Diabetic Men May Be Able To Grow Their Own Insulin-Producing Cells 148
An anonymous reader writes "Men with type 1 diabetes may be able to grow their own insulin-producing cells from their testicular tissue, say Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC) researchers who presented their findings today at the American Society of Cell Biology 50th annual meeting in Philadelphia. Their laboratory and animal study is a proof of principle that human spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) extracted from testicular tissue can morph into insulin-secreting beta islet cells normally found in the pancreas. And the researchers say they accomplished this feat without use of any of the extra genes now employed in most labs to turn adult stem cells into a tissue of choice."
Great! (Score:1)
Sweet news.
Re:Great! (Score:2, Funny)
Sweet news.
Of all the luck, I was just castrated last week and now I find out.
Re:Great! (Score:2)
Re:Great! (Score:1)
Sweet news about sweetbreads [wikipedia.org]
Re:Great! (Score:2)
I'd take this article with a grain of salt.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, the irony (Score:4, Funny)
And all that time, I was extracting spermatogonial cells from my testicular tissue and I didn't know how useful they could be! :-)
Next diabetic-meeting: (Score:2)
Re:Next diabetic-meeting: (Score:2)
Diabetic Men
Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
May Be Able To Grow
?
Their Own
????
Insulin-
meh
Re:Next diabetic-meeting: (Score:3)
You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
Diabetic Men
Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
May Be Able To Grow
?
Their Own
????
Insulin-
meh
from their testicular tissue.
ARGH!
Re:Next diabetic-meeting: (Score:2)
Re:Next diabetic-meeting: (Score:2)
Getting diabetes fixed is great.
Getting castigated or bawled out -- not so much.
Re:Next diabetic-meeting: (Score:2)
On a show:
Contestant: My wife castrates me.
Host: You mean she castigates you.
Contestant: No, castrates, she balls me out all the time.
Autoimmune Issues? (Score:1)
Since one of the thoughts(at least what they told me was the cause 15 years ago) for the Type 1 Diabetes it is an autoimmune disease, how long is it until the immune system will just attack the new insulin producing cells?
The article mentions "immune deficient diabetic mice," so the autoimmune question remains.
Re:Autoimmune Issues? (Score:2)
-- barbie
Temporary solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?
If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.
Well it was David Carradine's second favorite hobby, hey what happened to him anyways?
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
Well it was David Carradine's second favorite hobby, hey what happened to him anyways?
Last I heard, he was just hanging around.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
There was somthing call 'pig sushi' that I heard about a while ago, that had pig Beta cells wrapped in an coating that stopped the immune system from getting at them.
I havn't heard any more on that, but it did tackle the problem head on.
The trials are continuing as we speak here in New Zealand. The company concerned is Living Cell Technologies [lctglobal.com]
And there is an article describing it here [nzherald.co.nz]
It's a very clever solution that solves the rejection issue. The main questions are on how much insulin can be produced and over what time period. The reality is that anything that introduces at least some reasonable level of insulin production - even if not enough to eliminate injections - should reduce the extreme blood sugar highs that cause the most long term damage to Type 1 diabetics.
It will be fantastic if this can succeed (like all of the other potential cures to this disease).
The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
Its a very interesting topic, I am Vegan, I see it as absolutely *horrid* that we would even think of harming other animals, we would not do this to Human animals...or would we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment [wikipedia.org]
What do you think happens in Gitmo, and Area 51?
As a local of the area, I can speak more in detail of what goes on, of the coverage at a local, and national level. Its basically treated as the second coming of jesus, that his will be a miracle cure, and *MOST IMPORTANTLY*, that our Mayor claims all the credit, for all the money that this WILL (because its going to succeed dammit) bring to the area.
For more on their story, of being left on a bunch of rocks just before Antartica for Whalers to kill, of being designated "an introduced species", who MUST be killed by our Department of "Conservation", apart from a few kept alive as a novelty, please visit my blog post. I include an Australian news video which shows a tour of the awful facility. To my knowledge, this sort of coverage has never occurred in my area, where this is happening, perhaps for fear of public backlash. I also include a letter I wrote to my local newspaper, which was answered by LCT:
http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/05/video-of-pig-transplant-facility-in.html [blogspot.com]
To what end will we abuse others? Its as easy to be Vegan as not, and its the least other animals deserve.
To learn more about Veganism, please visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ [abolitionistapproach.com] or try one these podcasts http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegan-info.html [blogspot.com]
Jordan Wyatt
Invercargill Vegan Society
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
I find it hard to comprehend why you think it is so bad for these pigs to be used in this manner.
Given the choice between the life of a pig and the life of say one of your children which would you choose?
I've no problem with you choosing to minimise your own effect on animals, and there are alternatives to animal products in a lot of cases but you need to be realistic. Before I became diabetic I used to give blood regularly up to 3 pints a year usually. That blood was used to help save lives and I really didn't have a problem with giving up part of me in order to save lives and yes if there are any organs fit to be used when I die then let them be used too. I've also chosen to be used in the past to test new drug treatments for HIV so I have no issues with pigs being used too.
The pigs are cultivated and only exist because of their potential usefulness for transplants. For a pig they actually have a better life than most animals possibly a better quality of life than many people around the world today. You really have to compromise at some level because logically the only way to avoid having a negative effect on the world is not to live at all. However it is probably better to make a positive impact on the world as far as it is possible.
I'm not wanting to force you to consume animal products that is as daft as forcing me to drive a suv so i use more fuel but surely you can see that living at all is a compromise and that if you want to help pigs then try helping some of the animals that are intensively factory farmed. Google Smithfield and i think you will see that the pigs being raised for transplant are living in a comparative paradise.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
I find it unacceptable to "use", lets be clear, to *kill* others like this, just as I would find it unacceptable to kill another human being in this manner. I am all for organ donation, after I am dead for example, I am not for being killed for my organs
The issue is actually rather black and white, just as we cannot be a "little bit pregnant", especially as a guy, we either kill others for our uses, or we do not. Throughout time, our societies change, for example, think of human slavery in many developed nations, and how its still having repercussions to this day.
I'm a 23 year old New Zealander, in 1981, years before my birth, was "The Tour". South Africas team visited my country for a tour. This was hotly protested, its a defining moment in my nations history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_South_Africa_rugby_union_tour_of_New_Zealand [wikipedia.org]
A sporting boycott was initiated against South Africa, because of Apartheid. Among the more rural areas, there was "keep politics out of sport", said by our centre Right party to gain approval from those most likely to enjoy the sport, those likely to vote centre Right, against standing up for human rights overseas. Many of our own native people, the Maori were vehemently against the racism, having been prejudiced here.
