6 ms·

Scientist who cured type I Diabetes in mice was denied funding for human trials

134 points by bpick 16y ago

hsmyers 16y ago
Normally it's the diabetics who make such claims about the industry--- it's a surprise (a pleasant one) to hear such come from a possible solution source! As a long time type-2 diabetic, I'm still happy for ANYTHING that may someday help my fellow type-1s...
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Yep, diabetes is one of the Big Three health problems in the US, along with cancer and heart disease. There are people in my family that have it as well. And supposedly it's one of the fastest growing health problems in recent decades.
mkramlich 16y ago
The article touches on one of the risks to the health care industry today, at least here in the US: In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial incentive to NOT cure a disease, instead, to prolong it and only sell palliatives. Government funding and government directed research should be one of the ways we ensure that we have people actively trying to CURE diseases. It's a classic example of an area where government can do something better than business, because there does not have to be a profit motive. Just a collective desire to reduce human suffering. This also touches on why it's important to vote carefully in US presidential and congressional elections. Because certain political groups cater to the Big Pharma companies. A vote for them is almost certainly a vote towards a world where there are more palliatives than cures. Where even new forms of ill health can just be considered new "markets" or new ways to increase profits.
- dennisgorelik 16y ago
  That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure. Assuming the chances of developing the cure are reasonably good.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    They can fund the researchers that actually do the innovation, is what I read it as.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Disagree. Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. The problem with the alternative, like a large private corporation, can be that it may not be in their best interests profit wise to pursue a certain line of development. Could reduce their profits. Or at least they can be afraid it might. And they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Not necessarily a sense of ethical obligation to their fellow man.
    - bedris 16y ago
      Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. In principal, you are correct, but you are neglecting one very important point: the government is not a nebulous entity with an endless supply of money. Therefore, the individuals that comprise the government must identify (either directly, or by selecting individuals who are most qualified in a given area of expertise to serve as proxies) the scientists whose ideas, proposals, past productivity, and requests for facilities most warrant funding. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a non-trivial exercise. It may not be be direct innovation, but I would argue that it is every bit as challenging.
ck2 16y ago
The great thing about the internet is now everyone can read about such scandals. The bad thing about the internet is the noise level is so high, few will read about such scandals. I hope in 100 years, advanced hobbyists can do sophisticated medical R&D in their garage and create small quantities of medicine for stuff that big pharma doesn't find profitable (the problem is the government will probably shut that down).
digamber_kamat 16y ago
Can we call it fault-lines of capitalism ?
- Ripster 16y ago
  That is exactly what it is. Voted.
corruption 16y ago
He should put the project on kickstarter and let the people speak :) I'd throw in some money, as would every type-1 I know.
- dmpayton 16y ago
  As the husband of a Type I, I would gladly donate a portion of my income if it would go directly to finding a cure.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    BUt how do we know this is "a cure", and not just the favorite project of bitter researcher who's funding was cut off? The stringing along of desperate people is WHY the FDA exists.
ai09 16y ago
I submit that there's more to this story than "pharmaceutical companies weren’t interested in developing the therapy". The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation http://www.jdrf.org/ http://www.jdrf.org/ funded $100 million dollars of research last year alone into research for juvenile diabetes (type I). Link: http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=0B36CA86-9128-4C49-B7D8F55955507931 http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&p... Funding is predominantly from individuals and families searching for a cure for diabetes. That includes people like myself and my family. We could care less what mechanism or what business model cures diabetes. Of that research, there is significant research into stem cell therapies and cures Link: http://onlineapps.jdfcure.org/AbstractSearchEngine.cfm http://onlineapps.jdfcure.org/AbstractSearchEngine.cfm Select "stem cell therapy" from the drop down. Lastly, the head of JDRF is a tech star. http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=113971 http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=113971 He founded Citysearch and Overture (the originator of keyword marketing. Bought by Yahoo). I'm a big JDRF supporter since my sister has Type 1 diabetes. For any of you that are passionate about curing Type 1 diabetes, look into JDRF. Link: http://www.jdrf.org/ http://www.jdrf.org/
