Slashdot Mirror
Growing Insulin
McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to turn genetically modified safflower oil into human insulin in commercial quantities. The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%. 'SemBioSys says it can make more than one kilogram of human insulin per acre of safflower production. That amount could treat 2,500 diabetic patients for one year and, in turn, meet the world's total projected insulin demand in 2010 with less than 16,000 acres of safflower production.'"
Now I am freaking out about the plant matter...
Make the world better. Quit hating.
As a type 1, insulin dependent, diabetic, I really don't care. I want a cure. I don't want more externally produced insulin, I want to make it myself again.
on how many diabetics are *produced* from an acre of sugar cane or corn used to make corn syrup. Just so we can see if it all balances out.....
As a nurse, with a specialization in diabetic care, I am always chomping at the bit for new technology with diabetes. It is sad that so many cases go untreated, ending in loss of limbs, eyesight and so much more. In the end, taxpayers get hit with the brunt of the bill, because the majority of those who do not treat their diabetes neglect to do so out of financial inability.
For there to be a light at the end of this proverbial tunnel is amazing news. Let's hope that this continues to be researched, tried and brought to the general population with as little convolusion from outside sources as possible.
Sadly, medicine is still business first and foremost. Some drug company will make a mint from this. Let's hope that someone somewhere has a conscience that won't allow them to make this treatment as financially restrictive as most everything else is.
what they NEED to work on is the way the body builds a tollerance to the insulin. After 20 years of using it, my dosages are up sixfold. if they crack the nut that stops the body from building up a tollerance to the insulin over time, they wont need to worry about diminished stock levels!
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
I'm going back to silk flowers...
As a type II, non-insulin dependent (yet) diabetic, I for one welcome our new safflower overlords.
What was once true, is no longer so
Uh, acres aren't metric.
1 acre = 4046.85642 m^2
Is fermentation that much more high tech than farming? You still have to get the purified insulin in a sterile delivery system. Will grinding up the plants be that much cheaper than the fermentation processes?
Meet the world's insulin consumption in 2010?
In other news, pharmacutical companies are beginning to persuade food companies to put MORE SUGAR into foods....
...implant the insulin-producing gene into Cannabis sativa L., there would be a product. Can I have some ice cream?
What's making them become diabetic is:
Seriously, if you start checking the ingredients in the food you buy, you'll notice that everything has sugar in it. Even things that should not. This article sums it up nicely.
Got MILF? It does a body good!
Wow that's great and all but another type 1 here...I don't care where the insulin is coming from if it's not coming from ME. This is like our gas problems, why work on getting more gas when we could be working on not needing it at all? I'd rather see work done on a cure than temporary relief.
Bring on the High-Fructose Corn Syrup. Drink more Dew. Drink more Sprite. Obey your thirst. Feed your kids drinks with less than 100% fruit juice.
Tongue in cheak of course.
Almost reminds you of the idea people have with introducing insects into non-native environments and the bug turns out to be hostile so they introduce a second bug to kill the first, but which turns out to be worse than the first.
Certainly like GM food, GM plant for medicine production is a great advancement. I just worry about these things getting into the wild, since the GM companies have had such a devil may care attitude in the past. Despite the statement of work for the public good, profits never seem to be cut in a effort to make the product safer, or the distribution widespread.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Not much technical detail at all in the article, but from previous articles on splicing human genes into animals and plants, I gather that the real advantage of this technique is that, if it's done right, the plant or animal concentrates the product in one place for you (the seeds, in this case).
Compared to a big churning vat of E. Coli, their food, and their waste products, it's easier to use something like an impeller or centrifuge to separate out bulk quantities of insulin-laced oil from a plant, and then purify it from there.
Also, those same fermenters that are growing insulin currently are also a great breeding ground for other bacteria, molds, and yeasts in the environment. I'm given to understand that keeping unwanted organisms out of the vats is part of what makes the process difficult and expensive. A single bacterium or wild yeast spore that gets into a fermenter can ruin the whole batch.
The macroscopic plants are a much more robust system - they can still get sick of course, but it's fairly easy to keep plants healthy. And even given that you can't spray these plants willy-nilly with pesticides, organic farmers get pretty good yields on most products with just natural controls.
Just wanted to point out that sugar (or too much sugar that is) is a contributing factor for the less serious Type II Diabetes, but the more serious Type 1 or Juvenile Diabetes is not caused by too much sugar, and some may take offense at the suggestion that they brought such a terrible disease upon themselves, especially when many develop the disease as young children.
