Slashdot Mirror


Diabetic Men May Be Able To Grow Their Own Insulin-Producing Cells

An anonymous reader writes "Men with type 1 diabetes may be able to grow their own insulin-producing cells from their testicular tissue, say Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC) researchers who presented their findings today at the American Society of Cell Biology 50th annual meeting in Philadelphia. Their laboratory and animal study is a proof of principle that human spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) extracted from testicular tissue can morph into insulin-secreting beta islet cells normally found in the pancreas. And the researchers say they accomplished this feat without use of any of the extra genes now employed in most labs to turn adult stem cells into a tissue of choice."

148 comments

  1. Great! by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

    Sweet news.

    1. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sweet news.

      Of all the luck, I was just castrated last week and now I find out.

    2. Re:Great! by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Yes, unfortunately now you don't have the balls to do it. Figuratively, and literally.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Barry Munday?

    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so excited, I could bust a nut!

    5. Re:Great! by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Sweet news about sweetbreads

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Great! by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'd take this article with a grain of salt.

    7. Re:Great! by severoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Men have always been able to create insulin-producing cells from their testicles...usually, though, they arrive with a baby wrapped around them...

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  2. Next diabetic-meeting: by santax · · Score: 1

    They took our balls!

    1. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
      Diabetic Men
      Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
      May Be Able To Grow
      ?
      Their Own
      ????
      Insulin-
      meh

    2. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
      Diabetic Men
      Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
      May Be Able To Grow
      ?
      Their Own
      ????
      Insulin-
      meh

      from their testicular tissue.
      ARGH!

    3. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by __aaeuwj6541 · · Score: 1

      (diabetic-support group) (man walks out) (man turns corner) (man enters door) (post testicular loss support group) (BRAND NEW LOCATION)..... speaking as a man, as men do, “this is not an appealing idea”

    4. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Getting diabetes fixed is great.

      Getting castigated or bawled out -- not so much.

    5. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I dunno about the rest of you guys but I'm rather attached to my testicles.

      --
    6. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by __aaeuwj6541 · · Score: 1

      i think you are looking for "castrated" not castigated, i prefer castigation to castration. i mean getting cutdown is better than being cutoff!

    7. Re:Next diabetic-meeting: by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      On a show:

      Contestant: My wife castrates me.

      Host: You mean she castigates you.

      Contestant: No, castrates, she balls me out all the time.

  3. Autoimmune Issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since one of the thoughts(at least what they told me was the cause 15 years ago) for the Type 1 Diabetes it is an autoimmune disease, how long is it until the immune system will just attack the new insulin producing cells?

    The article mentions "immune deficient diabetic mice," so the autoimmune question remains.

    1. Re:Autoimmune Issues? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Yes, Type I is an auto-immune disease. Like many such diseases, it can lie dormant for a long time until something triggers the immune system into activity - such as, for example, puberty. So, who knows, unless you're going through a second childhood - do you have urges to get a sports car and dump your significant other for some arm candy?

      -- barbie

  4. Temporary solution? by Eudial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

    If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      "IV drip?"
      "Eww... that sounds like it could be pleasurable though."

    2. Re:Temporary solution? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      Well it was David Carradine's second favorite hobby, hey what happened to him anyways?

    3. Re:Temporary solution? by wood_dude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As sombody with Type 1, this is indeed the problem with most 'fixes' for the problem. You have to stop the transplanted cells from being destroyed again. There was somthing call 'pig sushi' that I heard about a while ago, that had pig Beta cells wrapped in an coating that stopped the immune system from getting at them. I havn't heard any more on that, but it did tackle the problem head on. Chris

    4. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are currently doing islet cell transplants (from organ donors) which actually have a pretty good success rate, the longest being 11 years ago (to current) without rejection. Although you are correct, stopping the process from happening again is one of the main problems they are trying to solve.

    5. Re:Temporary solution? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      It's possible that the new cells would not have the same markers as the original ones did.

    6. Re:Temporary solution? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      I doubt if it would actually require multiple injections on a daily basis that is if it needed repeating regularly.

      A controlled insulin release would lower the risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness, amputations, nerve damage erectile dysfunction and randomly dying in your sleep. plus minor advantages such as better energy levels and a less reactive digestive system. Plus the cost of maintaining healthy insulin levels would probably be cheaper since your body is now producing the needed insulin and plus the added bonus of a longer healthy life where you might actually see retirement and your grand children.

      Type 2 diabetics tend to not produce enough insulin and historically would eventually need insulin shots which makes me think if it was successful it would be used for type 2's at some point. On the positive side there are other options such as byetta for type 2 diabetics which may preserve the beta cells and help maintain healthy blood sugar levels. Of course there are increased risks of other body functions failing one drug Avandia was recently banned in Europe because of increased risk of heart disease, at the time of the ban there was around 100,000 people being proscribed Avandia in the UK alone. I believe its still available in the USA since it had been approved by the FDA but it's use is now discouraged.

      Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right. It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.

      I hope now you can see that being injected in the balls isn't that big a deal if the procedure leads to a normal insulin response. One of the problems with diabetes is that the damage of bad control isn't immediately visible and maintaining good control is very hard.

      It would be nice if insulin shots actually solved the problem of type 1 diabetes but it doesn't it just slows the rate of damage such that you might get a normal length life but there are type 1 diabetics who die before reaching 30 even doing the right things.

    7. Re:Temporary solution? by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the root problem is autoimmune, but we already have a way to correct this, google "Edmunton Protocol" - the participants were effectively cured. The problem was a lack of islet cells (insulin producing cells) to do much good - it takes like 5 donor cadavers to cure 1 diabetic, so there's insufficient supply to handle even 1/100 of the diabetic patients.

      But something like this just might provide cures for millions of sufferers, without fear of tissue rejection! As father of a type 1 diabetic son, this is a big, big, BIG deal!

      Hooray!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Temporary solution? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      You can also become a Type-1 diabetic as a result of pancreatic cancer or the surgery to stop said cancer. This solution hold great potential in that case.

    9. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Troll

      This is exactly why I masturbate every night and swallow my own cum. My family has a history of diabetes and I am doing everything to prevent it from happening to me. Most of my thoughts will be on the porn but a small amount will be thinking about this article when I masturbate tonight.

      Too bad slashdot hasn't fixed the bug that lets you see the anonymous posters identity when you view the source ...

      -- barbie

    10. Re:Temporary solution? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Well it was David Carradine's second favorite hobby, hey what happened to him anyways?

      Last I heard, he was just hanging around.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    11. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the late 90's I remember hearing about research into encapsulating islet cells in semi-permeable capsules that let insulin out, but not immune cells in. They hoped to implant these capsules in a Type 1's liver as a durable treatment. Coupled with research like that, or the work that Dr Faustman is doing at Massachusetts General, this looks like the kind of progress that would have saved my father, or might save me from dying young with complications.

      It's good to know that progress is being made. A cure has been promised "within the next 5 years" for as long as I can remember. You start to get jaded after awhile.

    12. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might have a barbie already at home. Also, the post makes a fine signature for a social media or a dating site. Moderation takes part of the joke as well: the answer to Type-1 diabetes gets Score-1, although that's a forced one, red in the face, vein close to bursting.

