Slashdot Mirror

Except for all the existing insulin pumps and existing continuous glucose monitors. Remember that time when a whole town of diabetics died because their insulin pumps... oh wait. That didn't happen. Or that time when a whole town of diabetics died because their CGMs.. oh wait. That didn't happen either. Hmm.

And yet, the FDA has been investigating an unusually high number of insulin pump failures, to the point that 13 recalls have been issued as of 2010. These failure rates were not anticipated during testing, and thus the likely explanation is environmental factors. And then there's people like this woman who has had multiple pump failures... a statistically unlikely event that happened to her twice in short order. And she's not the only one... the internet is filled with stories of people who have had "bad luck" with pumps. This is a strong indicator that environmental factors are in play in pump failures -- and the first one that comes to mind for me is EMI; that's why hospitals ask you to turn off cell phones. They can screwup devices a lot less sensitive than an insulin pump, and they're only pumping out a few hundred mW of RF when active. Airport scanners are several orders of magnitude more than that -- to the point Medtronic tells people not to take them through airport scanners because of the high probability of failure. And those gigawatt radar systems on aircraft carriers? Well... is it really that much of a stretch that if they can cause cable TV blackouts, lock owners out of cars, cause garage doors to randomly open and close... at a distance of over 40 miles... that this is an unlikely scenario? Especially when you consider something like 80% of the US population lives within 50 miles of one of the country's borders -- the majority of which is butted against two oceans?

An insulin pump is NOT implanted inside the user's body

Except when it is, although you might have to live in Europe to get it.

Also, pump's cartridges to hold insulin typically range from 200-300 units. Contrary to the article's claims, this is not 45 days worth!

In an implanted pump, it probably would be a larger supply.

The BBC article also states "Mr Jack said diabetics typically needed a dose of 5-10 units of insulin after a heavy meal to help regulate blood sugar. Making the device empty its cartridge into a host's bloodstream would cause "deep trouble"."

This is very flawed as well. Typically, insulin is taken before a meal whenever possible, and how "heavy" the meal is, is irrelevant. What matters is the user's insulin to carb ratio (how much insulin they need to properly use a gram of carbs) and how many carbs the item they eat contains.

I suspect by "heavy meal" he meant "carb-heavy meal". It might have been clearer had he said "carb-heavy meal", so nobody thought that chowing down, say, a 16-ounce filet would require a large bolus. And, yes, your mileage may vary depending on the insulin/carbs ratio. I'm not sure either of those are severely bad oversimplifications, though.

Also, when a person relies on an insulin pump, they're not just adding insulin to their body during mealtimes, the vast majority will be using it to deliver a "basal" dose of insulin, or a small amount of insulin 24/7 to stay alive (as this is a function normal non-diabetic bodies perform.) They also use it to deliver corrections, or small doses of insulin in response to blood glucose levels that are higher than expected after meals or throughout the day. A pump is not just a device you use after a "heavy meal."

Again, a simplification, but I'm not sure it's a severe oversimplification in an article written for a general audience; it doesn't invalidate the point of the article.

While it is true that an insulin cartridge unwillingly emptied into a patient poses significant danger, even without an alarm, I suspect 99% of people would be able to quickly notice such a large dose of insulin being delivered. You can see and feel insulin being delivered that rapidly. And if they happened to miss it, that's what frequent monitoring of blood glucose (which is required for all insulin pump users) is for. Sure, taking 200-300 units more than you should have would be a world of suck, but if you had access to food to eat or a sweet drink or glucose tablets, it's very likely an experienced diabetic would survive that sort of incident... to say nothing of if the cartridge wasn't full.

Well, for an implanted pump, it could be a lot more than 300 units; how fast it takes action is another matter, so maybe spending a while with your local store's entire supply of orange juice might be sufficient.

If more security were implemented in an insulin pump, there would certainly be no "frequent surgeries to replace the batteries," as the battery is (like the entire pump) stored in an external pump.

Again, not for an implanted pump.

An insulin pump is NOT implanted inside the user's body

Except when it is, although you might have to live in Europe to get it.

Also, pump's cartridges to hold insulin typically range from 200-300 units. Contrary to the article's claims, this is not 45 days worth!

In an implanted pump, it probably would be a larger supply.

The BBC article also states "Mr Jack said diabetics typically needed a dose of 5-10 units of insulin after a heavy meal to help regulate blood sugar. Making the device empty its cartridge into a host's bloodstream would cause "deep trouble"."

This is very flawed as well. Typically, insulin is taken before a meal whenever possible, and how "heavy" the meal is, is irrelevant. What matters is the user's insulin to carb ratio (how much insulin they need to properly use a gram of carbs) and how many carbs the item they eat contains.

I suspect by "heavy meal" he meant "carb-heavy meal". It might have been clearer had he said "carb-heavy meal", so nobody thought that chowing down, say, a 16-ounce filet would require a large bolus. And, yes, your mileage may vary depending on the insulin/carbs ratio. I'm not sure either of those are severely bad oversimplifications, though.