For the case of Type I insulin-dependent diabetics which are the primary group this technology advance would benefit: None
There are two main types of diabetes (with a couple of oddball variants that are rare, diabetes mellitus describes the final symptom of elevated bloodsugar, there are a few possible root causes of that symptom, which determine the type). Type I is known as insulin-dependent or juvenile diabetes (because it is rarely diagnosed past the age of 20). It is caused by the immune system attacking the beta cells of the pancreas. Eventually all beta cells die and the body can no longer produce any insulin, so it must be provided from an external source. Type I is generally considered to be the "severe" form of diabetes because of this fact. Prior to the discovery of insulin, average life expectancy after diagnosis was 1-2 years, and the disease killed younger children faster than teenagers. Oh, it was a rather slow, painful, and unpleasant death too. Essentially no matter how much you ate and drank, your body would slowly dehydrate and starve.
Type II is usually referred to simply as adult-onset diabetes, because until recently, it has been unheard of for young people to develop it. (A high prevalence of childhood obesity is changing this). In Type II diabetes, the body does produce insulin, but for various reasons it is not enough, whether it is due to reduced capacity or increased demands beyond normal capacity, or a combination of both. Most of the time, once diagnosed, Type II diabetes can be managed solely with oral medication which increases the body's sensitivity to the insulin it does produce, and in many cases controlled solely with diet and exercise. (Losing weight can often cause Type II diabetes to disappear.) It is extremely rare for Type II to require external insulin rejections. Interestingly enough, while Type II is less "severe", this very fact makes it far more dangerous because it frequently goes undiagnosed for long periods of time, and the elevated bloodsugars do damage to various parts of the body.
This is definately an interesting development, but how will this company deal with patented "designer" insulins such as Lantus (from Aventis Pharmaceutical, a special "peakless" insulin used to provide a long-acting baseline insulin dose), and Novolog/Humalog, two "extremely rapid acting" insulins that actually take effect FASTER than injecting normal human insulin. FYI, "human insulin" is insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria that is identical to human insulin, it is NOT extracted from humans, unlike pork and beef insulins which were extracted from the pancreases of pigs and cows respectively. While I'm sure their technology will work with Lantus and Humalog/Novolog, I don't know how the companies that produce the above three will react to this. Most likely they'll license the technology from this new company (if it works) or vice versa... I hope so.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
thats what i want to grow on my little spread.
Too much ignorance in this thread. Diabetes is one of the most misunderstood diseases in existence.
Oh, you want to be cured?
Well, by banning the public funding of stem cell research today, George Bush has helped you towards the cure! His great deeds are hastening the Rapture, when the good people (those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord) will be cured.
Got it?
Good.
A Nerd Looks At Politics www.blueworksbetter.com
The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%.
And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.
about the 2000 election eh?
I had to start watching my sugar last month after my yearly blood work showed elevated blood sugar. Funny......it use to only take me 15-20 minutes to buy groceries.......did anyone know they have these neat things on products called nutrition labels? LOL..... Seriously.....since I started reading the labels for sugar content, it amazes me how many products have HFCS (high frutose corn sweetner). It doesn't matter what you eat anymore, almost everything has HFCS. Heck, I even heard that some fast food places put sugar in the french fries when they cook them. No wonder everyone is getting screwed up. Too much sugar. I've cut out all white bread of any kind, sugar soft drinks, chips, pasta, rice just about anything you can think of that has sugar. Once a week a bunch of buddies of mine get together at a pizza place for lunch, I only take a couple slices of pizza, and even that I scrap the good stuff off, eat it and leave the crust......
Are you?
A Nerd Looks At Politics www.blueworksbetter.com
...Wow, at long last, something innovative, good and useful from Canada. One wonders why this member of the G8 has no "name brand" product associated with it. All othe G8 members have something. Will it be this insulin stuff? Hope so.
Just TRY finding a soda that doesn't contain it in the US - the only ones I've found are the Italian fruit sodas at Target. And I've found only one brand of bread that's baked sans HFCS - and it's $3/loaf.
You are correct that the diabetes cases which are caused or exacerbated by HFCS are not the same insulin-dependent cases. That doesn't make me hate the corn lobby any less.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
Someone please fix the description to read "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to express human insulin in genetically-modified safflower in a manner that yields commercial quantities." Getting a protein expressed in another organism is trivial compared to the chemistry involved in converting oils harvested from a plant into polypeptide chains. You can do it, but usually it involves cells.
Why do we need bio-technology, when we already HAVE plant insulin. Unless you can consume the seeds by mouth, I don't see how this is a useful advance. Human insulin from plants means if you plant the seed it will be part human, that freaks me the hell out, how about you?
At the same time, I understand the wisdom in creating hybrids, but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
If our goal is to mix human genes as an experiment, lets use primates, lets create a bigfoot in a lab, lets mix human genes in dogs, or cats even, but why the hell in a plant? I'd love to be able to talk to my dog or cat, but why a plant?
No, it's not. If it's not right, then by one system of logic, humans and animals shouldn't eat plants, humans shouldn't grow plants as food, and plants shouldn't be used as decoration.
How exactly is it in any way obvious?