Early South African tours ran into trouble, with White South Africans not wanting to play a game of sport with "brown" people. We stood up over that, with "No Maoris, No Tour" slogans. Well, now we further refine that, no "Maori", being no plural S in the Maori language, we have further progressed. Times change.
Issues of "welfare" do not matter. All farmed animals live horrible lives, which end in them being killed, "Dairy" cows, Chickens for Eggs, animals such as Sheep from whom we take their Wool, and kill them... they all die the same horrible way.
I am sorry you are diabetic, I am glad you personally are involved in tests. I have family member who were in more dire situations who also were involved in trials. Thank you for helping others. I myself have given blood many times, I'm not sure how much, we dont have "pints" here in the Metric world
I think we can agree there is a hell of a difference between those forced into experiments, human and nonhuman equally, and those who volunteer. Nonhumans appreciate and deserve their lives as much as you or I do. Certainly, I love Falafel, but not as much as my Rooster friend
I suppose we could liken the "farming" of animals for xenotransplantation to if we were to do as such to other, "lower classes" of humans, "but they're going to die in poverty any way". We wouldnt argue "but they had a great life living in sterile concrete" because we see *all* human life as valuable, where as currently nonhumans are seen as "lesser", as our "things". An interesting moral question is of a doctor treating a young, healthy patient for a broken bone, when there are several dying patients, who may need a new heart, a new kidney, a new liver etc. Would it be moral to kill the one healthy man, who broke his arm, to save the many? We would never feel this way, surely?
I hope you can respect me for being consistent in that I believe its wrong to hurt others, to class them as our property, to regard them as "things". I wouldnt lie to you because of personal circumstances re diabetes.
If you'd like to learn more about Veganism, please visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ [abolitionistapproach.com] to learn more about Veganism.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
I've got chickens too,
one of them a Bantam is in a bit of a bad way being the smallest she has been bullied by some of the other bigger birds. I've moved her out so she has a chance to rest and recuperate it is unfortunate but that is the way with chickens they can be pretty horrible to their compatriots.
There is very much a quality of life for all animals, including humans and you must admit there are animals living in better conditions than humans.
You obviously look after your chickens but why can't you give similar credit to farmers obviously standards of care vary from excellent to very poor indeed.
There is a cycle of life and there is compromise, there has to be. I guess in some ways I'm very different from you. I don't kill all my own meat and fish but I do some. It is important to me not to cause needless suffering which is why I will make a death as quick and pain free as possible. You see I think if you are going to eat meat then you should be prepared to kill it and butcher it too. It's more respectful and you appreciate the cost more.
It is good to have strong beliefs, but I really think you should concentrate more on the worst abusers such as smithfield. I don't know if you are a parent but what would you sacrifice for your children. If an animal which was bred and engineered to provide a life saving organ which your child needed would you refuse it and let your child die?
To be honest if my child needed an organ and my body could give it , I would and if an animal could provide the needed organ i'd use that animal organ first.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
Sorry for the delay in answering your comment.
I'd first like to state again that *we* are also animals, isnt it interesting how upset some people get over this simple, evolutionary fact? A recent debate I heard mentioned this, of how we like to see ourselves as Gods above all other live forms here, and possibly any others we discover elsewhere, no doubt if we do colonise other planets, find other animals smaller than us, we'll "farm" and kill them too! Oh, but if we find "more Godlike" animals, capable of killing us, then we'll kreech on about how unfair it is!
I certainly know the current casual use of the term "animal", meaning nonhuman animals, and people to mean "above other animals", we can leave it now.
I certainly dont like to think of them as "your Chickens", they are my friends, just as if I might have a flatmate. They live in my backyard, and I close the door to their coop each night, and open it in the morning for them. This is to protect them from Cats. They put themselves "to bed" when they feel like it, they feed for themselves etc. They easily care for one another without my help, they are not dependent on me, although there is a great chance they would soon be killed by Cats at night, without the door closed for them. Perhaps they could fend off Cats in the night, there are four of them, probably one Cat, I'm not sure, they cannot see very well at all in the dark.
I dont think we should be "owning" other animals in the first place, to assign ourselves as their "lords", that they are property. Think of Farm animals, certainly, we "tag" their ears with ID numbers, and now increasingly RFID tags. I'm talking about in New Zealand by the way, where I live, I know quite a lot about other parts of the worlds through books, documentaries, podcasts, websites etc, but talking with you, I'd like to stick to the areas I've been and seen myself.
I dont believe we can judge how we "care" for animals, when we are treating them as things, as our property. I dont think I have any more right to kill one of the Chickens that I love than any of my other, human Friends.
Blackest K, could I ask you please, do you think a Hen loves her life any more or less than you or I would? I would most certainly agree that other animals love being alive as much as you or I. I dont think we could possibly judge either "more" or "less", how would we do such?
"A cycle of life" meaning that we kill other animals on our whim? That we see them as our belongings? Who initiated such a "cycle"? We did. When White men "bought" Black men, that too was such a "cycle of life", "this is the way shit goes, and always will".
Quotes on Slavery is quite useful for this discussion, I rather like this pro slavery quote:
"[The servants] have all behaved extremely well, indeed I cannot utter the least complaint of them, they are deeply interested and very sympathizing with us all. They often speak to me about the war and there was great rejoicing in the kitchen at the news of our recent glorious victory in Virginia [Battle of Bull Run]. What would those miserable abolitionists say to such manifestations of devotion and affection on the part of the poor maltreated slave, whose heart, according to them, is only the abode of hatred and revenge against their master—They know nothing of the bond that unites the master and servant[,] of its tenderness and care on the one side, and its pride[,] fidelity and attachment on the other. ~ Louisa Quitman Lovell (July 1861)"
http://quotesonslavery.org/they-know-nothing-of-the-bond-that-unites-the-master-and-servant/ [quotesonslavery.org]
We find such talk abhorrent today, yet was most certainly The Done Thing during its time in that part of the world. Societal norms change, however, I dont believe fundamental rights of others do.
"who is the abuser" is a question that comes up o
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqliklVgNWE [youtube.com] little video of my bullied bantam enjoying an evening by the fire.
Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals eat other animals and will even eat animals of their own species.
Of course we generally don't eat our own species but it happens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 [wikipedia.org] and the people eaten were the friends and relatives of the people doing the eating the alternative was to die. I wonder if you were in the same circumstances would you remain vegan?
This is an interesting story
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/five-reasons-henrietta-lacks-most-important-woman-medical-history [popsci.com]
She has been farmed to an amazing extent. Would it be better to stop.
Your slavery comments are interesting but slavery goes back thousands of years and is not colour based Africans and Arabs were selling slaves long before western Europeans came to Africa.
Slavery has never really gone away it is just presented differently.
"Would you agree it would always be unethical to kill another human we didnt know to take his or her organ/s? I think most would."
What if that person was on death row for some horrible crimes could we take his organs then? A mass murderer giving life to others seems almost karmic.
Death isn't a terrible thing once it's happened it's over done. The only problem with death is when and how.
we don't want to be in drawn out pain and most of us don't want it now.
Since I had a heart attack there is a 50% chance of dying in the next 6 to 8 years, I don't aim for that to occur and year 1 is the worst thats 25% the stats are scary 30 out of 100 die when they have a first heart attack of the 70 left 17-18 will die within the year. Death gets very real when your trying to drag yourself to an A&E department when you have a coronary artery 97% blocked. that was the 2nd time i got close. Fear is the worst thing about dying but it does finish once you are dead and so does the pain and suffering. Let me just say it took some adjustment for me to get used to the idea of having a reduced life expectancy.
To take molly for example if I didn't choose to bring her inside feed her keep her warm, then she would probably be dead already or suffering. She doesn't seem to be in pain so her quality of life seems reasonable and compared to the average chicken she has got it made.
But if she was suffering it would be best if i killed her rather than her be in pain.
I don't think I know what I would do in a violent situation, I know, because sometimes somebody has to do something and I know I have done what needed to be done on several occasions.
I'm not going to stop eating meat but that doesn't mean I don't care about the well being of animals, any animals including the human animal.
I guess you see a happy pig and think about its death and how it will be killed, me I see a happy pig and the pig is happy enough and death tends to be a short lived surprise. Most animals live in the now they don't think about tomorrow or yesterday.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
"Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom."
I see other animals as loving their lives as much as I do mine, as having the same basic right *not* to be regarded as a "thing", as our "property". I am not making the distinction here that some Animals are "more equal" than others.
I see the mention of what other Nonhumans do to each other again. We wouldnt use other species as our "moral guide" for any other issue, would we? ie "but Mum, the Monkeys at the zoo fling their own poop at people..." or "but X practice incest, cmon! We're also animals you know!..."
Why would we use "other animals hurt and kill each other" as our excuse? When we can most certainly choose either way, not having any need for harming others.
I like the extreme example too! Cannibalism after being stranded on a mountain range! Sorry, out of the 7 Billion people in the world, roughly how often does that happen? Oh yeah, about once or twice!
The fact remains that you and I are *not* stranded somewhere, left to kill each other, to then die of starvation, and loneliness, after killing the other. We live in New Zealand, and I believe Ireland? We can be as easily Vegan as not. I would argue that its cheaper, more efficient, more beautiful (aesthetically no guts, eyeballs, fur, teeth, shit, sex organs to get rid of) and of course the *least* other animals deserve. If you are indeed Irish, please visit Vegan Ireland,
http://veganireland.vegaplanet.org/ [vegaplanet.org]
I, like many outside of a few countries am against "the death penalty". I dont agree with "taking" their organs. Have you heard the rumoured "political dissidents" who are said to be executed in China, their organs sold on the "black market" to wealthy individuals elsewhere? I can well understand donating blood, a kidney, my other organs after my death. Being killed for a crime, or a SUPPOSED CRIME in this case, to be stripped of your life, and your organs is heinous.
I can fully understand death being "quick", and yes, once we are gone, I am sure there is absolutely *nothing*, that we may as well be asleep for the rest of eternity, without dreams.
We most certainly would not use such an excuse to do with other humans, "oh yeah, well I killed her sure, because I wanted to eat her, and I killed him because I wanted his head on my wall, but cmon now! I killed them "humanely", with a blow to the head, then cut through their throats with my knife....they bled to death QUICKLY!", right?
I truly believe myself as seeing Humans and Nonhuman Animals as being similar, in the same ethical group, with no imagined "division" for our convenience. Think of countries at war, who see the enemy as "different", why? BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT! Why are we killing them? BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT! Who decided they were different? WE KNOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT!
I'm sorry to hear about your personal health. I dont know about yourself, and I wouldnt like to talk about your personal health, as thats personal, but surely we have both noticed the increases in "diseases of the affluent"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_affluence [wikipedia.org]
Many of those, if not all are related to "nonVeganism". There will *always* be genetic problems with our hearts etc, but surely the majority are based on lifestyle? Again, please dont assume I'm meaning you personally, I'm talking about generally, in our own countries. The links are not controversial, just as Smoking is seen as linked directly to Cancer, people get Cancer without smoking, but its more common to be a Smoker, who happens to get Cancer, and related pro
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
So you would rather have PEOPLE die? Great.
(BTW, I do think we use, or used, animals in very bad ways, such as testing cosmetics.)
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
I wouldnt "have" anyone die, human or nonhuman. I certainly wouldnt kill one person to save one other, or two others. Do you think to act as such would be ethical?
All animal use is equal, why, or perhaps better, how would we rank evils?
Its as easy to be Vegan as not, and its the least other animals deserve.
If you are further interested, might I suggest this recent post on my blog, in regards to speaking out for respect towards other animals. I mention both The Animals Film , and Earthlings, while I never normally bring them up, I dont believe actual footage helps initially, its important we actually *know* what we are doing to others. You mentioned the awful "experiments" and "testing" we force on other animals:
http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/12/iphone-or-ipod-touch-is-activists-best.html [blogspot.com]
For anyone else interested in Veganism, I'd recommend again
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ [abolitionistapproach.com]
Thanks for replying to me mattack2
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
Yes, killing an animal to save a person IS definitely ethical.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
Why would we feel it were ethical?
Is it right to kill another human to save someone you love (in terms of another presenting no threat, ie, not someone with a gun shooting at you and your loved one)? Is it right to kill one person to save two?