hnote 16y ago
A very similar story can be told about Denise Faustman's ongoing research into the cure. She has also cured Type I in mice, although using other means. And she also got her share of first-class controversy. Cf. http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2005/05/01/4126/why-did-the-jdrf-try-to-discredit-cure-research/ http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2005/05/01/4126/why-did-t... and the preceding New York Times article "I BEG TO DIFFER; A Diabetes Researcher Forges Her Own Path to a Cure" http://bit.ly/bzUkWs http://bit.ly/bzUkWs . The JDRF doens't look good in this case at all. More information about her approach at http://www.faustmanlab.org/ http://www.faustmanlab.org/ A good overview of other immune-based therapeutic approaches from 2006 can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868847/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868847/ It's interesting to follow the scientific debate. The 2006 review sponsored by JDRF claims that the methods used by Faustman offer little promise, and can even be harmful. She offers a completely opposite view, claiming in a 2008 paper Because our findings showing potential benefits of TNF or TNF agonism for treating AI, it seems paradoxical that anti-TNF therapies are a major therapeutic class of drugs currently marketed for AI. TNF antagonists have provided clinical benefit to about half of AI patients, those with rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. Yet an expanding body of research in animal models on spontaneous autoimmunity suggests the opposite strategy may be warranted. Furthermore, in humans, several clinical observations deserve mention. First, many Crohn's and rheumatoid arthritis patients never respond to TNF antagonists. Second, long-term treatment with anti-TNF drugs can be accompanied by onset of new or aggravated forms of autoimmunity, sometimes new autoantibodies, suggesting that, for some AIs, anti-TNF therapy may not be the drug of choice . (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13644.full http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13644.full) To me, the JDRF arguments sound more fishy than hers. It's a tricky business of solving puzzles like that, especially as an outsider. But it's fun to see how far one can go following the debate.
jgoewert 16y ago
I always read things like this with a hefty grain of salt. To say that all "pharmaceutical companies" blocked him on this because treatment is more profitable than cure seems rather absurd. You would think that with all the non profits out there already involved in solving this, there would be quite a few with interest in the research. Also, as most startup people know, a short term large profit is awesome! Any company that truly finds a cure would make buku bucks in the short term and be able to bail from the market when everyone that can be cured is. Think about polio and Salk. The guy became a legend, and though it isn't talked about, decently rich.
hackermom 16y ago
To state the obvious: there's more money in keeping people ill and in need of temporary amelioration than there is in curing them, and such is the foundation of american pharmaceutical industry.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  Is this really true in this case? I mean, insulin is fairly cheap, right?
  - Sirocco 16y ago
    There's a whole sub-industry based on diabetes! You have goods providers shuttling out boatloads of sharps, insulin testers, strips, etc. A lot of companies profit beyond just insulin, which isn't terribly expensive unless you have to use a high dosage.
  - giardini 16y ago
    Insulin is cheap but diabetes is enormously expensive. Nytimes has an excellent series of articles http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907e2da1f30f93aa35752c0a9609c8b63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=5 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907e2da1f30f... The articles describe diabetes patients as floating "shipwrecks": a rudder broken here, a sail there, no one at the helm. It's a good analogy because, when you have diabetes, almost anything can fail without warning.
  - jmcarlin 16y ago
    Cheap/expensive is relative. More importantly, insulin is only a tiny cost of the care of Type 1 diabetes. Diabetics need to check blood sugar levels anywhere from 3-5 times a day, sometimes more if ill or for other circumstances. Test strips can cost a patient as much as $1 per strip. Also, insulin requires a subcutaneous injection for delivery. That means a new syringe 3-4 times per day depending on the therapy. Or, you could get an insulin pump at about $5k and pay for insets, tubing, reservoirs and other miscellaneous supplies. Those need to be swapped out every three days. Want to add continuous glucose monitoring to your therapy? Even more supplies. Add it all up and treating T1 diabetes is nothing close to cheap no matter how deep your pockets are.
Ripster 16y ago
I have type I diabetes. "Weissman implied that the pharmaceutical companies had put profit over principle, preferring to keep diabetes sufferers dependent on costly insulin than to cure them once and for all." This is not fun. I wonder when are we going to agree that you cant make business out of anything.