I think anyone can see, that humans and plants arent designed to be matched up. Sure you can genetically engineer it, you can do anything, but why pick a plant? It's a useless function. Tell me the real reason anyone would choose a plant even for a genetic experiment? Why do we want to pollute the ecosphere? We cannot get another ecosphere, and while I know some experiments are important, why sunflower seeds ,and why human genes in sunflower seeds? We could be making food more nutritious and healthy, but instead we are working on putting human insulin in it, I think you can see why this seems a bit odd. In fact I cannot see how it can be a positive experiment in any way for anyone.
as a type 1 diabetic it amazes me that there isn't a generic insulin yet. Synthetic insulin has been around for how long now? Luckily I have insurance that covers pretty much anything I need minus a small co-pay, but I know the supplies I need costs my insurance company hundreds a month. You would think insulin and test strips could be made on the cheap by now. I guess its way too profitable for that.
Check out joinleenow.org - they need $11 million (they have $9 million so far) to test a possible treatment and cure using BCG, which I think costs $11 a vial. It amazes me how little support they're getting (maby because it could cure/treat diabetes on the cheap?). So far they have reversed 90% of type 1 diabetic mice.
It's not like all medicine has to be done in the for profit drug industry. Set up a non profit, donate money, hire your scientists personally, and cure insulin resistance.
Actually there are vitamins which work right now, the problem is, the drug companies do not like the supplement companies. Ultimately however, insulin production and diabetes may already be cured as we speak, the problem is, even if it is cured, none of us have access to the treatment. It is possible to regenerate beta cells. It is also possible to make insulin more efficient. The body is controlled easily, and the cure for diabetes could be introduced via a virus as a genetic medicine. The cure exists, it's out there, and it's most likely going to remain surpressed because you are right, cures arent only less profitable, but drug companies have more control over you in general if you need certain drugs than if you are drug free. You just have to cure it yourself, or figure out how, and if you do find a cure or a doctor or scientist who can cure it, it's most likely going to be a black market affair.
People who think Stem Cell research will cure anything, maybe in 50-100 years if theres an earth left. Stem Cell research is important, because it's important to study the human body, but don't expect a miracle cure from stem cel research, it's at the same level that AI is at in terms of quality.
Yes I think we should be spending a fortune on it, yes I do think it will solve most of our problems and cure most of our diseases in the long term. The problem we face is lasting long enough as a species to research stem cells, so while I respect the stem cell point of view, we must take into account that technology for the sake of technology does nothing to change the future, and seriously, curing diseases is the furthest thing from most peoples minds right now. Stem Cell research is important, but curing diabetes? I wish.
Your opposition to genetically modified foods is about as rational, as George Bush's infamouse dislike for using stem-cells derived from embrios in research.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Corn Syrup will be much much sweeter when we genetically engineer it. Just wait, it will be x1000 sweeter and more syrupy. Mmm Syrupy Syrup! We humans were designed like flies, it's in our genes.
I'm getting a little tired of the demonization of high fructose corn syrup as some sort of poison on the country. There's nothing inherently wrong with HFCS, it's nearly identical to table sugar. The problem of obesity is one of people eating to many calories, and gaining weight. It's funny that the article you link to talks just as much about eating sugar as it does eating HFCS, but yet the demon is HFCS, not table sugar.
Do you actually have any evidence that HFCS is directly causing obesity, and not just simply eating too much? Why not pick out potatoes as a food and distinguish people that eat too much of it over people who don't? Then it's potatoes that are the problem.
I hear people going nuts because there's HFCS in bread.. but somehow sugar in bread is better. Oh, and honey in bread would be best of all because it's "natural". It's funny that HFCS and honey are very similar chemically though. Both contain a similar ratio of fructose to glucose.
AccountKiller
Just because everything has sugar in it, doesnt mean it's always the same sugar. We went from cane sugar, to beet sugar, to corn syrup, to high fructose corn syrup, and eventually genetically modified high fructose corn syrup, so in theory it might not even be corn syrup anymore.
Genetically engineered food, is it safe? I wouldnt be surprised if it caused diabetes. My advice, don't eat so much corn. If you must deal with corn, use ethanol.
And did you know you've already most likely consumed genetically modified food as well? Did you know that not only does everything have high fructose corn syrup, but almost everything has dextrose, maltidextrin, corn syrup, and many other chemicals?
Let's just say the food is dirty. Consume it at your own risk, it's like with tabacco.
but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
There's no such thing as a "plant gene" or an "animal gene". It's like saying that taking a spring from a car and putting it in a bicycle makes the bicycle somehow car-like. Sure, if you took an entire engine along with a transmission and fastened it onto a bike that might make the bicycle "car-like", but that's not what we're talking about here. Genes are just building blocks, and assigning plantness or animalness to them doesn't make any sense.
AccountKiller
What if your pancrease gets hacked? This is as silly as an artificial heart.