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
Why are you so cruel and killing the poor defenseless plants you eat? They are alive too.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
Thanks for playing Defensive Omnivore Bingo!
http://bit.ly/veganbingo [bit.ly]
I'm currently listening to the most recent Intelligence Squared debate about killing others, its focused on Vegetarianism, rather than on Veganism like it should be.
The mention of absurd arguments are brought up during the first speakers opening:
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/dont-eat-animals [intelligencesquared.com]
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
I knew this was going to be a 'common' retort, but you're calling it absurd. If you get to call KILLING PLANTS absurd, then I get to call LETTING PEOPLE DIE (when animal products could save them) absurd.
Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others (Score:2)
I'm not Vegan to try and judge others, any more than how I dont "not steal" to feel better about myself, to feel "better" than those who DO steal.
On this New Zealand news story, about "boiling Lobsters to death" (we call them "crayfish"), it was brought up, "ha, those craaaaaazy Vegans who think we shouldnt treat others as things, they think its wrong to hurt celery...." which got a lame snort of a laugh in response. "now, we put the knife through ITS central nerve cluster"....lets be honest here, a knife through the animals brain. I argue that its "not humane", whatever we deem "humane" to mean.
Vegans most certainly *do* eat plants mattack2. It certainly is *absurd*, using our word of the day, to argue that mowing a lawn is the same as grinding up day old male chicks. Plants are *not* sentient.
"Letting them die when X could save them..."
Lets be clear, there is no evidence that "killing this one nonhuman animal will help this one human animal". "Animal" Experimentation is fundamentally flawed, when our bodies are so obviously different. Really, should we not be killing other humans instead? Because to do otherwise is "letting people die (when blood and guts from humans could save them)"
We wouldnt say that, right? Because to do so, to harm another human is unethical. We recognise other Humans have a right to live. We should offer respect to all animals. It does not mean we need to be giving Dogs drivers licenses, it simply means not treating others as "property", as "things".
Nice to hear from you again.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:1)
They are currently doing islet cell transplants (from organ donors) which actually have a pretty good success rate, the longest being 11 years ago (to current) without rejection. Although you are correct, stopping the process from happening again is one of the main problems they are trying to solve.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
It's possible that the new cells would not have the same markers as the original ones did.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
I doubt if it would actually require multiple injections on a daily basis that is if it needed repeating regularly.
A controlled insulin release would lower the risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness, amputations, nerve damage erectile dysfunction and randomly dying in your sleep. plus minor advantages such as better energy levels and a less reactive digestive system. Plus the cost of maintaining healthy insulin levels would probably be cheaper since your body is now producing the needed insulin and plus the added bonus of a longer healthy life where you might actually see retirement and your grand children.
Type 2 diabetics tend to not produce enough insulin and historically would eventually need insulin shots which makes me think if it was successful it would be used for type 2's at some point. On the positive side there are other options such as byetta for type 2 diabetics which may preserve the beta cells and help maintain healthy blood sugar levels. Of course there are increased risks of other body functions failing one drug Avandia was recently banned in Europe because of increased risk of heart disease, at the time of the ban there was around 100,000 people being proscribed Avandia in the UK alone. I believe its still available in the USA since it had been approved by the FDA but it's use is now discouraged.
Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right. It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.
I hope now you can see that being injected in the balls isn't that big a deal if the procedure leads to a normal insulin response. One of the problems with diabetes is that the damage of bad control isn't immediately visible and maintaining good control is very hard.
It would be nice if insulin shots actually solved the problem of type 1 diabetes but it doesn't it just slows the rate of damage such that you might get a normal length life but there are type 1 diabetics who die before reaching 30 even doing the right things.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:4, Informative)
Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right.
Not to be mean, but your facts are wrong. It's not a "demand pump", contrary to what you say. You have to test, and adjust it accordingly [wikipedia.org]. I've seen people who use pumps who are on this crazy "test 10-20 times a day" routine to avoid reactions any time they vary their routine even a bit. No thanks. I control the disease, not the other way around.
The pump is a disaster. Sure, some people report a better quality of life - but that's because, for diabetics, life with insulin via any technique is better than life without.
I'll stick with the "see-food" technique - I see the food in front of me, I take the shot. Then I eat.
The worst part if you're trying to do the basal-bolus dosage thing is the weight gain. The reactions, chowing down on emergency calories, and associated weight gain when life interferes with your routine are very counter-productive in the long run.
Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.
While both the pump and the basal-bolus routine sound good in theory, they often suck in practice.
Better to let your blood sugar go up a couple of points temporarily, than to pass out from an insulin reaction, then have it shoot through the roof when you scarf on high-sugar-content junk.
I dropped everything but a shot of the quick-acting insulin every meal, with a follow-up if I eat (or if I'm at a party, drink) more than I expected. It's worked for more than 2 decades (except for one time when I took my shot, got distracted, forgot to eat, went to walk the dogs, and passed out), has given me a LOT more freedom than I could have on any other routine, I still have all my fingers and toes, and I'll never go back to any other routine. And comparing notes, I'm not alone.
It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.
Ouch! Speak for yourself :-) You eventually have to rotate injection sites no matter what.
-- barbie
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
I inject twice a day into the sides of my stomach usually if i struggle to find a good spot on one side then the other side is usually pain free.
I'm a type II and it sucks but I really wouldn't want to be a type I, people seem to think its pretty easy living with diabetes and also don't see how it effects our quality and length of life. Which would make it easier to choose a needle in the nuts in order to live a normal life. Would prefer not to have to do that but if it made diabetes go away even for a few months at a time it might be worth it.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
Sometimes, in the summer, I'll inject in the upper thigh if I'm wearing shorts or a skirt, but doing that sometimes means hitting muscle, and that not only burns, but it means the insulin enters the blood stream faster than I would want.
Of course, being type 1 has it's advantages - as long as I keep my weight and sugar levels within range, I can eat anything I want, including chocolate. Especially chocolate! (Don't worry, tonight will be strawberries, melon chunks, and grapes. I save the chocolate thing for when I really need a morale boost - it's cheaper than shopping for new shoes :-)
Sure, I gave up adding sugar to tea or coffee (I actually don't even keep white sugar in the house any more), and switched to diet soft drinks (which I have since stopped drinking), and don't visit the donut shop any more - big deal, right :-)
But I have a sister who's was diagnosed as type 2 a couple of years ago (she used to get gestational diabetes, so it was kind of expected), Has she done anything about it? No. Why not? She won't give up her Pepsi. And she won't switch to diet. And she won't stop smoking.
