Trials for Type 1 Diabetes Cure

An anonymous reader writes "According to this New York Times article, the pharmaceutical companies and NIH are shunning research for a cure for Type 1 diabetes. There's no money in a cure using medicine with an expired patent. Dr Faustman (researcher/professor at Harvard Medical School) has cured type 1 diabetes in mice and has been approved for Phase 1 clinical trials in humans. The only problem is raising the money, which Lee Iacocca is helping with."

Comments

As a Type 1 Diabetic

[friedegg]

I've been following Dr Faustman's research since I learned of it a couple years ago, and I have a lot of hope that it will work. However, I've also been aware of the fact that if a cure is found, or a cheaper alternative treatment, there will be many obstacles to getting it to us.

Type 1 diabetics are in the minority, but we're still pretty big cash cows for certain companies. Besides the various types of insulin we need to survive, most diabetics that wish to succesfully manage the disease use additional products like disposeable needles, blood glucose meters and strips (big money), insulin pumps, and more. Potentially, it's many thousands of dollars per person per year and not many companies would want to lose that cashflow.

public health care

[BortQ]

I can understand how this could happen in the US. My question is: Why doesn't she go to Canada or somewhere else where the health care system is publicly funded. Is such countries the economic factors greatly favor a cure, rather then ongoing treatments.

Why expect pharmaceutical companies to pay?

[egarland]

Companies are in business to make money. It would be irresponsible for someone at a pharmaceutical company to spend money developing something they couldn't make any money on.

The medical community isn't working in our best interest alone. Scientists work in areas where the best interest of the individual overlaps with the best interest of their employer. There are times when the best interest of the individual does not match up with the best interest of any company and these areas of medicine are horribly neglected (see blueberries vs Lipitor, oxygen therapy vs blood pressure medication, low carb vs the AHA Diet, First Do No Harm). I'm not saying that the doctors are wrong on all these things, I'm saying nobody is putting in the work to check up on them because there's nobody to pay for it.

If the only medical research that gets done is privately funded then the only medical advancements that get made will increase the income of medical companies. If that's the case, the cost of medical care can only go up (unless someone is taking someone else's business but that rarely happens)

I don't think this study is alone. Someone needs to fund this stuff or we'll all be taking out second mortgages because the medical community has convinced us we have to or we'll die.

Re:Why expect pharmaceutical companies to pay?

[CptChipJew]

I think most medical research, at least that which is done by university professors really is in the name of bettering mankind.

And that is the research that the NIH is paying for.

Historically, the pharmaceuticals though get all of the attention because you don't hear about these drugs until they've decided to market them. It's really a shame.

Re:We see true motivation of the big "IP" players

[BillyBlaze]

Government research has this crazy idea that companies won't want something unless they can get an exclusive license to it. So they'll halfway develop something, then start looking for companies, then sign licensing deals with the companies. This is the big problem - if the government develops something, than anybody ought to be able to implement it. If nobody has the balls to perfect the product and bring it to market, then that's their problem.

Re:Much to early for any conclusion

[Otter]

Yeah, I wish these guys luck, but pre-Phase I is nothing. When they get some efficacy in Phase II trials, it'll be time to start beginning to get excited.