    13. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly right. There have been at least 2 partially successful research efforts to control this immune problem for Type 1 diabetes, one of them at the University of West Virginia, purchased and so far as anyone can tell, buried by Eli Lilly (one of the major manufacturers of insulin and diabetic supplies) The other is very interesting, by Dr. Faustman at Mass. General Hospital. It's ready for human testing: it seems that once you control the immune problem, that adult stem cells shift to insulin producing cells basically curing Type 1 diabetes. The treatment she found is a well known tuburculosis treatment, and *I want it* for my wife, whom I'd love to be free from the glucose testing and the diet issues.

      Check out www.faustmanlab.org for more details.

    14. Re:Temporary solution? by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      not quite. type II usually over-produce insulin to the point where the beta cells die off

      this is due to chronically high sugar/carbohydrate ingestion

      taubes anyone?

    15. Re:Temporary solution? by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      auto-immune reaction for type I may be triggered by something as simple as wheat

      see celiac disease

      also simple to avoid.......if you are willing to change your diet

    16. Re:Temporary solution? by JohnWiney · · Score: 1

      "Edmunton Protocol" produced nothing interesting. "Edmonton Protocol" was more effective.

    17. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

      Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right.

      Not to be mean, but your facts are wrong. It's not a "demand pump", contrary to what you say. You have to test, and adjust it accordingly. I've seen people who use pumps who are on this crazy "test 10-20 times a day" routine to avoid reactions any time they vary their routine even a bit. No thanks. I control the disease, not the other way around.

      The pump is a disaster. Sure, some people report a better quality of life - but that's because, for diabetics, life with insulin via any technique is better than life without.

      I'll stick with the "see-food" technique - I see the food in front of me, I take the shot. Then I eat.

      The worst part if you're trying to do the basal-bolus dosage thing is the weight gain. The reactions, chowing down on emergency calories, and associated weight gain when life interferes with your routine are very counter-productive in the long run.

      Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.

      While both the pump and the basal-bolus routine sound good in theory, they often suck in practice.

      Better to let your blood sugar go up a couple of points temporarily, than to pass out from an insulin reaction, then have it shoot through the roof when you scarf on high-sugar-content junk.

      I dropped everything but a shot of the quick-acting insulin every meal, with a follow-up if I eat (or if I'm at a party, drink) more than I expected. It's worked for more than 2 decades (except for one time when I took my shot, got distracted, forgot to eat, went to walk the dogs, and passed out), has given me a LOT more freedom than I could have on any other routine, I still have all my fingers and toes, and I'll never go back to any other routine. And comparing notes, I'm not alone.

      It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.

      Ouch! Speak for yourself :-) You eventually have to rotate injection sites no matter what.

      -- barbie

    18. Re:Temporary solution? by kubernet3s · · Score: 1

      The beta islet cells are caught in the crossfire when the immune system attacks a triggering infection. People with diabetes can have their islet cells replaced, as evidenced by the utility of pacreas transplants.

    19. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.

      What? That's not correct. If you have your basal set correctly, you could go all day without eating and your blood sugar would remain pretty much constant. You manually bolus for the meals (counting carbs, etc.) That's the whole point of a pump over a combination of slow and long acting insulins. How do keep you blood sugars in a good range in the middle of the night if you aren't taking any long-acting insulin???

      If you are trying to achieve very good blood sugar control, the insulin pump is the best thing since sliced bread. But, as I've found recently, CGM (continuous glucose monitors) are the best thing since... what was the best thing before sliced bread?

      dan

    20. Re:Temporary solution? by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      thats strange it popped up a list of results for me.

      either way its old news and not a full cure

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    21. Re:Temporary solution? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea, but then wouldn't this show up in pre diabetics an over production of insulin would be detectable before the beta cells began to fail? If too much insulin was produced then wouldn't there be abnormally low blood sugar counts?

      However I think i'm right in thinking that when someone is diagnosed as type 2 they are not producing enough insulin to maintain healthy levels.

      btw this page seems interesting
      http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046621.php

      I'd like to see your statement backed up somewhere
      taubes may have some interesting idea's but he has no medical training

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Taubes

      "On October 19, 2007, Taubes appeared on Larry King Live to discuss his book. Although Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or medicine, his book was praised as "raising interesting and valuable points" by Dr. Andrew Weil, a believer of alternative medicine, while Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Jillian Michaels who appeared on the same program disagreed with Taubes on many questions"

      I would agree with some of his stand carbs are pretty much as bad as sugars for diabetics and they seem to be out of proportion for diabetics if not the general population. But i'm no doctor but i think the more green stuff in your diet the better you will be for it.

    22. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      What works as a basal dose in one situation can be a massive overdose in another. Situations change, not just from day to day, but hour to hour.

      What would be an acceptable dose, knowing that you're going to eat in 4 hours, doesn't work if you're delayed an additional 4 hours. Or if you suddenly have to do a lot of physical stuff for a few hours, your "safe basal dose" will put you flat out on the floor.

      It's not as neat and tidy as the ads from the pump manufacturers would have you believe, if your activity level isn't the standard north american "sit on your fanny 15 hours a day". We're not lab rats living in controlled conditions, or test subjects leading a specific regimen.

      I keep my sugar within the normal range at night by taking enough rapidly-acting insulin to take care of my supper and then some. And before going to be, I walk the dogs for a half hour. Sure, it will rise a bit over night, but as long as it stays within norms, I don't care, and neither should anyone else. It's within the norms - so what's the panic?

      Also, some of the advice is just plain dangerous:

      A pre-bolus of insulin will mitigate a spike in blood sugar that results from eating high glycemic foods. Infused insulin analogs such as NovoLog and Apidra typically begin to impact blood sugar levels 15 or 20 minutes after infusion. As a result, easily digested sugars often hit the bloodstream much faster than infused insulin intended to cover them, and the blood sugar level spikes upward as a result. If the bolus were to be infused 20 minutes before eating, then the pre-bolused insulin will be hitting the bloodstream simultaneously with the digested sugars to control the magnitude of the spike.

      Stuff happens. Taking insulin 20 minutes before a meal? Want to try that heading for a meal in a busy restaurant? If the food isn't in front of you. don't take the insulin unless you want to risk a nasty reaction when the food is delayed a half hour, or there's a power failure, or you find out that the place you were all heading is too full to serve you.

      The body's needs change with the temperature, exertion level, stress, etc. Your blood sugar going up a bit during a meal won't kill you (it happens naturally anyway) - stepping in front of a moving car because you're disoriented from low blood sugar can.

      The pump is not a replacement for:

      1. Normal body weight
      2. Lots of exercise
      3. Healthy lifestyle

      Practice these, and you probably won't NEED a pump to stay within the normal range. Not only that, but it improves your body's sensitivity to insulin, so you need less (and as a result, are less likely to overdose if you do have to expend more energy than planned).

      I remember when I started with the slow-acting insulin. I found out that I wasn't the only one who packed on the pounds - the AVERAGE weight gain was 30 pounds the first year. Every one I talked to quit, despite the team of doctors advice.