And she says I'M stubborn?
Diabetes sucks. The only things that suck more are the complications when it's ignored, and the ignorance of people who don't realize that a large portion of the population are being set up to fail and die because of the HFCS in most foods today.
-- barbie
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:3)
What would be an acceptable dose, knowing that you're going to eat in 4 hours, doesn't work if you're delayed an additional 4 hours. Or if you suddenly have to do a lot of physical stuff for a few hours, your "safe basal dose" will put you flat out on the floor.
It's not as neat and tidy as the ads from the pump manufacturers would have you believe, if your activity level isn't the standard north american "sit on your fanny 15 hours a day". We're not lab rats living in controlled conditions, or test subjects leading a specific regimen.
I keep my sugar within the normal range at night by taking enough rapidly-acting insulin to take care of my supper and then some. And before going to be, I walk the dogs for a half hour. Sure, it will rise a bit over night, but as long as it stays within norms, I don't care, and neither should anyone else. It's within the norms - so what's the panic?
Also, some of the advice is just plain dangerous:
Stuff happens. Taking insulin 20 minutes before a meal? Want to try that heading for a meal in a busy restaurant? If the food isn't in front of you. don't take the insulin unless you want to risk a nasty reaction when the food is delayed a half hour, or there's a power failure, or you find out that the place you were all heading is too full to serve you.
The body's needs change with the temperature, exertion level, stress, etc. Your blood sugar going up a bit during a meal won't kill you (it happens naturally anyway) - stepping in front of a moving car because you're disoriented from low blood sugar can.
The pump is not a replacement for:
Practice these, and you probably won't NEED a pump to stay within the normal range. Not only that, but it improves your body's sensitivity to insulin, so you need less (and as a result, are less likely to overdose if you do have to expend more energy than planned).
I remember when I started with the slow-acting insulin. I found out that I wasn't the only one who packed on the pounds - the AVERAGE weight gain was 30 pounds the first year. Every one I talked to quit, despite the team of doctors advice.
Sure enough, a decade later it was shown we were right and the doctors were wrong. The "benefits" were more than offset by the weight gains. It's not just Type 2 diabetics who gain unwanted weight when treated. The mechanism for type 1 is different - not only do higher insulin levels stimulate the appetite, but insulin reactions force you to eat junk calories, and reactions, no matter what, are a fact of life because, as I pointed out, life is messy. Better to avoid some of those reactions by not using a pump if you can.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
And it's not the end of the world if you forget your insulin for a meal or two - you won't die if you're in good health. (Now if you're NOT in good health, that's another story).
You don't need perfect control, just "good enough" so that you avoid the complications of high blood sugar and insulin overdoses. Remember, people on a tight control regime have 3x the insulin reactions, and those reactions cause brain damage. Brain damage is cumulative. They used to purposefully put people into insulin shock as an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy for a reason - it can permanently alter^Wdamage the brain. Going low two or three times a wee will, over the long term, have side effects, same as chronic binge drinking will. It's called hypoglycemic diabetic dementia for a reason, and it's the dirty little secret you won't hear anyone talk about [esciencenews.com] when it comes to the risks of too-tight control.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
The problem with the pump is that if, like me, your energy output varies a lot during the day, it's not only useless, but a hazard. It's suitable for people with a more or less sedentary lifestyle (cue everyone going "but that's not me!").
I'm outdoors walking for almost 2 hours every morning and again every evening, wind, rain, or snow. You do 15k a day in -20 weather, you'd be amazed at how many calories that consumes :-)
There is no way to get a proper baseline with that sort of activity pattern. It would be so low that it would be non-existent, which means that the entire dose has to fall to mealtime injections anyway.
It also helps explain why my blood sugar doesn't go up that quickly when I don't eat. I'm just too gosh-darned busy, so a little insulin goes a long way.
My decision to go green a couple of years ago is paying off health-wise in a big way. I've reduced my insulin dose by more than half, lost that extra 5 pounds that's been bugging me, and at the end of the day, I still have lots of energy, which is a good thing, because the dogs have got to be walked, no matter how I feel, and the Newfie doesn't care how cold it is, he wants to stay outside as long as possible.
So no, I'm not "doing it wrong" - lots of exercise should be a core requirement for every diabetic. An hour a day *might* be sufficient, but certainly an hour 3 times a week isn't. Might as well get no exercise at all - at least you're not fooling yourself into thinking you're making a significant impact on your health.
It's work - but it's worth it. I can eat whatever foods I want, when I want, and that's something most diabetics can only dream of.
-- Barbie
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
have my Omnipod pump tuned such that I can go all day without eating with no reactions (assuming no exercise).
So what you're saying is that if there's any change in routine, the pump will mess you up if you forget/get to busy/whatever.
Pumps are not a cure-all, and don't do any better than injections on an ad-hoc basis for people who have a varied routine.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
Interesting idea, but then wouldn't this show up in pre diabetics an over production of insulin would be detectable before the beta cells began to fail? If too much insulin was produced then wouldn't there be abnormally low blood sugar counts?
However I think i'm right in thinking that when someone is diagnosed as type 2 they are not producing enough insulin to maintain healthy levels.
btw this page seems interesting
http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046621.php [phlaunt.com]
I'd like to see your statement backed up somewhere
taubes may have some interesting idea's but he has no medical training
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes [wikipedia.org]
"On October 19, 2007, Taubes appeared on Larry King Live to discuss his book. Although Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or medicine, his book was praised as "raising interesting and valuable points" by Dr. Andrew Weil, a believer of alternative medicine, while Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Jillian Michaels who appeared on the same program disagreed with Taubes on many questions"
I would agree with some of his stand carbs are pretty much as bad as sugars for diabetics and they seem to be out of proportion for diabetics if not the general population. But i'm no doctor but i think the more green stuff in your diet the better you will be for it.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, type I diabetes =/= celiac, as in, you can't just declare "it can be triggered by something simple" without actually knowing what that something is, which is the tricky part. Of course, the second problem hits -- what's if it's not something simple that involves a diet change but rather something like rhinovirus or any of several dozen random bugs that your immune system normally fights off just fine but happens to look *just* enough like a beta cell to a diseased immune system...
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the root problem is autoimmune, but we already have a way to correct this, google "Edmunton Protocol" - the participants were effectively cured. The problem was a lack of islet cells (insulin producing cells) to do much good - it takes like 5 donor cadavers to cure 1 diabetic, so there's insufficient supply to handle even 1/100 of the diabetic patients.
