a return on investment at all- even though they may be needed to maintain public health.

          There is a reason

      • Re:We see true motivation of the big "IP" players (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Deanasc ( 201050 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @09:05PM (#10772340) Homepage Journal
        Yeah but them drug companies are standing on research that was funded by the govt and carried out at public universities. Cox2 enzyme is a prime example of a billion dollar industry handed from a university to the drug companies for free. Not all of those billions the drug companies claim to be spending are actually coming out of their own pockets. They may be finishing the research privately but you can bet you and I paid for the startup costs.
        • Government research has this crazy idea that companies won't want something unless they can get an exclusive license to it. So they'll halfway develop something, then start looking for companies, then sign licensing deals with the companies. This is the big problem - if the government develops something, than anybody ought to be able to implement it. If nobody has the balls to perfect the product and bring it to market, then that's their problem.
      • Yes, our only choices are "no patents, too much unfair competition" and "bad patents, not enough fair competition". That crazy Constitution [findlaw.com], with its quaint notions of "securing for limited Times" monopolies "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Now that feudal monarchy is in the past, we need monopolies to keep the social contract.
      • Then how about this. To apply for a drug patent, the company should have to state how much money was spent on R&D. The patent should last until that money is recouped, and a certain amount of profit is made. After that, the patent is no longer valid. No one can complain about spending on R&D, since they are guarenteed it back. And they are making money. And after a time, it is open to many other companies, making the process cheaper.

        And yes, there should be government regulations regarding h

  • The news I have been waiting for! (Score:5, Funny)

    by failedlogic ( 627314 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:14PM (#10771761)
    I will be calling Dr Faustman's office tommorow for more information and a follow up appointment. Even if it means taking a trip to Harvard from Canada. My pet mouse needs the cure desparately.
    • The odds are good - I'm sure the medical establishment has far more successful ways of curing or treating mice than humans.
    • For whomever marked me a troll, as I've suddenly gone from 4+ funny to 2+ funny....

      I'm sensitive to the issues/sufferers of diabetes: a family member and some friends have it. I was making a sarcastic remark, among other reasons, that animals such as mice are "cured" of disease even though we introduce it in their speicies (genetic manipulation, diet change) and we value these cures for humans even though we may chose to euthanise our pets.

  • As a Type 1 Diabetic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by friedegg ( 96310 ) * <.bryan. .at. .wrestlingdb.com.> on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:25PM (#10771885) Homepage
    I've been following Dr Faustman's research since I learned of it a couple years ago, and I have a lot of hope that it will work. However, I've also been aware of the fact that if a cure is found, or a cheaper alternative treatment, there will be many obstacles to getting it to us.

    Type 1 diabetics are in the minority, but we're still pretty big cash cows for certain companies. Besides the various types of insulin we need to survive, most diabetics that wish to succesfully manage the disease use additional products like disposeable needles, blood glucose meters and strips (big money), insulin pumps, and more. Potentially, it's many thousands of dollars per person per year and not many companies would want to lose that cashflow.
    • Heak, not only people.

      I had a dog who suffered diabetis for 5 years before he died. 2 shots a day. 1 in the morning and 1 at night.
      In total, I purchased about 3500 needls, and 60 vials of insulin.

      Trust me, I was being milked for medical supplies, out of insurance too =(.

      Grump
    • Yes, money makes things happen.

      In this case, it won't be the big medical companies pushing it. It'll be insurers, which stand to save tons of money if they can cure diabetics. This overlaps with governments, since most western governments are paying at least some of the medical costs (medicare in the US, much larger programs in Canada and the EU).

      And while the big medical corps may resist losing their cash cow, the companies that make generic drugs will gladly pump out the patent-expired medicines used by
      • It'll be insurers, which stand to save tons of money if they can cure diabetics.

        So long as all the big insurers statistically get the same number of type-1 diabetics on their books, they can just past the cost througth to the premiums, and there is no great business advantage to a cure, because they would all end up cutting premiums or adding services until it all leveled out again.

        There would be extra income available because cheaper insurance might allow more people to be insured, however they may wel

      • The big problem here is that any cure that is discovered will have to fight through several different interested groups with deep pockets. Insurance will have an angle, pharm's will have an angle, edcuation will have an angle, and probably some others I've forgotten. Most notably absent here is the public, the only benefactor of a cure. The hope is that common sense and a sense of public good would prevail somewhere causing the new cure to be doled out, but I have my concerns.