Yes obesity is caused by genes. So why don't we change the genetics to make it so people can't become insulin resistant? Why isnt the Corn Syrup industry paying to cure insulin resistance? It's good for their business if people can keep buying high fructose corn syrup, and people will buy less when they go diabetic, so whats your point? If you work for the corn syrup lobby it's in your best interest to cure diabetes so you can sell more corn syrup drinks to kids. Coke should be funding the cure for diabetes simply because it makes business sense, but they arent, just like big tabacco does not want to cure lung cancer.
Each human does not have exactly the same genes, each animal does not have exactly the same genes, and the genes in a plant are VASTLY VASTLY different from the genes in a human. A plant grows from the damn ground and eats sunlight, tell me how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant. Even if humans share a few genes with a plant, we don't share insulin genes with plants, we don't share brain and heart genes with plants, these genes are so specific to humans that plants can't use human insulin, well I guess now they can.
What purpose does genetically modified "food" serve? You seem to think no ethics at all apply to food, but I'm not about to support more dangerous food. Food is dangerous enough. It's got nothing to do with Bush and stem cell research, research is just fine, we are talking about the eco-system here when we discuss food, every human must eat, and not all humans, and not all animals, want to eat scientifically manipulated food. It should be our choice.
Human insulin from plants means if you plant the seed it will be part human, that freaks me the hell out, how about you?
Yeah, and the genomes of mice and mankind are about 40% the same. You're 40% rat, buddy, does that also freak you out?
i find it odd that there is so much demonizing of sugar, as it essentially the #1 source of energy for the human energy cycle.. in fact, the brain simply cannot function without rather a lot of it in the diet. its the reason we crave fruits and sweet things, because we instinctively know what is good for us, especially our sugar-hungry brains.. someone without sugar will actually perform far below the levels of someone with sugar rich diet, mentally and physically. the problem of course is overcomsumption, but that is easily avoided by simply cutting down on sugary drinks and desserts. by simply replacing soda drinks with water and skipping dessert (or smaller dessert portions) you will be at a perfectly safe level of sugar intake.
.. just sugar. there is no 'safe' sugar, its all the same.. honey, cane sugar, beet sugar, all are consumed by the body in the same fashion.
also, high fructose corn syrup is
Our late cat's insulin had to live in the refrigerator and even with that would lose some potency on a time frame of months.
Presumably Eli Lilly extracts insulin from the E. Coli vats on a fairly quick time scale.
So how is the insulin in these safflower plants supposed to survive a growing season outdoors?
I'll let someone else make the "well, they're in Canada" joke.
It was a dumfuk title, indeed.
But you mention:
the chemistry involved in converting oils harvested from a plant into polypeptide chains
I don't there is any such chemistry. I don't think the most brilliant chemist could synthesize a protein from an oil. Where would he get all the nitrogen atoms, for example?
Bake your own.
The sugar used to make bread is eaten by the yeast and turned into air bubbles while it rises before baking. Of course, the starch in the bread turns quickly into sugar when you eat it.
well, I should have used preview instead?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
This is great news, really. Being a diabetc myself, i would love to see the costs of 24h-effective insulin decrease - in my country, that stuff costs 100$ per 3ml cartridge, and you need to file tons of forms to get it covered by public healthcare. The rejection rates are pretty high, which is a shame since it makes our life way easier (flexible meal times, eat what you want when you want, stuff like that).
and more worried about the fanatics who go out of their way to stop genetic engineering, even on plants. No matter the benefit to man these nature nazis will destory, impede, and otherwise FUD even the most beneficial discovery.
Drug companies will use this if their costs are lower and the chance for profit remains the same. I do have a question, why shouldn't the drug companies make money from something they work to create?
If it was so damn important for a government to step in a take the work of a private corporation for the "public good" which many people love to claim then why wasn't the government involved in the first place?
Corporations may be evil in some people's books but they are one of the best ways to focus the abilities of many individuals to the betterment of society. If someone must make a profit while improving society I say "more money to them".
Improving life isn't free, we are just lucky the cost is only money.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055894/
Twice!:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091419/
I'm just here to regulate Funkyness
At the same time, I understand the wisdom in creating hybrids, but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
It isn't obvious to me. I'm no geneticist, so please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know that there's any stark dividing line between what is a "plant" gene and what is an "animal" gene. From my understanding, bunches of my genetic code is actually viral in origin - neither plant NOR animal, nor, strictly speaking, even alive.
If you're saying it's obviously wrong from a moral perspective, I'll likewise have to admit that it isn't obvious. I'm not a religious person, but I'm certainly not some sort of amoral monster, but I just don't see anything wrong with the notion of mixing (if they even exist) "plant" genes and "animal" genes, especially if something very useful comes out of the mix and harms no one. Actually, it seems like it would be wrong to _not_ do it if it helps some and harms none.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
And why is it right? It may be obvious to you, but please spell it out to me. It's like saying that "homosexualtiy is obviously not right" - it means nothing except "I don't like it, and I feel self-righteous about that".
