T1 CURE...????? really

[Spiker]

Big pharma is not a monolith. It's an ecosystem of competing companies, big and small. Yes, some of them would cannibalise their own revenues with a cure or a vaccine. But others would stand to improve their revenues. And even those most heavily invested in the "carbohydrate-industrial complex" need to worry about what would happen if a rival came up with a cure or a vaccine. So plenty of pharma firms have incentives to work on a cure or vaccine. As do researchers, charities and governments / public health. And there are many promising scientific lines of enquiry to pursue.

 

[Robinredbreast]

Opinions should never be muted, though - even if you don't agree with them.

Especially today, it's my birthday

ps women are more emotional than the majority of men in a matter of a fact way, and that is a fact as seen on the forum, tenfold

 

[mangobe]

This thread has become so reminiscent of debates over theism! With comments from the believers on the one side, holding onto their faith - for which read 'hope for a cure', and rebuttals from the agnostics & atheists on the other side, declaring their 'realism' is not pessimism but a happily objective state!
I'm in the atheist camp myself, but think there is a bit more to @BigRedSwitch's point about pedantry & the difference between a cure and a treatment that underlies this dispute. If you define these terms very carefully you will probably find that everyone wants and hopes for an effective treatment, but some people would like to call this hoped for treatment a cure.

 

[BigRedSwitch]

This thread has become so reminiscent of debates over theism! With comments from the believers on the one side, holding onto their faith - for which read 'hope for a cure', and rebuttals from the agnostics & atheists on the other side, declaring their 'realism' is not pessimism but a happily objective state!
I'm in the atheist camp myself, but think there is a bit more to @BigRedSwitch's point about pedantry & the difference between a cure and a treatment that underlies this dispute. If you define these terms very carefully you will probably find that everyone wants and hopes for an effective treatment, but some people would like to call this hoped for treatment a cure.

Nice analogy. probably adding fuel to the fire here, but I'm an atheist too.

 

[mangobe]

I didn't mean to be incendiary by bringing up the topic of religion, but exactly the same arguments are being used, such as 'people need hope' ☺.
Nevertheless since
@Robinredbreast has already added sex-ism to the mix (Happy Birthday!), maybe all we need now is a political slant on this - such as which party's policies will best support further research? - to really get the fire burning!

 

[Spencer67]

and that is a fact as seen on the forum, tenfold

Are you sure about that?

But i do like the way you back it up all scientific like.Happy Birthday by the way. [URL=http://www.sherv.net/] [/URL]

 

[tim2000s]

I didn't mean to be incendiary by bringing up the topic of religion, but exactly the same arguments are being used, such as 'people need hope' ☺.
Nevertheless since
@Robinredbreast has already added sex-ism to the mix (Happy Birthday!), maybe all we need now is a political slant on this - such as which party's policies will best support further research? - to really get the fire burning!

I'd strongly disagree that it is reminiscent of a theistic debate. Those tend to regard the lack of proof against omnipotent beings as being proof by elimination, whereas this debate is very much about whether the existing works will ever find their way into something widely available and used.

Subtle difference, but oh so important I think..

 

[Robinredbreast]

Are you sure about that?

View attachment 12050

But i do like the way you back it up all scientific like.Happy Birthday by the way.

Well of course it's scientific, in a round about way. Life's too short to get involved in what I call 'the chuckle brothers scenario' seen it so many times. I can,at times, get a little bee in my bonnet though

Thank for the, erm cake, hope it's gluten free

Best wishes RRB

 

[Robinredbreast]

I'd strongly disagree that it is reminiscent of a theistic debate. Those tend to regard the lack of proof against omnipotent beings as being proof by elimination, whereas this debate is very much about whether the existing works will ever find their way into something widely available and used.

Subtle difference, but oh so important I think..

People can show charts, documents, graphs, but we as members on here and the millions of other diabetes, don't really know what is out there, and what actually will be possible and what the future may bring.

It's the younger ones I think of, regarding ' I used to have Type 1 years ago until.................................... not scientific, but how I see it.

BFN

RRB

 

[Scardoc]

In terms of the history of man, it's only yesterday that we thought the Earth was flat! So it must be a few seconds since anyone even thought of curing or preventing diabetes.