        Irregardless of the potential

    • There's one other group that you've forgotten about, although everyone of them that I've met would love to get out of the business, and that's prosthetists and the companies that make prosthetic limbs. Somewhere around 60 percent of all lower limb amputations are caused by diabetic complications, I'm a lower limb amputee (Donorcycle accident) and I've met a lot of diabetics who have lost their legs from diabetic complications and it's a damned hard thing, because even a minor injury to the foot or lower lim
    • What about Type II. Sorry I just found out that I have type II. I may eventualy get off the drugs I am on and control it with diet for a while but a cure would be great. It seems like it has become an extermly comon problem.

      • *Disclaimer* I am not a doctor, but these observations are based on my personal experience and the experiences of others I know and/or have read about. All changes in your treatment program should be made with the consulation of a medical professional. You may look for one that works with you the way you want.

        Type II diabetes is a different disease (cause) in most cases. Insulin resistance from the body is normally what Type II is caused by. Solutions for that are exercise, diet, exercise and oh yeah,

  • public health care (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BortQ ( 468164 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:28PM (#10771913) Homepage Journal
    I can understand how this could happen in the US. My question is: Why doesn't she go to Canada or somewhere else where the health care system is publicly funded. Is such countries the economic factors greatly favor a cure, rather then ongoing treatments.
    • Well, health care IS Gouv. funded, but drugs are just regulated.

      It would mean going back to square one.

    • Re:public health care (Score:5, Informative)

      by psyconaut ( 228947 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:50PM (#10772162)
      Unfortunately, our medicare system is in a bit of a mess right now. Sorting out things like waiting lists for MRIs and non-elective surgery are big priorities.

      Money for pure research projects up here is few and far between (although I'm not saying it's non-existent -- research at hospitals like Sick Kids in Toronto is excellent).

      But, agreed...it'd sure be nice if someone took up the gauntlet and pursued a cure for Type 1 diabetes.

      -psy
      • Our health care system is in an artificial mess caused by bitter administrators for the most part. That said, many good institutions are still doing incredible research work, like that at UofT or Sick Kids as you mentionned, or Mount Sinai or Princess Margaret, or the Cancer Research Centre in Sudbury at Laurentian, etc.

  • Much to early for any conclusion (Score:5, Informative)

    by xplenumx ( 703804 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:51PM (#10772181)
    As an Immunologist - I can't even begin to count the number of times we've cured RA (EAE), GvHD, various forms of cancer, etc. in mice, only to have the 'cure' fail, or even make the disease worse, in patients.

  • Why expect pharmaceutical companies to pay? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by egarland ( 120202 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @08:57PM (#10772247)
    Companies are in business to make money. It would be irresponsible for someone at a pharmaceutical company to spend money developing something they couldn't make any money on.

    The medical community isn't working in our best interest alone. Scientists work in areas where the best interest of the individual overlaps with the best interest of their employer. There are times when the best interest of the individual does not match up with the best interest of any company and these areas of medicine are horribly neglected (see blueberries vs Lipitor, oxygen therapy vs blood pressure medication, low carb vs the AHA Diet, First Do No Harm [imdb.com]). I'm not saying that the doctors are wrong on all these things, I'm saying nobody is putting in the work to check up on them because there's nobody to pay for it.

    If the only medical research that gets done is privately funded then the only medical advancements that get made will increase the income of medical companies. If that's the case, the cost of medical care can only go up (unless someone is taking someone else's business but that rarely happens)

    I don't think this study is alone. Someone needs to fund this stuff or we'll all be taking out second mortgages because the medical community has convinced us we have to or we'll die.
    • I think most medical research, at least that which is done by university professors really is in the name of bettering mankind.

      And that is the research that the NIH is paying for.

      Historically, the pharmaceuticals though get all of the attention because you don't hear about these drugs until they've decided to market them. It's really a shame.
      • I don't know much about the NIH but it seems to be both publicly and privately funded.

        Any time you get an organization like that which works closely with the industry, there will be teams of people spinning and lobbying politicians to influence where funding goes and inevitably a system is setup where if you want to keep your job, you spend money where the industry wants you to.

        I doubt the NIH has avoided the industry lapdogization common to government agencies in that kind of position.
  • From a link [harvard.edu]off Dr. Faustman's webpage [harvard.edu]: "The source of the funding for the clinical research activities in the MGH Diabetes Center has come almost entirely from NIH and foundation grants. This funding is ear-marked for specific projects and protocols, allowing little flexibility or opportunity to fund the type of innovative clinical research that the Diabetes Center aims to conduct and provide hope of significant advances. Flexible funds to foster new initiatives, to support researchers who need the funds

  • stem cells (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gnuman99 ( 746007 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2004 @11:11PM (#10773254)
    From article: But if she is correct, scientists will also have to reconsider many claims for embryonic stem cells as a cure for diabetes, and perhaps for other diseases.