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
There are multiple cures already available, but they haven't been widely performed for numerous reasons. Pancreas transplants are considered too risky to do unless there is already a major operation (such as kidney transplant) required. Islet cell replacement required cells from aborted foetuses, last I heard.
I understand that each group of researchers will have their own specialisations, and that not everyone COULD work on a cure, even if there was no need for improved/cheaper insulin (which there is). I heartily agree with the grandparent poster though; insulin is a poor substitute for a normal life, and a cure would be MUCH better, so it would be nice to see the main focus going on that. The medical fees that entire nations pay for insulin, needles, swabs, glucometers, diagnostics strips, tablets, etc. -- often four or more of most of these things per day, per patient, at £0.50 per diagnostic strip alone, must make up a pretty large profit for medical companies. I really don't mean to accuse people of being motivated by money, but I do often wonder if this doesn't sometimes subtly cloud their sense of what's really best for the sufferers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_pump
They're not talking about an implanted pump. Insulin pumps are available today. Also available today, although not-quite-ready-for-prime-time, are continuous blood glucose monitoring systems -- instead of spot-checking six times a day, the CGMSen check constantly (well, every 10 minutes or so).
The current research is all about connecting the CGMS to the (external, clipped to your belt, looks like a pager) insulin pump.
This is nothing like an artificial heart.
More like increases profit by 40%...
It's in Leviticus: "A restriction enzyme that touches a plant chromosome shall not touch an animal chromosome, lest there be an abomination." You can't argue with a commandment like that. Why do you hate G-d?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
This adds whole new meaning to: Terror Alert Level ORANGE
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Worldwide demand for insulin is forecast to soar to 16,000 kg by 2010, from an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 kg last year, because more people are developing the disease and are being diagnosed earlier in their lives
The increase in diabetes has been linked to obesity. It frustrates me that we put so much research and money into treating the symptoms and not the source. I admit it seems like a hard sell to convince people to become healthier, but I believe if there was a large ad campaign, discounts for healthy food, subsidized health clubs, and other incentives to live healthily more people would live healthier lives. It is almost always cheaper to spend money on prevention rather than a cure.
Hobby Robotics
Consuming large amounts of any sugar is bad. High consumption of cane-sweetened sodas isn't going to be any better for you.
The real issue with HFCS is that it doesn't taste as good as sugar cane sugar and wouldn't be cheaper without tariffs and subsidies.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Like someone else said, diet sodas don't contain HFCS (though most create a whole different health issue by containing aspartame - exceptions that use sucralose include Diet RC, Diet Rite, Diet 7UP, and Pepsi One). Regular Coke is made with sucrose instead (not that it's much better for you). Remember New Coke? That was their attempt to switch to HFCS and it failed. Companies like to use HFCS because it's cheaper than sucrose. All non-diet Pepsi-brand sodas are made with it.
^X^S ^X^C
***"Well, by banning the public funding of stem cell research today, George Bush has helped you towards the cure! His great deeds are hastening the Rapture, when the good people (those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord) will be cured."***
Mods, how the hell did that rate an "insightful"? Its off topic at best, and more probably flamebait. So I'm going to flame it, especially since I have relatives that are directly affected by the research in question and the disease in the topic (Diabetes).
Stop with the political BULLSHIT! You Bush-bashers are getting as bad as the Bible thumpers that voted for him.
There has been no embrionic stem cell research that has shown hope for diabetes. Or much anything else for that matter - there have been severe complications in damn near everything done with embryonic stem cells. They simply are not panning out - indeed the most promising results ended up being a hoaxed/forged set of results over in Korea. Nothing else substantial has come of this. Thats why the Feds shoudl nto be funding it - there are better areas of stem cell research to put tax money on.
The federal government is wasing money to fund crap like the embryonic research when it should be going to the more mainstream R&D lines. And as far ast stem cells go, the best stuff I've read about or head of is coming from R&D with marrow stem cells or placental-cord cells.
But political assholes like you would rather get an issue to beat up the fundies with than to work toward the best probable set of solutions.
If somone wants to do embryonic stem cell research, thats fine by me - let them fund it themselves. Nothing stopping them at all.
But put the Fed money to work where it shows the most promise - and that most definitely is *not* embryonic stem cells. So stop using stem cells as a political football.
Bush is doing the right thing with his veto. Its questionable on the reasons he is putting forth, but good in the end results. Like a stopped clock, his hands this time are aligning with the right things. Let some time pass and I'm sure you can find somethign legitimate to beat him up over. But get your politics out of the funding questions.
Not everyone opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is an anti-abortion activist, there are good reasons to oppose the funding (but not the research if thats where people want to waste their own money).