I am supremely confident that in my lifetime (currently 37) they will:

1. Find what causes T1 and produce a drug to stop it happening.
2. Develop a way of regenerating insulin producing cells within the body....maybe not in the pancreas....but somewhere.

As for the drug companies? Without diabetes they will make their fortunes anyway.

 

[Spencer67]

Well of course it's scientific, in a round about way. Life's too short to get involved in what I call 'the chuckle brothers scenario' seen it so many times. I can,at times, get a little bee in my bonnet though

Thank for the, erm cake, hope it's gluten free

Best wishes RRB

Yes its gluten free, low carb, infact zero carbs and thats proven scientificly like, but i wouldn't try and eat it cos ud break ur teef on the screen. nom nom nom.

 

[Dillinger]

And please, please, please don't pin any real degree of hope on a cure. You've got more chance of winning the lottery.

Twice.

Great post! As long as I remember there has always been 'a cure' 10 years away. The problem with that is that if you really believe that then what is the impetus to take control right now? Not much I'd say. Bumble along eat some biscuits, worry about it later, but not much because you'll be cured in a few years.

The first and greatest challenge for any diabetic is accepting that you are a diabetic and that it isn't going to magically disappear. Once you have that then you are in the driving seat.

Best

Dillinger

 

[Dillinger]

You are taking a very pessimistic view of the world @BigRedSwitch . You are also missing a big chunk of what is within the art of the possible with gene therapy and genetic manipulation

Everyone is really talking about unknowns; what will happen in the next 10, 20, 30 years. And none of us know (if you do please pm me with some lottery results).

So, then what do we do with this state of uncertainty? If you say 'there will be a cure' what is that doing for you?

Is it making you take more control of your diabetes or is it giving you an out to not really pay attention? If it's more control then great but from what I see a lot the main problem for the newly diagnosed is acceptance of diabetes, accepting that they have it and accepting that they have to deal with it every day for ever. I say 'for ever' because I think that's important; if it's not for ever then you are not really dealing with it; it's just an occasional past time and diabetes as we all know need a lot of attention to get right.

For the record I think what you are calling pessimism is just realism; if you stand on the edge of a cliff and someone says 'you better watch it because if you fall you'll die' would you call them a pessimist?

Best

Dillinger

 

[Spencer67]

maybe all we need now is a political slant on this - such as which party's policies will best support further research? - to really get the fire burning!

I'd vote for her out of the green party but i cant remember her name, my minds drawn a blank.

 

[tim2000s]

So, then what do we do with this state of uncertainty? If you say 'there will be a cure' what is that doing for you?

I'm saying that, on the balance of probabilities, based on the information I can glean from far more sources than I have ever been able to before the internet, that there will be a cure, but I have no idea when it will come, and therefore, I strongly suspect it won't be in my lifetime.

The initial focus will be on the vaccine, which has already undergone some levels of trials and can be given to everyone, both longer term T1s and young kids, and will have variable effects depending on the data that @phoenix posted earlier.

What does it mean to me? Not a lot - I've been diabetic for 26 odd years and I too have heard the claims around "cures", however in that time, medical science and more importantly the genome project have advanced significantly, suggesting there is a much greater probability that something will happen. I can see the path that needs to be trodden, but I personally am unable to drive anything down that path. Were I a billionaire I would invest in this research.

if you stand on the edge of a cliff and someone says 'you better watch it because if you fall you'll die' would you call them a pessimist?

Yes. I would. If I'm standing on the edge of the cliff, I've put myself there deliberately and understand what the chances of me falling are. I therefore think that the chance that I might fall is low and would be focussing on enjoying the view whilst they worried about me falling. And if I fell? Well the cliff got me before the diabetes! And there is always a slim possibility that if I fell, I wouldn't die.

Pessimism/realism might make life easier to bear but it makes it hard to make progress if all you see are the blockers.

 

[BigRedSwitch]

Pessimism/realism might make life easier to bear but it makes it hard to make progress if all you see are the blockers.

That's not really true. I actually find the 'not hoping for a cure as it'll never happen' stance a very liberating outlook. I waste zero brain time (well aside from discussing it on diabetes forums, obv!) thinking about it.

I don't see blockers, as I don't care about a cure.