      Sure enough, a decade later it was shown we were right and the doctors were wrong. The "benefits" were more than offset by the weight gains. It's not just Type 2 diabetics who gain unwanted weight when treated. The mechanism for type 1 is different - not only do higher insulin levels stimulate the appetite, but insulin reactions force you to eat junk calories, and reactions, no matter what, are a fact of life because, as I pointed out, life is messy. Better to avoid some of those reactions by not using a pump if you can.

    23. Re:Temporary solution? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      I inject twice a day into the sides of my stomach usually if i struggle to find a good spot on one side then the other side is usually pain free.

      I'm a type II and it sucks but I really wouldn't want to be a type I, people seem to think its pretty easy living with diabetes and also don't see how it effects our quality and length of life. Which would make it easier to choose a needle in the nuts in order to live a normal life. Would prefer not to have to do that but if it made diabetes go away even for a few months at a time it might be worth it.

    24. Re:Temporary solution? by PongStroid · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else.

      I'm a Type 1, and have been on an insulin pump for 13 years. Pumps afford the exact opposite of what you say here. The basal rates you program into the pump should allow you, when done correctly, to NOT eat at all - if you ignore plain old hunger. If you're having to ingest carbs to counteract your basal dosages, you're doing it wrong - and I can't state this strongly enough. Bolus dosages - e.g. the ones you take when you eat - work exactly like your eat/shot strategy you describe. A type 1's blood sugar will rise - in the absence of both food and insulin - and I'd be really surprised if this wasn't the case for you.

    25. Re:Temporary solution? by kiwi_james · · Score: 2

      There was somthing call 'pig sushi' that I heard about a while ago, that had pig Beta cells wrapped in an coating that stopped the immune system from getting at them.

      I havn't heard any more on that, but it did tackle the problem head on.

      The trials are continuing as we speak here in New Zealand. The company concerned is Living Cell Technologies

      And there is an article describing it here

      It's a very clever solution that solves the rejection issue. The main questions are on how much insulin can be produced and over what time period. The reality is that anything that introduces at least some reasonable level of insulin production - even if not enough to eliminate injections - should reduce the extreme blood sugar highs that cause the most long term damage to Type 1 diabetics.

      It will be fantastic if this can succeed (like all of the other potential cures to this disease).

    26. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The belly is my favorite place too. There's just no "pinch an inch" anywhere else.

      Sometimes, in the summer, I'll inject in the upper thigh if I'm wearing shorts or a skirt, but doing that sometimes means hitting muscle, and that not only burns, but it means the insulin enters the blood stream faster than I would want.

      Of course, being type 1 has it's advantages - as long as I keep my weight and sugar levels within range, I can eat anything I want, including chocolate. Especially chocolate! (Don't worry, tonight will be strawberries, melon chunks, and grapes. I save the chocolate thing for when I really need a morale boost - it's cheaper than shopping for new shoes :-)

      Sure, I gave up adding sugar to tea or coffee (I actually don't even keep white sugar in the house any more), and switched to diet soft drinks (which I have since stopped drinking), and don't visit the donut shop any more - big deal, right :-)

      But I have a sister who's was diagnosed as type 2 a couple of years ago (she used to get gestational diabetes, so it was kind of expected), Has she done anything about it? No. Why not? She won't give up her Pepsi. And she won't switch to diet. And she won't stop smoking.

      And she says I'M stubborn?

      Diabetes sucks. The only things that suck more are the complications when it's ignored, and the ignorance of people who don't realize that a large portion of the population are being set up to fail and die because of the HFCS in most foods today.

      -- barbie

    27. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      How active are you?

      The problem with the pump is that if, like me, your energy output varies a lot during the day, it's not only useless, but a hazard. It's suitable for people with a more or less sedentary lifestyle (cue everyone going "but that's not me!").

      I'm outdoors walking for almost 2 hours every morning and again every evening, wind, rain, or snow. You do 15k a day in -20 weather, you'd be amazed at how many calories that consumes :-)

      There is no way to get a proper baseline with that sort of activity pattern. It would be so low that it would be non-existent, which means that the entire dose has to fall to mealtime injections anyway.

      It also helps explain why my blood sugar doesn't go up that quickly when I don't eat. I'm just too gosh-darned busy, so a little insulin goes a long way.

      My decision to go green a couple of years ago is paying off health-wise in a big way. I've reduced my insulin dose by more than half, lost that extra 5 pounds that's been bugging me, and at the end of the day, I still have lots of energy, which is a good thing, because the dogs have got to be walked, no matter how I feel, and the Newfie doesn't care how cold it is, he wants to stay outside as long as possible.

      So no, I'm not "doing it wrong" - lots of exercise should be a core requirement for every diabetic. An hour a day *might* be sufficient, but certainly an hour 3 times a week isn't. Might as well get no exercise at all - at least you're not fooling yourself into thinking you're making a significant impact on your health.

      It's work - but it's worth it. I can eat whatever foods I want, when I want, and that's something most diabetics can only dream of.

      -- Barbie

    28. Re:Temporary solution? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

      If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      Yes, it is due to an autoimmune process. However, there are certain parts of the body that are immunologically protected, such as the brain and testes. If the islet cells were to stay in these immunologically protected areas they may continue doing what they're doing unhindered.

    29. Re:Temporary solution? by Amlothi · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, it notes that the effects were short term (~1 week). However, it doesn't say why. Probably because they haven't actually fixed the cause of the diabetes, which, as you noted, is often autoimmune in nature.

      It sounds to me kind of like this:

      Problem: My car isn't moving.
      Reason: There isn't any fuel.
      Solution: Push the car down the hill.

      They are "fixing" the problem while ignoring the actual cause of the problem. Therefore, the problem will continue to reappear.

      I guess we'll have to wait for the actual paper to be published before we can really discuss the science intelligently. In the meantime, we have a fancy headline that people will forget by the time the actual paper comes out and we realize that the headline is complete BS. According to the article, the research team is presenting it at a meeting currently. I presume this means that they haven't completed writing up their findings yet. (I couldn't find the article online.)

      The problem with science reporting in the mainstream media is that they jump on anything that can be given an interesting headline, but the reporters never understand (or bother to analyze critically) the actual science. This is an ongoing problem and annoyance to many scientists who would prefer that the public not be misled.

      For example, the Slashdot article posted a few days ago about 2 father mice producing offspring. In one paragraph, the media is saying "We can save species from extinction even if there are no females left!" and "This will allow gay couples to have their own offspring". In the very next paragraph, they are explaining that the researchers also needed 1) a blastocyst, and 2) a female womb. Do they bother to care or speculate where we are going to get those things if there are no females involved? Of course not.

      --
      ~A~
    30. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else.

      WTF! Every modern insulin pump allows on-demand boluses. The do have a programmable basal rate profile, but this is only used to adjust for varying metabolic activity. For example a slightly lower rate at night and a slightly higher rate in the morning. I have my Omnipod pump tuned such that I can go all day without eating with no reactions (assuming no exercise).

    31. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      have my Omnipod pump tuned such that I can go all day without eating with no reactions (assuming no exercise).