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
You obviously know nothing about genetics or genetic engineering for that matter. Have fun with your uneducated opinions :]
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Honey over HCFS is just stupid. Table sugar is not identical. It will be digested into a similar mixture after passing the stomach, but the uptake profile will be quite different because of this. It's like saying that starch and glucose are the same, after all, it's just some water molecules gone missing/added.
What is making more people diabetic is the fact that the AMA moved the bar as to the definition of Diabetic. Didn't you pay attention to the material in the "intro to diabetis" class that you got after being diagnosed?
There are no more diabetics than there ever were, it is just tht the AMA now determines that many people that were "normal" before, are now "diabetic".
As for this particular article. Yes, it is nice to see the cost come down, but it isn't a cure. And it doesn't stop the complications. I know what they look like, as I watched my mother get them all, over the 45 years she battled the desease.
And you think insulin is hard to live with, well Byetta is even harder to store, which is the new drug of choice for those that are not yet insulin dependant. Eli Lily has already admitted a short term shortage of this drug, as they ramp up production.
Stem cell research has nothing to do with a cure either, as they have already demonstrated cures with several different technologies. They just have to ramp them up to full human testing.
Type I diabetis causes have nothign to do with sugar. Surveys have found that the type I diabetic has a trauma to the system before onset. My mother had German Measles, for example. My brother had Graves desease. Type I is not caused by "eating too much sugar". This is only the opinon of the truely ignorant.
Type II is not about sugar to a lesser extent.
The increase is caused by the AMA lowering the numbers of what they consider diabetic. So what were "normal" people are now diabetic. There is NO increase in diabetics.
And no, changing your diet does not prevent the desease. Insulin is mostly for type I diabetics, whom aquire the desease after a trauma to the system, like German Measles did for my mom, GRaves desease did for my brother.
Try looking intot he facts before you spout off garbage.
Oh, and bother actually reading my post. I already SAID that type 1 was not about sugar - but that Type II is.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
Fair enough, you are right about the diet ones. I had already excluded those in my mind due to the health effects of the synthetic sweeteners. I don't see them as a viable alternative to standard sodas.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
Can we consider this to be some real-life version of LCL ? Ha, take that you Evangelion ridiculing people! ;-)
Sorry, but HFCS are table sugar are (as I said) nearly identical. Table sugar is sucrose and glucose bonded together (the body easily breaks them into seperate sucrose and glucose molecules). HFCS is free sucrose and glucose .
As for the "uptake profile" being different, got any evidence for that? If it is different, got any evidence that this contributes to obesity and diabetes? If so, how much?
There's a propensity to demonize certain foods, while completely ignoring other foods that are just as bad. It was the same thing many years ago with butter being BAD BAD BAD, but little mention of margarine. So many people switched to margarine even though it had just as much saturated fat. Later on we learn that the trans-fat in many margarines is actually much worse than saturated fat (studies have concluded that trans-fat lowers HDL, or good cholesterol). So the switch to margarine was actually the worst thing people could do.
AccountKiller
I know we share a lot of genes with monkeys and mice. This is plain obvious. However that 1% difference between humans, monkeys or mice, is so vast that look at where we are and look at them. I don't know where we came from, but at some point in evolution, we divided, some of us became monkeys, some of us became human, and the humans then divided between neanderthal and the current. Let's say neanderthal mated with the advanced human, the result would be what we have now.
Do we want evolution to continue? If we do, we need as much genetic diversity as possible. The problem is, too many people mate with their cousins, and while I have no problem with this on the small scale, on the large scale I think you can see that these practices on a long term basis can slow evolution down.
I'm not saying we don't share any genes with plants, we share plenty. All living creatures are relatives, all humans are relative, you are my relative and I'm yours, and genetics prove this, but my question is why do these experiments on plants and not primates?
The worry is, it's electronic, it's not the type of device you can depend on with your life. No electronic device is reliable to that level. Sure if you have no other choice but if you have a choice you wont choose this.
The only firmly known correlations to development of Type II diabetes are genetics and obesity. So far nobody that I know of has indicated even a correlation between sugar intake and development of diabetes, much less any indication whatsoever of causation.
What you say IS funny, but it frustrates me that so many people assume high-sugar and high-carb diets necessarily lead to diabetes, when there's some evidence that a high-cholesterol diet (as typically seen with low-carb, high-protein diets where the protein is largely meat) *might* be correlated with development of Type II.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
We don't know the long term risks to the eco-system. How will our genetic gaming influence the future evolution of these new lifeforms we are creating in labs?
It alters the entire ecology of the earth. We've already created killer bees, whats next? Smart plants?
Just because you can do something doesnt mean what you do has no cost to many other species of life. How will these new plants influence the original species? Don't we even take into account that someday these new plants might be the only plants left on earth?
And thats the point. It's not a matter of how much science of the genetics you know, if you have no long term view of what you are doing to the earths ecosystem.