dgregd 16y ago
If someone from here knows Bill Gates please forward this article to him.
apinstein 16y ago
I call bunk. There are many thousands of biotech companies, the vast majority of which do not sell drugs that treat chronic diabetes. Any one of them would love to sell a diabetes drug that cures diabetes. Either this researcher only courted a few companies that already sell diabetes treatments, who unsurprisingly didn't want to fund him (does Comcast fund startups that help you avoid buying cable? NO!) or there is something else about his research that made people not want to continue with it.
FraaJad 16y ago
Is America the only country in the world where he could get his drugs trial tested and put into market? There are umpteen number of pharma companies in the developing countries which are ready to take a working product to their market. Why not use them?
- narrator 16y ago
  Good point. I think the French are the only ones that develop any decent pharmaceuticals outside the U.S. One of the most successful French pharmaceuticals is Tianeptine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianeptine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianeptine It's sort of a French Prozac but with a number of unique benefits that Prozac doesn't have. It's approved in several European countries but NOT in the U.K, and is only available in the U.S on the imported pharmaceutical grey market. Once it goes out of patent, and if it has not been approved for use in the U.S, it will NEVER be approved, ever, for any use in the U.S. That's because nobody would pay the 100s of millions of dollars to approve a drug that a competitor can produce as a generic.
carbocation 16y ago
Hacker News reminds me of my first year of med school. Everyone is smart and fundamentally clueless about human pathophysiology. It's a wonderful thing, learning about the fruits of devilishly challenging science. But it's also a conspiratorial time. I suspect the reason is that first year med students suddenly feel empowered by the small amounts of knowledge that they have gained. HNers probably feel empowered for a different reason: that they are extremely good at rapidly acquiring new ideas and implementing them. This is normally a great thing, but it opens up two risks: the blind leading the blind, and conspiratorial thinking. The blind leading the blind is what happens when someone has an idea about a disease or treatment, finds one article in pubmed or one book by one author to support that idea, and proceeds to remain ignorant about the entire rest of the body of work on the topic. It's almost like a race: if the good information gets there first, people believe it; so too for the complete hogwash in Medical Hypotheses. The second issue that plagues first year med students and HNers is conspiratorial thinking. This is largely a consequence of having little knowledge, and this finally brings me on topic. This current article discusses how someone was denied funding for human trials of stem cell therapy despite the fact that it cured T1D in animal models. When I see this, I think, "Of course nobody would have funded that!" Here's why I think that: Ten years ago, stem cell biology was far more limited than it is now. And I'm talking strictly about biology, not ethics or politics. The first gene therapy trials resulted in the death of Jesse Geisinger; though stem cells are a different beast entirely from the viral vector used in that trial, this still cast a pall over the use of active biologics. Using stem cells that do not come from the recipient may require immunosuppressive drugs. This is such a high burden to pay that it seems inconceivable that someone would take this risk. I'd rather inject insulin all day long than be on immunosuppressive therapy. Induced pluripotent stem cells did not become a possibility until Yamanaka discovered his factors. There is the risk that stem cells will lead to tumor-like conditions. A woman died in 2009 from an unlicensed stem cell therapy that caused just that. Animals are the model in which we should fully understand these risks, subjecting humans to them only after we understand what the risks are, and why they might occur. Especially for T1D, which has very good, lifesaving therapeutics already. The human risk-benefit has to be there. People often work on animal models for years, even a decade, before going to human trials. This fuy had a successful mouse model. So far, so good. But let's see primate work; let's see replication in other labs. At the end if the day, this just doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me. Some small drug company would love nothing more than to completely disrupt the market for diabetes therapeutics. Sure, it might transform a $100 billion market into a $10 billion one - but they currently have 0% of the 100 billion market, and would have 100% of the 10 billion one. Tl;dr - Stem cell biology is novel and poorly understood, especially 10 years ago. It is unsurprising that nobody wanted to fund a highly risky human trial for a disease that already has lifesaving therapeutics. I find conspiratorial thinking to be a trait shared by those early in their medical training and by HNers, and it can be frustrating to see great minds turn to those rarely-correct conspiratorial thoughts.
known 16y ago
Hope they've at-least patented it.