 

[mangobe]

This conversation is being conducted at very different levels with some informative links to recent research (Thank you @noblehead @phoenix @tim2000s & others), leading to interesting discussions about the potential of different research paths, but where it becomes a contest of value judgements about the 'right' attitude or viewpoint to hold, it's hard to see where this can usefully go.

Just as in disputes between followers of religion and rational humanism, where the religious can't accept humanists' claims that they're happy with their moral precepts & value their own and other lives without any need for a deity, here it seems that no matter how happy you declare yourself with an objective view of the diabetic condition that may include no 'cure' in your lifetime, those who find that very frightening will insist that you are the pessimist, with a sad and cynical view of the future (perhaps projecting their fear onto you), as holding onto faith in a cure gives them comfort they can't imagine doing without. For others notice that simply stating openly that you have no need for that faith is taken to mean you risk destroying others faith! Why and how could politely stating your own viewpoint be so destructive for others with a contrary viewpoint?

I don't think there's much point in restating how liberating and empowering objectivity can be @BigRedSwitch and how positive you feel (every one of your posts that I've read shows an extraordinarily positive attitude!), as those that believe you already do, and those that don't.... won't, no matter what you say or how many times you say it.

Still it's great to hear so many ideas about what lies in the future for us, and no matter how resigned we may be to coping with the condition, this is always going to be a very emotive topic, so it may be inevitable that the most important topics will always be discussed with much strength of opinion and emotion

 

[Scardoc]

Great post! As long as I remember there has always been 'a cure' 10 years away. The problem with that is that if you really believe that then what is the impetus to take control right now? Not much I'd say. Bumble along eat some biscuits, worry about it later, but not much because you'll be cured in a few years.

The first and greatest challenge for any diabetic is accepting that you are a diabetic and that it isn't going to magically disappear. Once you have that then you are in the driving seat.

Best

Dillinger

I can think of a huge amount of different reasons why new diabetics struggle to come to terms with the condition and take a while to accept it. I have never known of, or heard of, anyone who thinks they don't need to worry about it as a cure is going to be found.

The impetus to take control right now is the very fact that, said new diabetic person, is sat in front of a Doctor having just been told that they have diabetes. And, speaking from a T1 point of view, you are now going to the hospital, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

Believing in a cure, prevention or just that the next 10 years will bring magnificent medical advances in no way means that an individual will not take care of themselves in the here and now.

 

[Jaylee]

Its all a bit like getting a lift to work from an unreliable colleague...

He don't show on time so you start walking.. The thoughts while you walk might be "maybe his car broke down?" Maybe he's i'll?"
A few miles down the road "Oh, hang on!!? Is that him??" No. "maybe he won the lottery & thought flippit?" Hold on a second, i see a car ahead parked awkward with hazards on.. On approach "nope NOT him. Looks like a head gasket gone though." Soooo, walking through the works car park bears no fruit either.. He hasn't forgotten...

Point is. i got there kept kept my credibility & got fit in the process...

 

[urbanracer]

Big pharma is not a monolith. It's an ecosystem of competing companies, big and small. Yes, some of them would cannibalise their own revenues with a cure or a vaccine. But others would stand to improve their revenues. And even those most heavily invested in the "carbohydrate-industrial complex" need to worry about what would happen if a rival came up with a cure or a vaccine. So plenty of pharma firms have incentives to work on a cure or vaccine. As do researchers, charities and governments / public health. And there are many promising scientific lines of enquiry to pursue.

Totally agree with your viewpoint. I work in R+D for a company that makes radiotherapy and MRI equipment. There are only 2 major players in the world today and between us we have about 90% market share. We could sit on our hands and maintain the status quo but we are continuously looking to beat the competition and find newer better treatment methods. Of course we are aware that one day gene therapy or Immuno-Oncology may put us out of business but that's not a reason to do nothing.

Carry this thinking through to diabetes and the 2 companies could be compared to Novo and Lilly. New research comes along from JDRF and Merck muscle in and buy the development rights. If Merck are successful with human trials of Smart Insulin they will make a lot of money at the expense of Novo and Lilly, who in turn would be stupid not to respond with new medicines of their own.

Much of the research into these types of conditions comes from universities and junior consultants looking to get their names on published papers purely for the kudos. Of course they make money (or the university does) when they 'stumble across' something important but cash isn't always the main driving force for medical research and if a fix for diabetes (or cancer) is found there will be a company somewhere that will seize on it.