      So what you're saying is that if there's any change in routine, the pump will mess you up if you forget/get to busy/whatever.

      Pumps are not a cure-all, and don't do any better than injections on an ad-hoc basis for people who have a varied routine.

    32. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are, in many cases, mistaken. The insulin resistance common to many Type 2 diabetics leads to elevated insulin levels. This triggers hunger, *triggering* at least some of the weight gain perceived as the "cause" of diabetes for many Type 2 suffferers. This is why drugs that improve insulin sensitivity can work so well for Type 2 patients, they've typically got *plenty* of insulin in early treatment.

      A fast google search reveals dozens of references, many as unreliable as the "alternative medicine" guru you mention, but plenty of credible references to the elevated insulin levels. And they're clinically demonstrable quite easily, if you bother to actually test it rather than merely treat it.

    33. Re:Temporary solution? by Guidii · · Score: 1
      Okay, let's try not to insult each other's life style;) Every insulin therapy takes time and effort if you want to maintain any kind of control, and every diabetic needs to figure out how to maintain that kind of balance.

      I can understand that you don't get along with a pump... I've met several diabetics that felt the same way. I'm just not sure I agree with your argument.

      My background is that I've been a type one diabetic for over thirty years, and I've seen many therapies over that time. I switched to a pump like Pongstroid and AC use, and although it was challenging at first, I've found that it is head and shoulders above any other insulin delivery systems I've used.

      The pump may be a lot of things... it's a pain (literally, and figuratively) to keep an infusion set hanging out of you all the time. It's a lot more expensive than syringes/pens. It is sometimes unreliable (nothing like having an infusion set jarred loose, or a battery die when you're not aware... that can total your day in a hurry.) But for all that, it gives you a great deal of control over your insulin delivery.

      For example, I can set my basal rate any way I like. My pump is currently set to deliver 0.4 units of insulin hourly, and gives me 0.7 units at points where my digestive system is more active. The only control I had when I used NPH/Ultralente was how many units I wanted to get over the day. I took to two basal injections daily to get a little more control over the rates, but even then it's nowhere near as flexible as a pump.

      As for bolusing, I can now take the exact amount of insulin I need when I need it. The cookie I just ate contained 8g of carbohydrates, so I took 0.6 units of insulin. My old pen couldn't dose less than two full units, so I don't know what I would have done under the old system. Either eaten three cookies, or none at all.

      Oh, and when I ate that cookie, I didn't have to stick a needle into me. That's a big win.

      And if I choose to hold off on supper for an hour, or two. Or twelve. I just bolus when I want to.

      As for exercise, that's always a bit of a challenge. But I don't see how that is any different for me than it is for you. Assuming that you're keeping your blood sugar on an even keel, then you would either need to eat more, or hold off on your insulin. I have to do the same. With a pump, I can discontinue my basal, which I couldn't do when I was injecting.

      For me, nothing beats a pump. (For now...;)

    34. Re:Temporary solution? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

      If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      even more so considering medical science is on the verge of a cure

    35. Re:Temporary solution? by xded · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clarifying, I am type 1 too. Let's hope for this to lead to an available solution soon, not in 20 years.

    36. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diamyd Medical has a diabetes vaccine in phase III that slow or arrest the destruction of insulin producing beta cells. Could receive market approval in 2011 with any luck.

    37. Re:Temporary solution? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Well, gay couples can get eggs from egg donors.

      And for other species, you can often use an egg from a related species.

    38. Re:Temporary solution? by slyrat · · Score: 1

      What works as a basal dose in one situation can be a massive overdose in another. Situations change, not just from day to day, but hour to hour.

      What would be an acceptable dose, knowing that you're going to eat in 4 hours, doesn't work if you're delayed an additional 4 hours. Or if you suddenly have to do a lot of physical stuff for a few hours, your "safe basal dose" will put you flat out on the floor.

      So I've been using an insulin pump for around 2 years and will have to say that it Vastly improved my life. I will agree that I needed to test quite a lot for things to work right. What was even better than just the pump was the addition of a glucose real time sensor. With that on I know whenever my sugar is dropping too low or getting too high. I will also say that with exercise it is really easy to make it so you don't have issues, simply do a temporary basal for a couple hours that is 10-25% of what you normally get and things end up fine. I also don't HAVE to eat a meal if I don't want to. If you are on a pump and you HAVE to eat a meal it is because your insulin rates aren't right.

    39. Re:Temporary solution? by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, type I diabetes =/= celiac, as in, you can't just declare "it can be triggered by something simple" without actually knowing what that something is, which is the tricky part. Of course, the second problem hits -- what's if it's not something simple that involves a diet change but rather something like rhinovirus or any of several dozen random bugs that your immune system normally fights off just fine but happens to look *just* enough like a beta cell to a diseased immune system...

    40. Re:Temporary solution? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I've been doing this for almost 3 decades, and it's one of the reasons I don't bother with the basal injection - I learned that the problems outweigh the benefits, and frankly, I don't need them, My weight is right on target, I get LOTS of exercise morning and evening, and taking rapid-acting insulin at meals works. So what if my blood sugar ranges a bit lower and a bit higher than the ideal - as long as it's "good enough", what's the problem? That it's not always fixed at one number? So what?

      And it's not the end of the world if you forget your insulin for a meal or two - you won't die if you're in good health. (Now if you're NOT in good health, that's another story).

      You don't need perfect control, just "good enough" so that you avoid the complications of high blood sugar and insulin overdoses. Remember, people on a tight control regime have 3x the insulin reactions, and those reactions cause brain damage. Brain damage is cumulative. They used to purposefully put people into insulin shock as an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy for a reason - it can permanently alter^Wdamage the brain. Going low two or three times a wee will, over the long term, have side effects, same as chronic binge drinking will. It's called hypoglycemic diabetic dementia for a reason, and it's the dirty little secret you won't hear anyone talk about when it comes to the risks of too-tight control.

    41. Re:Temporary solution? by slyrat · · Score: 1

      You don't need perfect control, just "good enough" so that you avoid the complications of high blood sugar and insulin overdoses. Remember, people on a tight control regime have 3x the insulin reactions, and those reactions cause brain damage. Brain damage is cumulative. They used to purposefully put people into insulin shock as an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy for a reason - it can permanently alter^Wdamage the brain. Going low two or three times a wee will, over the long term, have side effects, same as chronic binge drinking will. It's called hypoglycemic diabetic dementia for a reason, and it's the dirty little secret you won't hear anyone talk about when it comes to the risks of too-tight control.

      I agree with all of that and I don't get lows like that anymore. The reason is because of the sensor. It indicates to me whenever my bg level is dropping below a certain level (set by yourself). With that I can have tight control AND not get the lows. I also rarely get bg levels above 200 at this point too because of this.

    42. Re:Temporary solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all autoimmune diseases have the immune system attacking all the time. As shown from Lupus where a transplant of the kidneys due to the disease has a recurrence rate of 30%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupus#Renal_transplantation

  5. Type 2? by thammoud · · Score: 1

    I suffer from type 2 diabetes. I wonder why this is only applicable for type 1.