Anyone can be a geneticist and work on this in a lab, anyone from a completely insane person, to a sane person, from a nice person to a mean person, anyone. To think that we can have research without any form of ethical caution or review is ridiculous. We need to actually think about what we are doing here, otherwise we don't know the results of what we are creating. There is a very good chance that once these new plants leave the lab they may replace the original species of plants, and how exactly is this good? Not to mention, other plants may be genetically engineered, so I hope no one here smokes marijuana or tabacco.
I'm fine with genetic engineering, I just think we have to be very careful to consider the side effects it will have to the eco-system. There are many animals that exist in a fragile web of life that will die off because of this genetic engineering, there are many insects, and many lifeforms that will be directly influenced. Can we agree to consider the impact our actions cause to everyone/everything else?
Niggle: champing at the bit.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Also, considering that only 5-10% of all diabetics are Type 1, wouldn't you think that the focus would be more on Type 2's?
I'm not bitter, I'm just unsweetened.
There would be even more concern if this were a crop with a higher level of human daily consumption. Wouldn't it be great if for instance we created a bunch of people resistent to a treatment because they ate bread made from wheat in a region tainted by genetically manipulated crops grown by/for a pharmicutical company?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Actually, per my endocrinologist team, a good 40% of all Type II diabetics are controlled with insulin. So "extremely rare" is a mis-statement. Up until this year, my parents, as well as myself, were all managed with insulin to control our Type II diabetes.
My own regimen consisted of: Actos (insulin sensitizer), Glucovance (Metformin/Glyburide combo drug), Glucophage XR (extended release Metformin), and 70/30 insulin (started at 14u 2x/day, was down to 10u 2x/day). Currently, I take about 750mg more of Metformin, than is considered the "maximum dosage"--luckily I tolerate it fairly well.
Now I'm on all of that still (except the insulin), and Byetta, 10mcg 2x/day. Now, I'm finally losing weight (after a month & a half on it, I've lost over 10 pounds), and my blood sugars are superb. I'm dealing with the more unpleasant side effects of the Byetta--but gladly. I can deal with having to take dramamine and immodium before bedtime--it's a temporary solution. Once the weight is down enough, I will be off the Byetta, and the majority of those oral meds listed above.
And they're coming out with a drug, based on the same gila monster saliva as Byetta, which helps Type I's produce their own insulin again, thus reducing their need for external insulin. That is an amazing thing, in my book. Now, whether those beta cells will continue to produce insulin on their own, is another thing.
Lucky for me I always have Emergency Pants!
I imagine the hostitlity to HFCS is actually due to overconsumption of sweetened foods. Someone must've pointed out that if you're eating a pound of HFCS a week, you'd be better off eating a pound of table sugar instead, ignoring the fact that you shouldn't be eating a pound of either each week. So, in other words, these are the same people that ignore the fact that people consume too many calories and expend too few calories, and instead focus on where they're getting their calories from.
Anyway, I didn't know HFCS was demonized by the far left. The only complaint I've heard about it are pro-globalization who complain HFCS wouldn't exist without US farm subsidies. And people like me who think HFCS tastes like ass compared to table sugar.
They're two totally different diseases with two totally different causes. Type 1 is an autoimmune disorder which sees the body attack its own insulin producing cells. Once most of these are killed off, the body can't supply enough insulin for itself leading to hyperglycemia and death. It has nothing to do with diet, and there are world class athletes (including Olympians) that have it.
You make some valid points, but you also said "but how is that good", regarding gene escape. While I agree we should avoid it, not knowing the consequences, it's actually a rather naive assumption IMO that there can only be negative consequences to that, and not neutral or good. It's all about imagination. And I don't see your point about smoking tobacco or marijuana (although I smoke neither), other than it's icky to smoke GM dope.
It fills the hungry stomachs, thanks to much higher yields. It makes food abundant, allowing people to spend less (or no) time worrying about it. Heck, some people — like yourself — grow up not realizing, the problem ever existed!
There is zero (nada) evidence of any danger. At least, Bush's objections to using an embrio's cells are ethical (his kind views embrios as human beings). You have no grounds whatsoever. People have been developing different kinds of crops and animals for as long as we have been raising them. There are cows of a milk-producing variety and those, that provide better meat (and more of it), for example. Heck, we've even done it to dogs (pun intended) breeding different kinds for hunting, amusement, and other duties.
"GM" simply does it much quicker — and much better.
I'm glad, you weren't around, when agriculture was invented. Surely, we would've seen you protesting against the early farms. Building a dam for irrigation?! Forget it — think of the eco-system!
Excellent point (except for the animals — that was just dumb of you, sorry). There should be choice, and there is. That was not my point — nowhere in my posting (GP) do I insist, there should be no other food, but genetically-modified.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I hope you know there is Mad Cow disease because of what we did to cows. Once and for all, I'm not against genetic modification, I just think it has nothing to do with making the food produce more yield. That makes no business sense. Farmers want to make money, thats it.
