• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Why scientists so far can not find a comprehensive solution for diabetes


I have tried to BS T1s, but that is another story and I would not understand the reasons why, just they need insulin to just be able to have nutrition because of the lack of the normal insulin response.
Not a geneticist either!
 
Hence why its been said type2 is progressive. Starting at low effect to high effect.
 
Lamont D said:
I have tried to BS T1s, but that is another story and I would not understand the reasons why, just they need insulin to just be able to have nutrition because of the lack of the normal insulin response.
Not a geneticist either!
Click to expand...
Some type2s are genetically caused but just not all. I suspect same for type1s, but it would be a guess.
 
Hasn't scientists already declared phase 1 and phase 2 insulin need?
 
ickihun said:
Some type2s are genetically caused but just not all. I suspect same for type1s, but it would be a guess.
Click to expand...

I ain't going there!
As always there are variations on a theme, not all of one condition is the same as another, the individuality of my condition, though there are only a few is really surprising. As been said many, many times, it works for me, but not for you!
 
xfieldok said:
Call me cynical, there is no profit in a cure.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree - your comment assumes that 'the cure' would be developed by 1 of the companies that currently produces insulin and they would therefore be curing their own patients.

There is much talk at the moment of a preventative vaccine, and if this was developed and patented by a non-insulin producing company (and I'd go as far as saying that this is actually more likely) said company would be laughing all the way to bank.
 
Governments must avoid patchwork solutions
First, an appropriate vaccination should be found for the Coxsackie virus. Think of making a pancreas implanted inside the body that can make insulin from the body
 
Last edited:
ickihun said:
Because their main interest is not a cure but treatment (commoningly more intelligent insulins and in tablet form). Currently they will be picking dead certs in their gambles of making money. Just til economies settle down.
Click to expand...
Absolutely wonderful comment and realistic thank you very much
 
One of the encouraging things is the sheer diversity of approaches going on out there. There's heck knows how many groups, small, medium and large, some well funded, others underfunded, working away on their own ideas, sometimes sharing with others, sometimes keeping it under wraps, some will be dead ends, some will show more promise.

That mad mix might sound like resources are being wasted by being too thinly spread, and that's true to an extent, but, at the same time, because no one yet knows the answer, there's value in lots of diverse approaches being tried.

If a decision was taken to focus all on a few promising candidates, that smacks too much of a government trying to pick a winner. That never ends well, and risks the chance of missing a minor group coming in from left field with an absolute blinder.

Who would have placed money on Banting doing what he did with insulin? His background as a relatively undistinguished doc didn't suggest it was a good bet, but the rest is history.

It's too easy to say that big pharma is standing in the way of this. I think whether it's big pharma or the cussed guy tinkering in his shed/lab, they'll both want that Nobel Prize.
 
I wonder how much has been snippets from one research or another which formed a final brilliant outcome.
I'm sure these new insulins are only possible because of past discoveries and profit from good sold.
Yes the nhs being overcharged for insulins maybe the money which pays for better insulins? I wouldn't be surprised.
NHS needs their own scientists, don't you think? Any own pharmaceutical section too, well bigger one.
 
Banting was an orthopedic surgeon who must have ventured out of his intellectual silo and I would not have been alive past 1981 had he not been curious enough to pursue his hypothesis. It is exciting to hear all the options e.g. the bcg vaccine for type 1 but I place much more hope in the new tech than in any possibility of revitalising my beta cells after 37 years.
However the discover of insulin was a curse for type 2s in the sense that doctors could speed up the progression of their disease by insulin treatment (akin to giving an alcoholic treatment with vodka IMO). Prior to this diabetes was managed by a low carb diet of necessity but it was a rare disease as far as we know prior to the last 40 years.
In the modern era dietary dogma e.g. diabetics get heart disease so they must eat a low fat and high carb diet has made the likely 'cure' or remission options less attractive or profitable than keeping large volumes of poeple on drugs that do not prevent complications rather than giving them real choices e.g. bariatric surgery, low carb/high fat or fasting options.
 
I feel insulin simply stops doing its job as it loses its power through frequent secretion, as many times as we eat in every 55 minutes interval. Blank out these intervals to just two through fasting, and regain the power of your insulin to do it's job.
 
Scott-C said:
Who would have placed money on Banting doing what he did with insulin? His background as a relatively undistinguished doc didn't suggest it was a good bet, but the rest is history.
Click to expand...

This 'left field blinder' has a lot to answer for! just think if Banting hadn't done what he did (and no one else came up with it either) diabetes would have been a huge killer disease......and it probably put the hunt for a cure back 50-100 years?!? (Todays wacky thought!)
 
What do you mean by 55 minute interval?
 
slip said:
and it probably put the hunt for a cure back 50-100 years?
Click to expand...

At the time, there was some speculation that insulin was a cure - a bit like Faustman and her bcg gig, they thought that if they could get the dosing right it would just vanish altogether.
 
Mr_Pot said:
What do you mean by 55 minute interval?
Click to expand...
Once secreted, insulin won't be secreted for another 55 minutes. Hence to reduce the number of times it secretes, we should eat within the 55 minutes interval from start of the meals. If eating extends beyond, secretion will take place once more. To be safe take it as only 45 minutes.

I have been eating only twice since last 5 months, each time within an interval of 45 minutes. I yake only water otherwise. Reduced carbs to about 50 percent by calories and overall intake to about 1400 calories a day, and lost 13 kg in this period.

My HbA1c dropped to 5.3 from 8 during this period. And medicines got reduced to half. I look forward to complete remission in next few months.
 

Are you under the impression that insulin is secreted only after taking in food?
 
NicoleC1971 said:
Banting was an orthopedic surgeon who must have ventured out of his intellectual silo
Click to expand...

The book Breakthrough...by Thea Cooper is an interesting read on Banting's motivation and background. She had access to original papers so it's fairly solid from a science point of view. She admits to taking a few artistic liberties with a few things re emotions etc in the sense of just making stuff up, but all in all, it's a good insight into the personalities of the main players, made more entertaining by the fact they all f'ing hated each other!
 
HemantG said:
There is some baseline secretion that occurres even without food, and then secretion every time you take food.
Click to expand...

The problem for those of us with T2 (in general) is not with the insulin per se, it is the insulin resistance resulting in hyperinsulinaemia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…