    1. Re:Type 2? by Mprx · · Score: 2

      In type 2 the beta cells are intact, but various other cells aren't responding to insulin normally. You can't just replace missing cells because the cells are still present.

    2. Re:Type 2? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 2

      They're different. Type 1 is a failure to produce insulin and, while a PITA, is essentially easy to deal with via insulin injections. Type 2 (aka acquired) is a failure to respond to/use insulin properly, so producing more doesn't make anything better. Mixing them up is dangerous, and medication for Type 1 or 2 can cause severe problems (e.g. death) if used by the other.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    3. Re:Type 2? by elsJake · · Score: 2

      Yes it is , type 1 only.
      For you I'd recommend picking up body-building , it would solve your problem.
      Check out the diets and exercises on http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/ , they're meant to promote insulin sensitivity , exactly what you are missing.
      I am not a doctor but still , I'm confident it would help you.

    4. Re:Type 2? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

    5. Re:Type 2? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, diabetes really refers to excess urine. What we normally call diabetes is diabetes mellitus, which means "sweet urine" (mellitus being sweet, similar to Apis mellifera, the honeybee). Diabetes insipidus refers to excess, non-sweet urine (insipidus meaning "plain, without taste" a la insipid).

      That being said, once something is standardized, scientists tend not to rename things the way they should be. The best example is, of course, the flow of current, but issues with IUPAC nomenclature and the periodic table in general are rife with oddities as well. The best place for things to actually get renamed properly is probably the binomial classification of species, but even that can be severely entrenched (recent hubbub over D. melanogaster). That, and psychology and the DSM, but you know how those people are...

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    6. Re:Type 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder has not been renamed Executive Fucntion Disorder or, earlier, at least just Attention Regulation and Surplus Disorder. Medical nomenclature has enourmous inertia.

    7. Re:Type 2? by KingCarrot · · Score: 1

      Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

      Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".

    8. Re:Type 2? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      That happens when two diseases with the same symptoms are around long enough to get an established name before they are determined to have two different causes.

    9. Re:Type 2? by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Last summer Slashdot ran a story on making use of that sugar.

      http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/08/31/1713210

    10. Re:Type 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values. In addition to responding to insulin, you'll get better results when exercising and you'll generally feel better.

    11. Re:Type 2? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Actually, diabetes really refers to excess urine. What we normally call diabetes is diabetes mellitus, which means "sweet urine" (mellitus being sweet, similar to Apis mellifera, the honeybee).

      So Sweet Pee from Popeye might have Juvenile Diabetes? Oh, and ewww. Who went around comparing urine, and did they do a double blind taste test?

    12. Re:Type 2? by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      diabetes is often diagnosed by doctors finding out of control ketoacidosis through your urine

    13. Re:Type 2? by chriscappuccio · · Score: 1

      type 2 diabetics, through insistence on continuing high carbohydrate intake, tend to destroy insulin producing beta cells through chronically high levels of insulin (and high levels of liver insulin resistance due to chronically high insulin levels)

      so if you can reverse type 2 via diet change (mostly eliminate carbohydrate intake, replace with fat) then you can regain beta cell function through magic like this, and actually get rid of many of the effects

      see www.paleonu.com

    14. Re:Type 2? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

      Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".

      And before they had fancy tests, they would diagnose it by the taste of the urine (sweet) and the smell of acetone or over-ripe peaches on the breath (diabetic ketoacidosis).

      Cue all the jokes about "this beer tastes like warm p***".

      Given that half the population doesn't even know they have diabetes, knowing the visible symptoms is useful:

      1. The smell of acetone or peaches on the breath, as mentioned above
      2. Excess urination (as the body tries to flush out the excess sugar through the urine)
      3. Excess thirst (as the body tries to replace the water lost)
      4. Lack of energy
      5. Want to go to sleep after eating, as the blood sugar levels go through the roof
      6. Munchies for high-calorie items (the body isn't getting it's energy via the normal metabolism of carbohydrates, so it uses an alternate, less efficient route, resulting in lots of ketones, and the acetone smell on the breath)

      The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

      The bad news - if you don't treat it, you'll probably die younger than you should, after losing fingers, toes, feet, etc.

      More bad news - if you smoke, the combination of diabetes and smoking has probably already taken a decade off your life, and if you don't quit, your long-term prognosis still sucks. Ugly facts.

      The good news - if you quit smoking before there's permanent visible damage, there's a good chance you'll get most of that back.

      -- barbie

    15. Re:Type 2? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values.

      Well, that would be a GOOD THING(TM) in most populations with a 50:50 male-female ratio, wouldn't it?

    16. Re:Type 2? by FishTankX · · Score: 1

      And in Chinese and Japanese, it's known as 'Sugar pee disease'

    17. Re:Type 2? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Most of what you wrote is true, but a few corrections:
      1) The symptoms you wrote are more common in type 1 Diabetes (i.e. the autoimmune disease, usually appearing in children). Adults usually get type 2 Diabetes (where the body develops insulin resistance). Patients with type 2 may have the disease for many years (average is 10y) before they are diagnosed, whilst in type 1 the disease appears rapidly and you get very high glucose levels which cause the symptoms you wrote.
      2) Although we (the doctors) preach to keep the glucose levels low, the evidence so far is that keeping diabetes under control prevents some complications (renal failure and blindness) but is less effective in preventing other complications (heart disease and strokes). So, yes, a healthy diet is good, but I wouldn't go so far and say that a diabetic person who controls his disease will live longer than his non-diabetic peers.

      Oh and one more thing: STOP SMOKING! (Written without using the Caps Lock key :) ).

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    18. Re:Type 2? by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

      Lots of "somebodies" have thought of this, but we have thousands of years of inertia to overcome. Diabetes was realized and diagnosed in ancient times, long before we ever discovered the difference between type 1 and type 2. As a father of type 1 son, I would like nothing better for type 1 to be renamed something without the word "diabetes" in it, but I know it's hopeless. The term diabetes today means "type 2" to the vast majority of people.

      As such, we have to deal with the myth that if my 4 year old son, who is skinny as a toothpick and barely has any body fat to put a syringe into, only dieted and exercised more, he wouldn't need insulin, where the reality is that he will die with out it, no matter what his weight it.

      Even "type 1" and "type 2" are new terms, and the old ones have not disappeared. It used to be "juvenile" and "adult onset", which was even worse, because in reality adults can get type 1, and children can get type 2. Today, children are getting type 2 due to lifestyle factors, and there is a lot of awareness of this. Still, people are getting confused and think "juvenile diabetes" means "getting type 2 at a young age". I never say my child has "juvenile diabetes" because most people will think that I'm feeding him a steady diet of Hershey bars, instead of thinking that he was just unlucky like a kid with multiple sclerosis. Type 1's face relentless assumption from everyone that the disease is their fault, which is totally untrue.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    19. Re:Type 2? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers

      I talked to a neurologist about this. He told me that even though much of the effects of type II can be controlled by diet and exercise once Diabetes has begun there is neurological and vascular damage that will continue to occur no matter how much you improve your diet and exercise.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    20. Re:Type 2? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      People who change their lifestyle after finding out they have diabetes have every reason to do better than their peers who continue to live a sedentary, fat-of-the-land, puffing-like-a-chimney lifestyle.