People are starving not because theres a shortage of food, there was never a global shortage of food, theres a shortage of water before theres a shortage of food. The water in some countries is dirty, and in this country most tap water is dirty. So it's the water we should be focused on.
I'm all for genetic modification, you are correct these things are important, but I'd rather we learn more about mammals than plants, I cannot see any use for genetically modified corn unless we use that corn as fuel for our cars.
It disturbs me how often people seem to change "Theory" into "Fact".. We haven't scientifically proven and nailed down a true 'cause' of Type 1 Diabetes. There have been many studies, and evidence showing many possibilities of what could cause the disease. One thing I always see people assuming is that there is exclusively one problem causing Type 1 Diabetes! There could be 20 different things which cause the disease, for all we know. Say Joe gets stabbed in the pancreas.. Joe's pancreas may fail and stop producing Insulin, which == Type 1 Diabetes. Scar tissue could form somehow around the Islets of Langerhans and block insulin production. There are many options, and who really knows if there is one general cure? Now, the parent poster is touching on an interesting subject.. holistic healing, nutrition, and exercise. I believe that regarding these areas, there is potential of healing or cures for diabetes. I am a Type 1 Diabetic myself, and went on a 100% Raw Vegan diet (with well-controlled nutrient/mineral-intake and necessary supplementation, of course) for one year, and had seen improvements in my blood sugar and insulin requirements. A few months ago, I read the book "pH Miracle for Diabetes" by Robert O. Young, and have been carefully eating a simple vegan diet inspired by his diet ideas (since March 2006). I have seen massive improvements in general blood sugar stability, and have been able to reduce my insulin from 30-34 units a day to 14 units a day over these last few months. If any diabetic is interested, I eat a lot of greens, a lot of steamed veggies (Kale, Collards, Broccoli leaves and stems, Green Beans) and natural fats (Avocado, coconut) which results in a low-carb diet with sufficient calories. I also drink a few litres of water and/or juiced celery every day. So far, my insulin requirements are still on the downward trend, and I am hoping for the best. Here's another person who (last I heard) is on 8 units of insulin a day, following similar diet principles. My doctor, of course, scoffs at any notion of healing Type 1 Diabetes, but I know of a few people who have healed or greatly improved their Type 1 Diabetes based on diet and exercise principles. I'm sharing my experiences here because I feel some people may be interested in hearing it.
Free electronic music for you!
Whoops, forgot to include the link: http://www.livingandhealingraw.com/
Sorry about the lack of line breaks in above post.. haven't posted on Slashdot very much.
Free electronic music for you!
First I must say. that you're right. :)
;)
;)
:)
;)
But i think that you can call it a fact, if a doctor that had over 30000 patients in 50 years of work tells us that he could find only a few reasons for any disease:
1. food based (by far the most and the hardest to get by)
2. psychological (problems with poeple, the situation et cetera)
3. environement (air & ground pollution, et cetera)
4. mutation on reproduction (partially also food based!)
If you wender where injuries go here: they are always caused by environment and psychological problems, aren't they?
You could even put 2 under 3 too.
So the main problem i wanted to adress is, that nobody seems to care for the true reason.
You get medicine for the symptoms. They make cash. And that's it.
Most poeple - when asked for their problem - name the *symptoms*! Go ask them.
We should call the disease by the reason.
Then maybe more poepe would think of removing that reason, instead of *only* taking pills against pain and stuff like that...
By the way: You don't have to go fully vegan to become healthy. Inuit (Eskimo) live mostly from raw meat. And the're healthy since thousends of years...
You also don't haveto eat everything raw.
Just try to eat as much raw and if not at least vegetable as you can.
A cool side effect is, that you're full before you can become fat.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Unless you have a health condition that causes unusual sensitivity to certain artificial sweeteners (phenylketonuria comes to mind), any health hazards connected to artificial sweeteners are FUD and paranoia, just like the whole "saccharin causes cancer" scare is a load of crap. If I recall correctly, in the study where scientists induced cancer in rats with saccharin, what most people DIDN'T pass on was the fact that if the scientists had fed the rats an equivalent amount of sugar the rats would have died within hours rather than developing cancer.
:)
Of course, in the case of saccharin, it simply tasted like crap which is why you almost never see it used except in REALLY cheap diet sodas nowadays.
I've been drinking diet sodas rather than regular for over a decade with not a single ill effect.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
My wife has no official health condition, but if she ingests aspartame regularly, for some reason her blood sugar jacks up and stays high and her vision starts to blur. If she uses sachrin (she hates the taste) or sucralose (seems to not be bothered by it) then everything seems to behave normally.
HFCS seems to be worse on her sugar levels then cane sugar, and it's way fun to try to avoid that.
I think it comes down to everyone being different and different things affecting us in different ways.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.