Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Curing Diabetes.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10062
5 Comments
Carl Pham wrote:
It's terrible article, you can tell hardly anything about it. What's this interest in diabetes, anyway? Personal, is it?
Anyway, one gleans that this is an immunological approach, which leads me to the idle comment that it would be good to see immunological approaches to disease receiving the attention they once did, before the advent of chemotherapy in the 1920s through 1940s.
One interesting fact, for example, gleaned from what's his name's book on the great influenza pandemic of 1918 is that the best researcher-physicians, using pure immunological methods (sera and such) achieved the same cure rate for influenza in 1918 as modern hospitals can achieve with antibiotics. That's amazing. Imagine what we could do now, with a rational understanding of the basis for immune response. In 1918 they didn't even know what DNA was for.
Certainly the auto-immune diseases, including diabetes, would benefit from a stronger push into immunology. But also the hypoimmune diseases, like cancer, might well be better served. Surely it would be better to figure out how to turn on the immune system than try to murder cancer cells through chemical agents that -- somehow -- won't hurt your noncancerous cells too much to keep you alive.
Go into immunology, young scientist, if you are reading this.
Rand Simberg wrote:
Personal, is it?
If by that you mean, do I have problems in that regard, no.
But I know many who do, many of whom are close to me.
Stewart wrote:
Diabetes is a spooky disease, with a couple of major types and ghu alone knows how many variations. A slow killer who viciously makes eyesight an early casualty in its conquest of a body. It doesn't take personal involvement, just anyone with empathy to wish for an early and complete eradication of diabetes.
So I hope this one is true, too. Both vaccine and treatment? Too much to hope that retinal damage (say) would be restored-like a limb lost to gangrene, dead tissue; but stopping the depredation in its tracks would be a great place to start!
MattM wrote:
Here is a link to a article with more information describing the research.
Same cure rate as for influenza with antibiotics? Influenza is a virus. Antibiotics are for curing bacterial infections. At best they can help for secondary infections, not the underlying cause.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on August 10, 2008 1:20 PM.
It's terrible article, you can tell hardly anything about it. What's this interest in diabetes, anyway? Personal, is it?
Anyway, one gleans that this is an immunological approach, which leads me to the idle comment that it would be good to see immunological approaches to disease receiving the attention they once did, before the advent of chemotherapy in the 1920s through 1940s.
One interesting fact, for example, gleaned from what's his name's book on the great influenza pandemic of 1918 is that the best researcher-physicians, using pure immunological methods (sera and such) achieved the same cure rate for influenza in 1918 as modern hospitals can achieve with antibiotics. That's amazing. Imagine what we could do now, with a rational understanding of the basis for immune response. In 1918 they didn't even know what DNA was for.
Certainly the auto-immune diseases, including diabetes, would benefit from a stronger push into immunology. But also the hypoimmune diseases, like cancer, might well be better served. Surely it would be better to figure out how to turn on the immune system than try to murder cancer cells through chemical agents that -- somehow -- won't hurt your noncancerous cells too much to keep you alive.
Go into immunology, young scientist, if you are reading this.
Personal, is it?
If by that you mean, do I have problems in that regard, no.
But I know many who do, many of whom are close to me.
Diabetes is a spooky disease, with a couple of major types and ghu alone knows how many variations. A slow killer who viciously makes eyesight an early casualty in its conquest of a body. It doesn't take personal involvement, just anyone with empathy to wish for an early and complete eradication of diabetes.
So I hope this one is true, too. Both vaccine and treatment? Too much to hope that retinal damage (say) would be restored-like a limb lost to gangrene, dead tissue; but stopping the depredation in its tracks would be a great place to start!
Here is a link to a article with more information describing the research.
http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/5068/11951/lettuce-diabetes/
Same cure rate as for influenza with antibiotics? Influenza is a virus. Antibiotics are for curing bacterial infections. At best they can help for secondary infections, not the underlying cause.