      So while you might not be as good as you could be (and as the years pile on, who is, really?), you'll still be better in the long run than the "competition" who have let themselves go to seed.

      Besides, what's the alternative? To give up? You can do that - but it sucks.

    21. Re:Type 2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle."

      This is the usual line from doctors, but it's bullshit. The actual statistics are that, after 20 years of diabetes, 75% of patients will have developed diabetic retinopathy (i.e., blindness, to a lesser or greater degree). However, most doctors will only mention an "increased risk" until you actually develop it, even though they expected it and insisted on tests every year to see if you had it yet.

      Yes, diabetes in theory is treatable and if perfectly managed the prognosis could look a lot like that of a healthy person. In reality, life gets in the way, despite best efforts, and the condition itself causes depression which makes it even harder to manage.

      Diabetes is treatable in theory, but in practice, it's a huge burden that your system and your psyche was never designed to cope with. Sooner or later, it'll do damage.

    22. Re:Type 2? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      A lot of the depression is caused by the brain no longer being on a permanent sugar high. The only way to combat that is to get the endorphins going - in other words, contact with other people and exercise. Get a dog and walk it. Get out. Do stuff. Don't have your own personal pity party - or if you must, make it 10 minutes. Depression is nasty, in part because we don't talk about it, and we don't teach people how to deal with it.

      Diabetes is treatable in theory, but in practice, it's a huge burden that your system and your psyche was never designed to cope with. Sooner or later, it'll do damage.

      It was 35 years ago this year that the whole family went to the local children's hospital for screening, and I and half my sisters have Type 1. My psyche is doing just fine, thank you. It changed virtually nothing.

      So I've got to jab a needle into myself when I eat. Big deal - it's a LOT better than having to go to the bathroom several times a night. That's pretty much the only thing that's changed. I eat what I want - I just don't load up on junk calories, and I would be avoiding HFCS anyway, so there's no change there.

      We have a "dead pool" in our family - I'm expected to outlive at least three of my younger sisters, two of which *don't* have Type 1, simply because I never smoked, and I've never been a couch potato.

      So yes, diabetics can certainly have a better quality of life than non-diabetics if the disease gives them the incentive to do something about it.

      And yes, eventually there will be damage. And that sucks. Maybe one day I will go blind, or my kidneys fail, or something else. If and when that happens, as long as it doesn't kill me or damage my brain, I'll deal with it, just like everything else in life. I've been through far worse, and I still enjoy life. Besides, what other rational choice is there?

      -- Barbie

    23. Re:Type 2? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      The comment I was responding to made it sound like the effects of Type II Diabetes could be reduced to 0. They can't. No matter what you do, all other things being equal, your lifespan and quality of life will be reduced compared to someone who does not have Diabetes.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    24. Re:Type 2? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Umm ... I don't think there's a comment in this thread that says that. What I did say was that someone with diabetes could well end up in better health because they not only are more inclined to see a doctor on a regular basis, but also because diabetes might be the push they need to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

      For example, we have no choice but to learn what's in our food, to avoid HFCS, to get more exercise, to avoid preventable diseases such as smoking, etc.

      Of course, since Type 2 is usually later in life than Type 1, people with Type 2 generally don't get that "incentive" as early, so they have more of a chance to do other damage, such as by smoking, so then they have to deal with two issues at once.

      -- Barbie

    25. Re:Type 2? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Umm ... I don't think there's a comment in this thread that says that. What I did say was

      Well you said:

      The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

      First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.

      Second you clearly claim one would live longer than their peers because one would be "forced" to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Obviously, for your sentence to make sense, the peers are not being forced to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Therefore the peers do not have Diabetes Type II or they too would be just as "forced". Now you know nothing about the peers, their age, health, habits etc. but you are claiming the person who tries to manage their Diabetes will outlive those non-diabetic people. You don't claim they will outlive some of their peers (which would also be unsupportable) but blanket state they will outlive their peers which is at best unsupportable and at worst completely misleading.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    26. Re:Type 2? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.

      Treatable does not mean curable, even though in many cases, people return to normal blood sugar levels without medication when lose the excess weight and eat properly.

      Also, someone doing everything right even with diabetes will live longer than the people around them who do not take care of themselves. Diabetes is not a "premature death sentence". Sure, people with type 2 diabetes die younger - the majority are paying the price for decades of carrying all that extra weight around. Obesity in and of itself is a significant risk factor. Type 2 diabetes is a marker.

      And you'll have to agree that people who receive medical attention on a regular basis do better than those who don't - and that diabetics generally see a doctor more often. AND they get a lot more advice about healthy lifestyles, and those who follow that advice are more likely to be living a better lifestyle than their peers. So there's no reason to believe that they would do worse, since diabetes itself is treatable.

      Example on my paternal side - my 87-year-old aunt. Type 2 diabetes. Doesn't smoke. A couple of uncles on the same side of the family, within a few years of that age, also don't smoke, and one also has type 2. Their siblings who smoked? All dead, decades ago.

      Example on the maternal side - everyone who didn't smoke made it at least to their '70's. Smokers? Nowhere near it.

      Now most of these people smoked at one point in their lives. Some gave it up after a good health scare, some didn't. The ones who didn't are dead. The ones who did are alive, because they adopted a healthier lifestyle, and received more medical attention.

      To expect otherwise, for a disease that is as easily treated as diabetes, is a bit perverse. To claim otherwise is to actively discourage people from taking the steps they need to take to live longer lives.

  6. Recipient still req to be immune deficient by PdbAqB · · Score: 1

    Great advance; however, the problem isthat it still requires the recipient to be immune deficient i.e. the testes with beta cell islet cell characteristics were transplanted into the back of immune deficient mice

  7. Now by gone.fishing · · Score: 3, Funny

    That takes balls.

    1. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That takes balls away.

    2. Re:Now by PatPending · · Score: 1

      That takes balls away.

      And now, not just in Soviet Russia.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    3. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that is just nuts.

  8. And the obvious question by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    If I grow my own insulin-producing cells at home can I sell them to diabetics in other states?

    1. Re:And the obvious question by JamesP · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing it's illegal to sell your balls in Texas or something like that...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    2. Re:And the obvious question by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      since women can't do this, just invite any hot female diabetics over for a round of personalized care, including injections of... insulin

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:And the obvious question by dwarfsoft · · Score: 2

      The Catholic church simply will not stand for this!

      "CHILDREN:
      Every sperm is sacred.
      Every sperm is great.
      If a sperm is wasted,
      God gets quite irate.

      GIRL:
      Let the heathen spill theirs
      On the dusty ground.
      God shall make them pay for
      Every sperm that can't be found."

      Etc...

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    4. Re:And the obvious question by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why should it matter to me what old guys in women's dresses think? For all I care, they could suck my dick, but I'd guess I'm way too old for them to take that offer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:And the obvious question by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      While they are now old, and they did, collectively, spend a great deal of time in women's dresses, that's actually a Monty Python reference.