But something like this just might provide cures for millions of sufferers, without fear of tissue rejection! As father of a type 1 diabetic son, this is a big, big, BIG deal!
Hooray!
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
thats strange it popped up a list of results for me.
either way its old news and not a full cure
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
You can also become a Type-1 diabetic as a result of pancreatic cancer or the surgery to stop said cancer. This solution hold great potential in that case.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?
If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.
Yes, it is due to an autoimmune process. However, there are certain parts of the body that are immunologically protected, such as the brain and testes. If the islet cells were to stay in these immunologically protected areas they may continue doing what they're doing unhindered.
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?
If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.
even more so considering medical science is on the verge of a cure [families.com]
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2, Troll)
This is exactly why I masturbate every night and swallow my own cum. My family has a history of diabetes and I am doing everything to prevent it from happening to me. Most of my thoughts will be on the porn but a small amount will be thinking about this article when I masturbate tonight.
Too bad slashdot hasn't fixed the bug that lets you see the anonymous posters identity when you view the source ...
-- barbie
Re:Temporary solution? (Score:2)
Well, gay couples can get eggs from egg donors.
And for other species, you can often use an egg from a related species.
Type 2? (Score:2)
I suffer from type 2 diabetes. I wonder why this is only applicable for type 1.
Re:Type 2? (Score:3)
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
They're different. Type 1 is a failure to produce insulin and, while a PITA, is essentially easy to deal with via insulin injections. Type 2 (aka acquired) is a failure to respond to/use insulin properly, so producing more doesn't make anything better. Mixing them up is dangerous, and medication for Type 1 or 2 can cause severe problems (e.g. death) if used by the other.
Re:Type 2? (Score:3)
Re:Type 2? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, diabetes really refers to excess urine. What we normally call diabetes is diabetes mellitus, which means "sweet urine" (mellitus being sweet, similar to Apis mellifera, the honeybee). Diabetes insipidus refers to excess, non-sweet urine (insipidus meaning "plain, without taste" a la insipid).
That being said, once something is standardized, scientists tend not to rename things the way they should be. The best example is, of course, the flow of current, but issues with IUPAC nomenclature and the periodic table in general are rife with oddities as well. The best place for things to actually get renamed properly is probably the binomial classification of species, but even that can be severely entrenched (recent hubbub over D. melanogaster). That, and psychology and the DSM, but you know how those people are...
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Actually, diabetes really refers to excess urine. What we normally call diabetes is diabetes mellitus, which means "sweet urine" (mellitus being sweet, similar to Apis mellifera, the honeybee).
So Sweet Pee from Popeye might have Juvenile Diabetes? Oh, and ewww. Who went around comparing urine, and did they do a double blind taste test?
Re:Type 2? (Score:1)
Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.
Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Last summer Slashdot ran a story on making use of that sugar.
http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/08/31/1713210 [slashdot.org]
Re:Type 2? (Score:5, Informative)
Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.
Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".
And before they had fancy tests, they would diagnose it by the taste of the urine (sweet) and the smell of acetone or over-ripe peaches on the breath (diabetic ketoacidosis).
Cue all the jokes about "this beer tastes like warm p***".
Given that half the population doesn't even know they have diabetes, knowing the visible symptoms is useful:
The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
The bad news - if you don't treat it, you'll probably die younger than you should, after losing fingers, toes, feet, etc.
More bad news - if you smoke, the combination of diabetes and smoking has probably already taken a decade off your life, and if you don't quit, your long-term prognosis still sucks. Ugly facts [diabetesmonitor.com].
The good news - if you quit smoking before there's permanent visible damage, there's a good chance you'll get most of that back.
-- barbie
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Most of what you wrote is true, but a few corrections:
1) The symptoms you wrote are more common in type 1 Diabetes (i.e. the autoimmune disease, usually appearing in children). Adults usually get type 2 Diabetes (where the body develops insulin resistance). Patients with type 2 may have the disease for many years (average is 10y) before they are diagnosed, whilst in type 1 the disease appears rapidly and you get very high glucose levels which cause the symptoms you wrote.
2) Although we (the doctors) preach to keep the glucose levels low, the evidence so far is that keeping diabetes under control prevents some complications (renal failure and blindness) but is less effective in preventing other complications (heart disease and strokes). So, yes, a healthy diet is good, but I wouldn't go so far and say that a diabetic person who controls his disease will live longer than his non-diabetic peers.
Oh and one more thing: STOP SMOKING! (Written without using the Caps Lock key :) ).
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
I talked to a neurologist about this. He told me that even though much of the effects of type II can be controlled by diet and exercise once Diabetes has begun there is neurological and vascular damage that will continue to occur no matter how much you improve your diet and exercise.
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
So while you might not be as good as you could be (and as the years pile on, who is, really?), you'll still be better in the long run than the "competition" who have let themselves go to seed.
Besides, what's the alternative? To give up? You can do that - but it sucks.
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
For example, we have no choice but to learn what's in our food, to avoid HFCS, to get more exercise, to avoid preventable diseases such as smoking, etc.
Of course, since Type 2 is usually later in life than Type 1, people with Type 2 generally don't get that "incentive" as early, so they have more of a chance to do other damage, such as by smoking, so then they have to deal with two issues at once.
-- Barbie
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Well you said:
First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.
Second you clearly claim one would live longer than their peers because one would be "forced" to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Obviously, for your sentence to make sense, the peers are not being forced to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Therefore the peers do not have Diabetes Type II or they too would be just as "forced". Now you know nothing about the peers, their age, health, habits etc. but you are claiming the person who tries to manage their Diabetes will outlive those non-diabetic people. You don't claim they will outlive some of their peers (which would also be unsupportable) but blanket state they will outlive their peers which is at best unsupportable and at worst completely misleading.
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.
Treatable does not mean curable, even though in many cases, people return to normal blood sugar levels without medication when lose the excess weight and eat properly.
Also, someone doing everything right even with diabetes will live longer than the people around them who do not take care of themselves. Diabetes is not a "premature death sentence". Sure, people with type 2 diabetes die younger - the majority are paying the price for decades of carrying all that extra weight around. Obesity in and of itself is a significant risk factor. Type 2 diabetes is a marker.