134 points by bpick 16y ago

Normally it's the diabetics who make such claims about the industry--- it's a surprise (a pleasant one) to hear such come from a possible solution source! As a long time type-2 diabetic, I'm still happy for ANYTHING that may someday help my fellow type-1s...

mkramlich 16y ago
Yep, diabetes is one of the Big Three health problems in the US, along with cancer and heart disease. There are people in my family that have it as well. And supposedly it's one of the fastest growing health problems in recent decades.

mkramlich 16y ago

The article touches on one of the risks to the health care industry today, at least here in the US: In many cases, the pharmaceutical companies are making billions by selling drugs which merely reduce undesired symptoms. But do not CURE the underlying problem. And the symptom reduction only lasts while the user continues to buy and consume the drug. Therefore, in many cases, these companies have a strong financial incentive to NOT cure a disease, instead, to prolong it and only sell palliatives. Government funding and government directed research should be one of the ways we ensure that we have people actively trying to CURE diseases. It's a classic example of an area where government can do something better than business, because there does not have to be a profit motive. Just a collective desire to reduce human suffering. This also touches on why it's important to vote carefully in US presidential and congressional elections. Because certain political groups cater to the Big Pharma companies. A vote for them is almost certainly a vote towards a world where there are more palliatives than cures. Where even new forms of ill health can just be considered new "markets" or new ways to increase profits.

dennisgorelik 16y ago
That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure. Assuming the chances of developing the cure are reasonably good.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  They can fund the researchers that actually do the innovation, is what I read it as.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Disagree. Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. The problem with the alternative, like a large private corporation, can be that it may not be in their best interests profit wise to pursue a certain line of development. Could reduce their profits. Or at least they can be afraid it might. And they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Not necessarily a sense of ethical obligation to their fellow man.
  - bedris 16y ago
    Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. In principal, you are correct, but you are neglecting one very important point: the government is not a nebulous entity with an endless supply of money. Therefore, the individuals that comprise the government must identify (either directly, or by selecting individuals who are most qualified in a given area of expertise to serve as proxies) the scientists whose ideas, proposals, past productivity, and requests for facilities most warrant funding. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a non-trivial exercise. It may not be be direct innovation, but I would argue that it is every bit as challenging.

ck2 16y ago

The great thing about the internet is now everyone can read about such scandals. The bad thing about the internet is the noise level is so high, few will read about such scandals. I hope in 100 years, advanced hobbyists can do sophisticated medical R&D in their garage and create small quantities of medicine for stuff that big pharma doesn't find profitable (the problem is the government will probably shut that down).

digamber_kamat 16y ago

Can we call it fault-lines of capitalism ?

Ripster 16y ago
That is exactly what it is. Voted.

corruption 16y ago

He should put the project on kickstarter and let the people speak :) I'd throw in some money, as would every type-1 I know.

dmpayton 16y ago
As the husband of a Type I, I would gladly donate a portion of my income if it would go directly to finding a cure.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  BUt how do we know this is "a cure", and not just the favorite project of bitter researcher who's funding was cut off? The stringing along of desperate people is WHY the FDA exists.

ai09 16y ago

I submit that there's more to this story than "pharmaceutical companies weren’t interested in developing the therapy". The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation http://www.jdrf.org/ http://www.jdrf.org/ funded $100 million dollars of research last year alone into research for juvenile diabetes (type I). Link: http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=0B36CA86-9128-4C49-B7D8F55955507931 http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&p... Funding is predominantly from individuals and families searching for a cure for diabetes. That includes people like myself and my family. We could care less what mechanism or what business model cures diabetes. Of that research, there is significant research into stem cell therapies and cures Link: http://onlineapps.jdfcure.org/AbstractSearchEngine.cfm http://onlineapps.jdfcure.org/AbstractSearchEngine.cfm Select "stem cell therapy" from the drop down. Lastly, the head of JDRF is a tech star. http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=113971 http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=113971 He founded Citysearch and Overture (the originator of keyword marketing. Bought by Yahoo). I'm a big JDRF supporter since my sister has Type 1 diabetes. For any of you that are passionate about curing Type 1 diabetes, look into JDRF. Link: http://www.jdrf.org/ http://www.jdrf.org/