  9. Which part?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of the testicles!?

    1. Re:Which part?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole one, for each attempt.

    2. Re:Which part?! by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Most likely the progenitor cells that are in the main body of the testis. It is likely that a simple biopsy would be sufficient to harvest these progenitor cells.

      In male vertibrates the testes are comprised of vascular tissues that feed a labyrinth of micro-tubule structures, which then connect to the upper portion of the epididymis. Inside these tubules there are colonies of spermatogenic progenitor cells, which divide once via mitosis, then divide a second time into early, non-motile sperm cells via meiosis. These non-motile, and immature sperm cells migrate through this network of microtubules into the epididymis where additional external factors and hormonal secretions initiate many of the morphological changes in sperm cells. They then pass into the lower portion of the epididymis where they are stored prior to ejaculation.

      I hope that this answers your question.

      If you are worried that they would confiscate your whole testicle, I would say that your worries are unfounded. These progenitor cells are highly copious in quantity inside your testes, and a simple needle biopsy would most certainly be sufficient.

  10. The summary sounds so selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm more interested in helping women who need insulin injections. I'm a humanitarian that way.

    1. Re:The summary sounds so selfish by Megahard · · Score: 1

      If she's a teabagger, you're in luck!

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    2. Re:The summary sounds so selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more interested in helping women who need insulin injections. I'm a humanitarian that way.

      Just hope for the Type-1 Diabetics. Most Type-2 diabetics are very overweight.

  11. Some clarification... by Guidii · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Okay, so I read TFA. As a diabetic, I had to. Hope I don't get kicked off slashdot.

    Some key points: They took spermatogonial stem cells (SSC's) from testicular tissue of deceased organ donors (not from diabetic patients) and observed that some of these cells would turn into insulin producing beta cells in a test tube. They injected these cells into mice, and found that the mice had reduced glucose levels for a week.

    This is pretty exciting news, since the alternative source of beta cells is to extract them from the pancreas of deceased organ donors. (This was done in the Edmonton Protocol.)

    1. Re:Some clarification... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes, however it still suffers from the same issue as most of the other 'gene' or 'cell' therapies for diabetes: You are using someone or something elses insulin producing cells to make insulin.

      That means that your immune system isn't going to like it much. What one needs is a system that takes your very own testicular cells and creates beta (insulin secreting) cells. I'm sure that's what they're trying to get at but I detect a potential problem with the practical application of the technology.

      'You're going to take some cells from where?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Some clarification... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      'You're going to take some cells from where?

      An undignified operation, which won't hamper one's ability to procreate or needles upon needles upon needles until the day you die. Tell me, truly, which would you choose?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:Some clarification... by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      needles......... id much rather deal with needles over going to a doctor every "week" and waiting for the refill

      --
      warning pointless sig
    4. Re:Some clarification... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      And this brings in the whole issue if causing yet another round of sensitizing the immune system to a foreign agent that looks like insulin.

      Type one is suspected, in many cases, to be caused by molecules of animal (non-human) milk passing from the gullet into the blood stream in infants. The surface molecule looks a lot like the Isles of Langerhans, so the body mounts an imperfect immune response. In other words, most of the time, no visible immune response, but a sensitization.

      Later on (say, during a growth spurt, or puberty, or an infection) the immune system goes on the attack, and attacks the Isles. It's only when a majority of the cells are destroyed that the patient develops diabetes.

      This is why even a small quantity of insulin-producing cells work - but they're eventually destroyed, because they resemble the original foreign molecule. So there is no "permanent cure" from transplanting. What would be needed is either prevention (don't feed infants formula based on cow milk, for example - breast milk is way better on every count), or finding some way to re-train the immune system.

      So, what we should be doing is looking for a cure for the common cold. When we can retrain the immune system to fix that, we'll be one step closer to curing many diseases.

      -- barbie

    5. Re:Some clarification... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Then I'd expect this paper to have different results:

                http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/5/838.full

      Non-identical twins raised in the same womb and the same dietary environment would experience the same protein exposures, and as children experience similar infections or environmental factors, and have an elevated risk of sharing Type 1 diabetes if one of them has it. They don't.

      From where did you hear this theory or see this claim?

    6. Re:Some clarification... by Guidii · · Score: 1
      True. This research does nothing about the autoimmune issues that caused the type 1 in the first place. And I suspect that it would need the daily doses of immune suppressants that are part of the Edmonton Protocol.

      As for me, I think I'd rather stick with my insulin pump than to adopt a regimen to eliminate my immune system. It just doesn't seem like a win.

    7. Re:Some clarification... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMEN!

    8. Re:Some clarification... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Try again. Identical twins? Even "identical" twins are not necessarily so at the genetic level.

      And the uterine environment is also not as "identical" as you assume.

      Want to try again?

    9. Re:Some clarification... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      No need to try again: you seem to have misunderstood my point. The study I referred to should at least show a _correlation_ in diabetes frequency among non-identical twins, if the factor is the kind of environmental exposure to non-human milk proteins which you've asserted. I'm sorry to say that you have not provided any data or reference to justify your claim, and I'd expect such a claim to have especially shown up in the various studies of family susceptibility.

      Moreover, your claim is nonsensical. "Insulin" and the "Islets of Langerhans" are quite distinct. Insulin is a simple protein. "Islets of Langerhans" are cell clusters, containing several different _types_ of cells, which happen to include the beta cells which make insulin. An immune problem that attacked the Islets of Langerhans would also destroy these sources of these other hormones, such as glucagon and somatostation. Type 1 diabetics lose beta cells, _not_ the Islets of Langerhans!

      Destroying the Islets, or removing the pancreas, wreaks biochemical havoc. I've a friend who had pancreatic cancer and had his removed: his care is quite awkward. He requires a great deal of medication and treatment that diabetics do not. So, before you make a claim like that, I urge you to actually look into the biology or at least find out where your claim came from.

    10. Re:Some clarification... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      This is pretty exciting news

      for mice.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    11. Re:Some clarification... by Mastacheata87 · · Score: 1

      I'm diabetic Type 1 since 20 years and have read about stem-cell therapies for ages. There were clinical studies with adult stem cells from the patients own spinal cord. What I want to say is that these testicle stem cells and the ones from deceased pancreas are not the only sources. In the last clinical study with own stem cells they found out that the biggest effect is the stimulation of remaining beta-cells (Yes even Type 1 patients have some remaining cells) to produce a significant amount of insulin. Whereas only fewer than 1% of the stem cells integrate into the fabric and mutate into something comparable to beta-cells. As far as I know they don't suffer the problem of being destroyed by the own immune system. Though I don't know if this is because the auto-immune reaction is only active for some specific time or because the stem-cells are not completely identical to beta-cells.

    12. Re:Some clarification... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tell me, truly, which would you choose?"

      How hot is the nurse?

  12. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Diabetic Men May Be Able To Grow Their Own Insulin-Producing Cells

    Take that, ladies!

    (Because you won't take anything else from me...)

  13. That sound you just heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    was the sound of ten thousand geeks crossing their legs in unison.