And you'll have to agree that people who receive medical attention on a regular basis do better than those who don't - and that diabetics generally see a doctor more often. AND they get a lot more advice about healthy lifestyles, and those who follow that advice are more likely to be living a better lifestyle than their peers. So there's no reason to believe that they would do worse, since diabetes itself is treatable.
Example on my paternal side - my 87-year-old aunt. Type 2 diabetes. Doesn't smoke. A couple of uncles on the same side of the family, within a few years of that age, also don't smoke, and one also has type 2. Their siblings who smoked? All dead, decades ago.
Example on the maternal side - everyone who didn't smoke made it at least to their '70's. Smokers? Nowhere near it.
Now most of these people smoked at one point in their lives. Some gave it up after a good health scare, some didn't. The ones who didn't are dead. The ones who did are alive, because they adopted a healthier lifestyle, and received more medical attention.
To expect otherwise, for a disease that is as easily treated as diabetes, is a bit perverse. To claim otherwise is to actively discourage people from taking the steps they need to take to live longer lives.
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Diabetes is treatable in theory, but in practice, it's a huge burden that your system and your psyche was never designed to cope with. Sooner or later, it'll do damage.
It was 35 years ago this year that the whole family went to the local children's hospital for screening, and I and half my sisters have Type 1. My psyche is doing just fine, thank you. It changed virtually nothing.
So I've got to jab a needle into myself when I eat. Big deal - it's a LOT better than having to go to the bathroom several times a night. That's pretty much the only thing that's changed. I eat what I want - I just don't load up on junk calories, and I would be avoiding HFCS anyway, so there's no change there.
We have a "dead pool" in our family - I'm expected to outlive at least three of my younger sisters, two of which *don't* have Type 1, simply because I never smoked, and I've never been a couch potato.
So yes, diabetics can certainly have a better quality of life than non-diabetics if the disease gives them the incentive to do something about it.
And yes, eventually there will be damage. And that sucks. Maybe one day I will go blind, or my kidneys fail, or something else. If and when that happens, as long as it doesn't kill me or damage my brain, I'll deal with it, just like everything else in life. I've been through far worse, and I still enjoy life. Besides, what other rational choice is there?
-- Barbie
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
That happens when two diseases with the same symptoms are around long enough to get an established name before they are determined to have two different causes.
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Lots of "somebodies" have thought of this, but we have thousands of years of inertia to overcome. Diabetes was realized and diagnosed in ancient times, long before we ever discovered the difference between type 1 and type 2. As a father of type 1 son, I would like nothing better for type 1 to be renamed something without the word "diabetes" in it, but I know it's hopeless. The term diabetes today means "type 2" to the vast majority of people.
As such, we have to deal with the myth that if my 4 year old son, who is skinny as a toothpick and barely has any body fat to put a syringe into, only dieted and exercised more, he wouldn't need insulin, where the reality is that he will die with out it, no matter what his weight it.
Even "type 1" and "type 2" are new terms, and the old ones have not disappeared. It used to be "juvenile" and "adult onset", which was even worse, because in reality adults can get type 1, and children can get type 2. Today, children are getting type 2 due to lifestyle factors, and there is a lot of awareness of this. Still, people are getting confused and think "juvenile diabetes" means "getting type 2 at a young age". I never say my child has "juvenile diabetes" because most people will think that I'm feeding him a steady diet of Hershey bars, instead of thinking that he was just unlucky like a kid with multiple sclerosis. Type 1's face relentless assumption from everyone that the disease is their fault, which is totally untrue.
Producing More (Score:2)
Wrong. One of the common medication for Type 2 is sulfonyureas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonylurea [wikipedia.org]
They act my making the pancreas produce more insulin.
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
For you I'd recommend picking up body-building , it would solve your problem.
Check out the diets and exercises on http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/ , they're meant to promote insulin sensitivity , exactly what you are missing.
I am not a doctor but still , I'm confident it would help you.
Re:Type 2? (Score:1)
Re:Type 2? (Score:2)
Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values.
Well, that would be a GOOD THING(TM) in most populations with a 50:50 male-female ratio, wouldn't it?
Recipient still req to be immune deficient (Score:1)
Now (Score:4, Funny)
That takes balls.
Re:Now (Score:2)
That takes balls away.
And now, not just in Soviet Russia.
And the obvious question (Score:3)
Re:And the obvious question (Score:3)
I'm guessing it's illegal to sell your balls in Texas or something like that...
Re:And the obvious question (Score:2)
The Catholic church simply will not stand for this!
"CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Every sperm that can't be found."
Etc...
Re:And the obvious question (Score:2)
Why should it matter to me what old guys in women's dresses think? For all I care, they could suck my dick, but I'd guess I'm way too old for them to take that offer.
Re:And the obvious question (Score:2)
While they are now old, and they did, collectively, spend a great deal of time in women's dresses, that's actually a Monty Python reference.
Re:And the obvious question (Score:3)
since women can't do this, just invite any hot female diabetics over for a round of personalized care, including injections of... insulin
Some clarification... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some key points: They took spermatogonial stem cells (SSC's) from testicular tissue of deceased organ donors (not from diabetic patients) and observed that some of these cells would turn into insulin producing beta cells in a test tube. They injected these cells into mice, and found that the mice had reduced glucose levels for a week.
This is pretty exciting news, since the alternative source of beta cells is to extract them from the pancreas of deceased organ donors. (This was done in the Edmonton Protocol [slashdot.org].)
Re:Some clarification... (Score:2)
That means that your immune system isn't going to like it much. What one needs is a system that takes your very own testicular cells and creates beta (insulin secreting) cells. I'm sure that's what they're trying to get at but I detect a potential problem with the practical application of the technology.
'You're going to take some cells from where?
Re:Some clarification... (Score:2)
'You're going to take some cells from where?
An undignified operation, which won't hamper one's ability to procreate or needles upon needles upon needles until the day you die. Tell me, truly, which would you choose?
Re:Some clarification... (Score:2)
Type one is suspected, in many cases, to be caused by molecules of animal (non-human) milk passing from the gullet into the blood stream in infants. The surface molecule looks a lot like the Isles of Langerhans, so the body mounts an imperfect immune response. In other words, most of the time, no visible immune response, but a sensitization.
Later on (say, during a growth spurt, or puberty, or an infection) the immune system goes on the attack, and attacks the Isles. It's only when a majority of the cells are destroyed that the patient develops diabetes.