hnote 16y ago

A very similar story can be told about Denise Faustman's ongoing research into the cure. She has also cured Type I in mice, although using other means. And she also got her share of first-class controversy. Cf. http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2005/05/01/4126/why-did-the-jdrf-try-to-discredit-cure-research/ http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2005/05/01/4126/why-did-t... and the preceding New York Times article "I BEG TO DIFFER; A Diabetes Researcher Forges Her Own Path to a Cure" http://bit.ly/bzUkWs http://bit.ly/bzUkWs . The JDRF doens't look good in this case at all. More information about her approach at http://www.faustmanlab.org/ http://www.faustmanlab.org/ A good overview of other immune-based therapeutic approaches from 2006 can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868847/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868847/ It's interesting to follow the scientific debate. The 2006 review sponsored by JDRF claims that the methods used by Faustman offer little promise, and can even be harmful. She offers a completely opposite view, claiming in a 2008 paper Because our findings showing potential benefits of TNF or TNF agonism for treating AI, it seems paradoxical that anti-TNF therapies are a major therapeutic class of drugs currently marketed for AI. TNF antagonists have provided clinical benefit to about half of AI patients, those with rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease. Yet an expanding body of research in animal models on spontaneous autoimmunity suggests the opposite strategy may be warranted. Furthermore, in humans, several clinical observations deserve mention. First, many Crohn's and rheumatoid arthritis patients never respond to TNF antagonists. Second, long-term treatment with anti-TNF drugs can be accompanied by onset of new or aggravated forms of autoimmunity, sometimes new autoantibodies, suggesting that, for some AIs, anti-TNF therapy may not be the drug of choice . (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13644.full http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13644.full) To me, the JDRF arguments sound more fishy than hers. It's a tricky business of solving puzzles like that, especially as an outsider. But it's fun to see how far one can go following the debate.

jgoewert 16y ago

I always read things like this with a hefty grain of salt. To say that all "pharmaceutical companies" blocked him on this because treatment is more profitable than cure seems rather absurd. You would think that with all the non profits out there already involved in solving this, there would be quite a few with interest in the research. Also, as most startup people know, a short term large profit is awesome! Any company that truly finds a cure would make buku bucks in the short term and be able to bail from the market when everyone that can be cured is. Think about polio and Salk. The guy became a legend, and though it isn't talked about, decently rich.

hackermom 16y ago

To state the obvious: there's more money in keeping people ill and in need of temporary amelioration than there is in curing them, and such is the foundation of american pharmaceutical industry.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
Is this really true in this case? I mean, insulin is fairly cheap, right?
- Sirocco 16y ago
  There's a whole sub-industry based on diabetes! You have goods providers shuttling out boatloads of sharps, insulin testers, strips, etc. A lot of companies profit beyond just insulin, which isn't terribly expensive unless you have to use a high dosage.
- giardini 16y ago
  Insulin is cheap but diabetes is enormously expensive. Nytimes has an excellent series of articles http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907e2da1f30f93aa35752c0a9609c8b63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=5 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907e2da1f30f... The articles describe diabetes patients as floating "shipwrecks": a rudder broken here, a sail there, no one at the helm. It's a good analogy because, when you have diabetes, almost anything can fail without warning.
- jmcarlin 16y ago
  Cheap/expensive is relative. More importantly, insulin is only a tiny cost of the care of Type 1 diabetes. Diabetics need to check blood sugar levels anywhere from 3-5 times a day, sometimes more if ill or for other circumstances. Test strips can cost a patient as much as $1 per strip. Also, insulin requires a subcutaneous injection for delivery. That means a new syringe 3-4 times per day depending on the therapy. Or, you could get an insulin pump at about $5k and pay for insets, tubing, reservoirs and other miscellaneous supplies. Those need to be swapped out every three days. Want to add continuous glucose monitoring to your therapy? Even more supplies. Add it all up and treating T1 diabetes is nothing close to cheap no matter how deep your pockets are.