Also, when a person relies on an insulin pump, they're not just adding insulin to their body during mealtimes, the vast majority will be using it to deliver a "basal" dose of insulin, or a small amount of insulin 24/7 to stay alive (as this is a function normal non-diabetic bodies perform.) They also use it to deliver corrections, or small doses of insulin in response to blood glucose levels that are higher than expected after meals or throughout the day. A pump is not just a device you use after a "heavy meal."

Again, a simplification, but I'm not sure it's a severe oversimplification in an article written for a general audience; it doesn't invalidate the point of the article.

While it is true that an insulin cartridge unwillingly emptied into a patient poses significant danger, even without an alarm, I suspect 99% of people would be able to quickly notice such a large dose of insulin being delivered. You can see and feel insulin being delivered that rapidly. And if they happened to miss it, that's what frequent monitoring of blood glucose (which is required for all insulin pump users) is for. Sure, taking 200-300 units more than you should have would be a world of suck, but if you had access to food to eat or a sweet drink or glucose tablets, it's very likely an experienced diabetic would survive that sort of incident... to say nothing of if the cartridge wasn't full.

Well, for an implanted pump, it could be a lot more than 300 units; how fast it takes action is another matter, so maybe spending a while with your local store's entire supply of orange juice might be sufficient.

If more security were implemented in an insulin pump, there would certainly be no "frequent surgeries to replace the batteries," as the battery is (like the entire pump) stored in an external pump.

Again, not for an implanted pump.

Dutch scientists found something similar. They transplanted poo:
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2010/10/19/6914/transplanted-feces-from-thin-people-improve-insulin-sensitivity-in-people-with-pre-diabetes/

Bert

MADD has been successful in pushing state DUI laws to the point where the blood-alcohol limit is so low that it is now possible to test positive for DUI with only a single drink.

Anyway it's a strange view that, if it's in the genes, it's OK, but if it's caused by the environment, it's somehow less real. Would we convert left-handers to right-handers if we found out it's an enviromental factor that determined their chiral preference?

I'd worry; lefties will be a convenient target for genetic screening ... all in the name of better public health, of course.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8216870&dopt=Abstract

Quite the contrary, 36.7% of children of LHI were left-handed, while 7.3% children of RHI happen to be left-handed (P < 0.00025).

Being a lefty is an inherited trait.

http://www.canoe.ca/Health0007/06_hands.html

Study finds gays more likely to be left-handed than straights

...

But exposure to sex hormones and environmental factors such as pollutants and stress during pregnancy can alter the genetic blueprint, contributing to left-handedness.

"There's something that happens early in development that can shift development towards a left-side bias," says Lalumiere.

In turn, those blips may also be a factor in determining homosexuality.

"This study is one more piece of evidence that suggests sexual orientation is at least partly determined in-utero," says Blanchard.

So, whether you're a lefty or gay or both, you can say you were born that way.

Other risk factors of being left-handed include being more likely to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder http://www.acpmh.unimelb.edu.au/research/summary20 03.html

n a provocative preliminary study, Chemtob et al. hypothesized that deviations from normal hemispheric dominance may increase risk (Chemtob & Taylor, 2003). They examined hand preference in 118 right-handed male veterans. PTSD prevalence was lowest for respondents reporting a consistent hand preference and right handed parents (44%) and highest for those reporting both mixed laterality and a left handed parent (100%). Moderately high PTSD rates were observed in veterans reporting either a mixed lateral preference or left handed parent (70%). These findings suggest that an imbalance in hemispheric dominance for processing threatening and/or emotional information may increase vulnerability to PTSD following trauma.

- Chemtob, C. M., & Taylor, K. B. (2003). Mixed lateral preference and parental left-handedness possible markers of risk for PTSD. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191(5), 332-338.

Higher risk of schizophrenia if you're a leftie ...http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/00 2346.html

When this was noted in the data, it was found that they had higher STA scores than those who had not been forced to switch. Also it was found that "males who were non-right handers, and who presumably had mixed-handedness, having significantly higher STA scores than full right-handers" (PsychiatryMatters.MD).

These results support the claim that left-handedness and being ambidextrous was a risk factor for schizophrenia symtoms.

Diabetes: http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read,1009,2592.html

Our results: people with diabetes are three times more likely to be left-handed than the general population.

Other connections:

Research along the same lines (averting rejection of foreign islets)... http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read,1024,3456.html


In another study, researchers in Mexico transplanted cells from the testes and pancreas of newborn piglets into teenagers with diabetes without having to use anti-rejection drugs.

Dr. Rafael Valdes, MD, and colleagues from the Children's Hospital of Mexico in Mexico City transplanted encapsulated islets that were taken from customized, disease-free piglets. The islets, produced by Diatranz of Aukland, New Zealand, are protected with an alginate coating. Researchers transplanted the islets into 12 teens aged 10 to 15 who had had type 1 diabetes for at least three years. According to Dr. Valdes, who announced the results of the study at the International Xenotransplantation Association Congress in Chicago this October, two of the teens recovered completely from diabetes, three lowered their need for insulin by more than 40 percent and the other teens improved slightly.