This is why even a small quantity of insulin-producing cells work - but they're eventually destroyed, because they resemble the original foreign molecule. So there is no "permanent cure" from transplanting. What would be needed is either prevention (don't feed infants formula based on cow milk, for example - breast milk is way better on every count), or finding some way to re-train the immune system.
So, what we should be doing is looking for a cure for the common cold. When we can retrain the immune system to fix that, we'll be one step closer to curing many diseases.
-- barbie
Re:Some clarification... (Score:3)
Then I'd expect this paper to have different results:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/5/838.full [diabetesjournals.org]
Non-identical twins raised in the same womb and the same dietary environment would experience the same protein exposures, and as children experience similar infections or environmental factors, and have an elevated risk of sharing Type 1 diabetes if one of them has it. They don't.
From where did you hear this theory or see this claim?
Re:Some clarification... (Score:2)
And the uterine environment is also not as "identical" as you assume.
Want to try again?
Re:Some clarification... (Score:2)
No need to try again: you seem to have misunderstood my point. The study I referred to should at least show a _correlation_ in diabetes frequency among non-identical twins, if the factor is the kind of environmental exposure to non-human milk proteins which you've asserted. I'm sorry to say that you have not provided any data or reference to justify your claim, and I'd expect such a claim to have especially shown up in the various studies of family susceptibility.
Moreover, your claim is nonsensical. "Insulin" and the "Islets of Langerhans" are quite distinct. Insulin is a simple protein. "Islets of Langerhans" are cell clusters, containing several different _types_ of cells, which happen to include the beta cells which make insulin. An immune problem that attacked the Islets of Langerhans would also destroy these sources of these other hormones, such as glucagon and somatostation. Type 1 diabetics lose beta cells, _not_ the Islets of Langerhans!
Destroying the Islets, or removing the pancreas, wreaks biochemical havoc. I've a friend who had pancreatic cancer and had his removed: his care is quite awkward. He requires a great deal of medication and treatment that diabetics do not. So, before you make a claim like that, I urge you to actually look into the biology or at least find out where your claim came from.
we could fix that (Score:2)
We just need genetically modified cows that produce human milk.
Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes; Drug Companies Object (Score:2)
But only completely for type 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU [youtube.com]
See also: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/diabetes.aspx [drfuhrman.com]
Type 1 diabetics still need to take insulin, but can take less and have less complications. So, this idea from the article might eventually help them.
From that link: "John ... was a 22 year old college graduate with Type 1 diabetes since the age of 6. He was five foot, eight inches tall and weighed 190 pounds. He was taking a total of 70 units of insulin daily. He was referred to my office by his family physician as he was having swings in his glucose levels, too high at times and at other times dangerously low. He also wanted to learn more about nutrition to improve his health and reduce his future risks from having diabetes. I was impressed by his intelligence and desire to change his eating habits to better his health. We spent lots of time discussing the typical problems that befall most diabetics, and I explained to him that using 70 units of insulin a day was part of the problem. I explained that if he follows my recommended diet-style he will stabilize his weight at about 145 pounds and he will only require about 30 units of insulin a day. With this lower level of insulin, to mimic the amount of insulin a non-diabetic makes in the pancreas, he can have a life without the typical health issues that befall diabetics. We cut his nighttime insulin dose down by ten units and his mealtime insulin from 10 to 6 as he began the diet. Over the next two weeks we gradually tapered his insulin and found that he only needed 20 units of Lantus insulin at bedtime and 4 units before each meal for a total of 32 units a day. Almost immediately, with my dietary recommendations, his sugars were running in the favorable range, and he no longer experienced dangerous drops in his blood sugar. He had lost 13 pounds over the first month and by month three weighed 167, a loss of 23 pounds. He was excited about what he had learned and was more hopeful about his life while living with his diabetes. I am convinced, that with the Eat To Live or Eat For Health diet-style, those with Type 1 diabetes can have a long and disease-free life. I feel it is imperative that all Type 1 diabetics learn about this life, saving approach."
Key there for type 1 diabetics is reducing complications, even if they still take diabetes.
Type 1 diabetes may also be related to vitamin D deficiency in utero and early life.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18846317 [nih.gov]
http://www.google.com/custom?q=diabetes&sitesearch=vitamindcouncil.org [google.com]
If you have type 2 diabetes, you can most likely, within weeks under Dr. Fuhrman's plan, be throwing your insulin away forever (at least, based on what he writes). I know you may find this hard to believe. The key idea there is to lose weight to reduce insulin resistance, and to eliminate refined carbs to reduce insulin needs, and to improve your body's general health with more phytonutrients, and so bring the need for insulin within the remaining capacity of your body. In most cases of type 2 diabetes this should be enough to eliminate the need for any medications. Even if you remained on medications, the risk of complications would go way down and the quality of your life would go way up.
See also Raw For Thirty (though Dr. Fuhrman's approach is more comprehensive and not all raw for some good reasons):
http://www.rawfor30days.com/ [rawfor30days.com]
Some people think they have type 1 diabetes because they have been misdiagnosed and are really type 2 and presumably 100% curable. I guess the opposite may be true, too, sadly. In any case, you never know for sure till you try.
I am following the Eat to Live plan for other reasons (though not
Re:Some clarification... (Score:2)
This is pretty exciting news
for mice.
Unfortunate implications in a divorce or breakup (Score:2)
If this technology were readily available and one were to get in trouble with a significant female other?
"Honey! Let's talk about this! You can burn the baseball cards, but please, not my testicular insulin cultures!!!"
She'd literally have one, "by the balls" *rimshot*
Re:The summary sounds so selfish (Score:1)
Re:Which part?! (Score:2)
Most likely the progenitor cells that are in the main body of the testis. It is likely that a simple biopsy would be sufficient to harvest these progenitor cells.
In male vertibrates the testes are comprised of vascular tissues that feed a labyrinth of micro-tubule structures, which then connect to the upper portion of the epididymis. Inside these tubules there are colonies of spermatogenic progenitor cells, which divide once via mitosis, then divide a second time into early, non-motile sperm cells via meiosis. These non-motile, and immature sperm cells migrate through this network of microtubules into the epididymis where additional external factors and hormonal secretions initiate many of the morphological changes in sperm cells. They then pass into the lower portion of the epididymis where they are stored prior to ejaculation.
I hope that this answers your question.
If you are worried that they would confiscate your whole testicle, I would say that your worries are unfounded. These progenitor cells are highly copious in quantity inside your testes, and a simple needle biopsy would most certainly be sufficient.