Ripster 16y ago

I have type I diabetes. "Weissman implied that the pharmaceutical companies had put profit over principle, preferring to keep diabetes sufferers dependent on costly insulin than to cure them once and for all." This is not fun. I wonder when are we going to agree that you cant make business out of anything.

dgregd 16y ago

If someone from here knows Bill Gates please forward this article to him.

apinstein 16y ago

I call bunk. There are many thousands of biotech companies, the vast majority of which do not sell drugs that treat chronic diabetes. Any one of them would love to sell a diabetes drug that cures diabetes. Either this researcher only courted a few companies that already sell diabetes treatments, who unsurprisingly didn't want to fund him (does Comcast fund startups that help you avoid buying cable? NO!) or there is something else about his research that made people not want to continue with it.

FraaJad 16y ago

Is America the only country in the world where he could get his drugs trial tested and put into market? There are umpteen number of pharma companies in the developing countries which are ready to take a working product to their market. Why not use them?

narrator 16y ago
Good point. I think the French are the only ones that develop any decent pharmaceuticals outside the U.S. One of the most successful French pharmaceuticals is Tianeptine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianeptine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianeptine It's sort of a French Prozac but with a number of unique benefits that Prozac doesn't have. It's approved in several European countries but NOT in the U.K, and is only available in the U.S on the imported pharmaceutical grey market. Once it goes out of patent, and if it has not been approved for use in the U.S, it will NEVER be approved, ever, for any use in the U.S. That's because nobody would pay the 100s of millions of dollars to approve a drug that a competitor can produce as a generic.

carbocation 16y ago

Hacker News reminds me of my first year of med school. Everyone is smart and fundamentally clueless about human pathophysiology. It's a wonderful thing, learning about the fruits of devilishly challenging science. But it's also a conspiratorial time. I suspect the reason is that first year med students suddenly feel empowered by the small amounts of knowledge that they have gained. HNers probably feel empowered for a different reason: that they are extremely good at rapidly acquiring new ideas and implementing them. This is normally a great thing, but it opens up two risks: the blind leading the blind, and conspiratorial thinking. The blind leading the blind is what happens when someone has an idea about a disease or treatment, finds one article in pubmed or one book by one author to support that idea, and proceeds to remain ignorant about the entire rest of the body of work on the topic. It's almost like a race: if the good information gets there first, people believe it; so too for the complete hogwash in Medical Hypotheses. The second issue that plagues first year med students and HNers is conspiratorial thinking. This is largely a consequence of having little knowledge, and this finally brings me on topic. This current article discusses how someone was denied funding for human trials of stem cell therapy despite the fact that it cured T1D in animal models. When I see this, I think, "Of course nobody would have funded that!" Here's why I think that: Ten years ago, stem cell biology was far more limited than it is now. And I'm talking strictly about biology, not ethics or politics. The first gene therapy trials resulted in the death of Jesse Geisinger; though stem cells are a different beast entirely from the viral vector used in that trial, this still cast a pall over the use of active biologics. Using stem cells that do not come from the recipient may require immunosuppressive drugs. This is such a high burden to pay that it seems inconceivable that someone would take this risk. I'd rather inject insulin all day long than be on immunosuppressive therapy. Induced pluripotent stem cells did not become a possibility until Yamanaka discovered his factors. There is the risk that stem cells will lead to tumor-like conditions. A woman died in 2009 from an unlicensed stem cell therapy that caused just that. Animals are the model in which we should fully understand these risks, subjecting humans to them only after we understand what the risks are, and why they might occur. Especially for T1D, which has very good, lifesaving therapeutics already. The human risk-benefit has to be there. People often work on animal models for years, even a decade, before going to human trials. This fuy had a successful mouse model. So far, so good. But let's see primate work; let's see replication in other labs. At the end if the day, this just doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me. Some small drug company would love nothing more than to completely disrupt the market for diabetes therapeutics. Sure, it might transform a $100 billion market into a $10 billion one - but they currently have 0% of the 100 billion market, and would have 100% of the 10 billion one. Tl;dr - Stem cell biology is novel and poorly understood, especially 10 years ago. It is unsurprising that nobody wanted to fund a highly risky human trial for a disease that already has lifesaving therapeutics. I find conspiratorial thinking to be a trait shared by those early in their medical training and by HNers, and it can be frustrating to see great minds turn to those rarely-correct conspiratorial thoughts.

known 16y ago

Hope they've at-least patented it.