    Why? This statement is 100% false. For many diseases and disorders there is more than one method of treatment. For cancer, there is chemotherapy and radioation. Both work. Same thing for diabetes, if one method works, why not another?

    Stem cell research can result in a cure for diabetes. The same thing can be true for Dr. Denise Faustman's treatment.

    I'd have to say NYT either is biased against stem cell research or they just repeat another's bias.

  • No money? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 )
    Again... why capitalism and science doesn't mix.

    Chemist/Pharmacist: Look! We found the cure for cancer, AIDS, and all forms of nerve injury!

    Manager: Who cares? The patent's expired.... just throw it away...

    ...and the human race dies off because the bureaucrat couldn't make the buck... what a wonderful system.

  • Legal Pushers and Public Addicts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by strangedays ( 129383 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @12:18AM (#10773702)
    An unkind cynic might conclude that drug companies and drug pushers are comparable, at least from a simple economic viewpoint.

    I would like to suggest that this opinion of drug companies is, in some ways too generous; Its not their fault, its the economics and laws which we set up to drive pharmaceutical research and profits.

    Similar outcomes different goals?: Illegal Drug dealers induce a dependency by pushing a prohibited substance, targeting any easy mark. Drug companies discover dependecies by hiring "researchers" to find substances which alleviate or "manage" pre-existing common diseases, targeting any sick person.

    These "no-cure" drugs temporarily alleviate the symptoms of the diseases, and even extend the patients life (and thus profits), while, "unfortunately", rarely managing to fundamentally cure anything. When was a drug as useful as penicillin last discovered?

    The really clever people are in marketing, its carefully created to spin the appearance of dedicated people attempting to find cures. I find that laughably naive, clearly the economic pressure precludes that from happening. However, I suspect many of the scientists and 'caring professionals' in the field prefer to believe that comfortable fallacy and self image.

    To me this focus on researching pushable drugs, versus practical cures, is a natural outcome of allowing the humanitarian medical sciences to be solely driven by raw capitalism and simple greed.

    The pharmaceutical companies, will grow wealthier, and the poignant marketing campaigns, and "real soon now cures", will be glossy, slick and convincing, for as long as the hypocrisy continues.

    Note: Where there are funds for any cure oriented research, it will typically be in areas where there is a huge PR payback in company image and good will factors.

    We, the public, are the addicts, we pay the taxes, fund the basic research, and then have to drink their coolaid and swallow the bitter and expensive pills, just so we can feel better... for a while.

    IMHO, there is no cure for this chronic disease of legalized "no-cure" drug pushing, except by radical surgery on the NIH and our health research laws.

  • From reading the article I wonder if anyone knows why the Juvenile Diabetes Research Association is funding an independent researcher but not providing any funds to the person if started the research? Of course from reading some of the other discussion, it is possible the article is simply underreporting the funding to make the issue more sensational (or is that too cynical?)
  • So what? There are tons of philanthropic organizations that would love be known as the organization that funded the cure for diabetes. Do you have any idea the kind of prestiege (and donations) that would bring them? Free market solutions win again!
    • No they do not. Instead the money is in conning some kid into thinking he will die instantly is he does not bleed himself painfully 5 or more times a day, needing hundreds of dollard of "testing" gear every month.
      The Razor and blades mentality to health care issues is killing people.

  • Years ago, CBC's "Quirks & Quarks" science program
    had at least 2 items (the later on a follow-up) on
    transplating Islets from healthy donors into Type 1 diabetes sufferers.

    [ Research was from University of Alberta ]

    Trials have been going for years already, with
    over 90% success rates. Not good enough?!? :-/

    What's the latest on this treatment...?
    • I don't know and have never heard of it. Just because they are looking for other solutions doesn't mean that there's somthing wrong with that method. There's still the 10% that it doesn't work on.
    • Islet cell transplant (like almost any other transplant) requires the use of immunosuppresants to prevent rejection. So while the diabetic is off of insulin, they're now dependent on another drug (with the side-effect of being extremely vulnerable to illnesses due to the weakened immune system). As far as I know islet cell transplants are still very much in the experimental stages, and candidates are usually people that are having difficulty controlling blood sugars with injections/pump.
  • Let's get to brass tacks here. The issues we are talking about here is the effect of the American patent system & American capitalism/Democracy on research. The example of Dr. Faustman's lack of ability to continue to do research on an unexpected tangent, simply because it is not authorized by the funding, is yet another example of the increasing flaws/perversion in both systems. Reasoning: 1. Life/fulfillment/freedom is a right of every individual, (treatment/medicine to maintain your life should nece
  • If you want to support Dr. Faustman's research, you can donate online through the Reach For the Cure [reachforthecure.org] web site. The money goes directly to Dr. Faustman's project.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close