  14. MOD PARENT FUCKIN' HILARIOUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You're not the administrator of me. You can't tell ME how to mod!" :P

  15. That's nuts! by Pezbian · · Score: 1

    Nevermind the bollocks.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  16. Diabolic Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I misread it as: Diabolic Men May Be Able To Grow Their Own Insulin-Producing Cells

  17. Producing More by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    Type 2 (aka acquired) is a failure to respond to/use insulin properly, so producing more doesn't make anything better.

    Wrong. One of the common medication for Type 2 is sulfonyureas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonylurea

    They act my making the pancreas produce more insulin.

  18. Depends on how they get them out and back in again by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

    Could give a whole new meaning to go fuck yourself

  19. Dr. Fuhrman Cures Diabetes; Drug Companies Object by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    But only completely for type 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
    See also: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/diabetes.aspx

    Type 1 diabetics still need to take insulin, but can take less and have less complications. So, this idea from the article might eventually help them.

    From that link: "John ... was a 22 year old college graduate with Type 1 diabetes since the age of 6. He was five foot, eight inches tall and weighed 190 pounds. He was taking a total of 70 units of insulin daily. He was referred to my office by his family physician as he was having swings in his glucose levels, too high at times and at other times dangerously low. He also wanted to learn more about nutrition to improve his health and reduce his future risks from having diabetes. I was impressed by his intelligence and desire to change his eating habits to better his health. We spent lots of time discussing the typical problems that befall most diabetics, and I explained to him that using 70 units of insulin a day was part of the problem. I explained that if he follows my recommended diet-style he will stabilize his weight at about 145 pounds and he will only require about 30 units of insulin a day. With this lower level of insulin, to mimic the amount of insulin a non-diabetic makes in the pancreas, he can have a life without the typical health issues that befall diabetics. We cut his nighttime insulin dose down by ten units and his mealtime insulin from 10 to 6 as he began the diet. Over the next two weeks we gradually tapered his insulin and found that he only needed 20 units of Lantus insulin at bedtime and 4 units before each meal for a total of 32 units a day. Almost immediately, with my dietary recommendations, his sugars were running in the favorable range, and he no longer experienced dangerous drops in his blood sugar. He had lost 13 pounds over the first month and by month three weighed 167, a loss of 23 pounds. He was excited about what he had learned and was more hopeful about his life while living with his diabetes. I am convinced, that with the Eat To Live or Eat For Health diet-style, those with Type 1 diabetes can have a long and disease-free life. I feel it is imperative that all Type 1 diabetics learn about this life, saving approach."

    Key there for type 1 diabetics is reducing complications, even if they still take diabetes.

    Type 1 diabetes may also be related to vitamin D deficiency in utero and early life.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18846317
    http://www.google.com/custom?q=diabetes&sitesearch=vitamindcouncil.org

    If you have type 2 diabetes, you can most likely, within weeks under Dr. Fuhrman's plan, be throwing your insulin away forever (at least, based on what he writes). I know you may find this hard to believe. The key idea there is to lose weight to reduce insulin resistance, and to eliminate refined carbs to reduce insulin needs, and to improve your body's general health with more phytonutrients, and so bring the need for insulin within the remaining capacity of your body. In most cases of type 2 diabetes this should be enough to eliminate the need for any medications. Even if you remained on medications, the risk of complications would go way down and the quality of your life would go way up.

    See also Raw For Thirty (though Dr. Fuhrman's approach is more comprehensive and not all raw for some good reasons):
    http://www.rawfor30days.com/

    Some people think they have type 1 diabetes because they have been misdiagnosed and are really type 2 and presumably 100% curable. I guess the opposite may be true, too, sadly. In any case, you never know for sure till you try.

    I am following the Eat to Live plan for other reasons (though not

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  20. Oh, the irony by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Funny

    spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) extracted from testicular tissue

    And all that time, I was extracting spermatogonial cells from my testicular tissue and I didn't know how useful they could be! :-)

    1. Re:Oh, the irony by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Would the real Bruce Perens please erect himself.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  21. we could fix that by r00t · · Score: 1

    We just need genetically modified cows that produce human milk.

  22. The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

    I'm from Invercargill, New Zealand. Right now, I'm about ... 20KM or so from the "Living Cell Technologies facility", or so we can suppose, the location is "top secret".

    Its a very interesting topic, I am Vegan, I see it as absolutely *horrid* that we would even think of harming other animals, we would not do this to Human animals...or would we?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

    What do you think happens in Gitmo, and Area 51?

    As a local of the area, I can speak more in detail of what goes on, of the coverage at a local, and national level. Its basically treated as the second coming of jesus, that his will be a miracle cure, and *MOST IMPORTANTLY*, that our Mayor claims all the credit, for all the money that this WILL (because its going to succeed dammit) bring to the area.

    For more on their story, of being left on a bunch of rocks just before Antartica for Whalers to kill, of being designated "an introduced species", who MUST be killed by our Department of "Conservation", apart from a few kept alive as a novelty, please visit my blog post. I include an Australian news video which shows a tour of the awful facility. To my knowledge, this sort of coverage has never occurred in my area, where this is happening, perhaps for fear of public backlash. I also include a letter I wrote to my local newspaper, which was answered by LCT:

    http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/05/video-of-pig-transplant-facility-in.html

    To what end will we abuse others? Its as easy to be Vegan as not, and its the least other animals deserve.

    To learn more about Veganism, please visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ or try one these podcasts http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegan-info.html

    Jordan Wyatt
    Invercargill Vegan Society

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    1. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to comprehend why you think it is so bad for these pigs to be used in this manner.

      Given the choice between the life of a pig and the life of say one of your children which would you choose?

      I've no problem with you choosing to minimise your own effect on animals, and there are alternatives to animal products in a lot of cases but you need to be realistic. Before I became diabetic I used to give blood regularly up to 3 pints a year usually. That blood was used to help save lives and I really didn't have a problem with giving up part of me in order to save lives and yes if there are any organs fit to be used when I die then let them be used too. I've also chosen to be used in the past to test new drug treatments for HIV so I have no issues with pigs being used too.

      The pigs are cultivated and only exist because of their potential usefulness for transplants. For a pig they actually have a better life than most animals possibly a better quality of life than many people around the world today. You really have to compromise at some level because logically the only way to avoid having a negative effect on the world is not to live at all. However it is probably better to make a positive impact on the world as far as it is possible.

      I'm not wanting to force you to consume animal products that is as daft as forcing me to drive a suv so i use more fuel but surely you can see that living at all is a compromise and that if you want to help pigs then try helping some of the animals that are intensively factory farmed. Google Smithfield and i think you will see that the pigs being raised for transplant are living in a comparative paradise.

    2. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Its a very interesting topic, I am Vegan, I see it as absolutely *horrid* that we would even think of harming other animals, we would not do this to Human animals...or would we?

      So you would rather have PEOPLE die? Great.

      (BTW, I do think we use, or used, animals in very bad ways, such as testing cosmetics.)

    3. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the delay in replying to you.

      I find it unacceptable to "use", lets be clear, to *kill* others like this, just as I would find it unacceptable to kill another human being in this manner. I am all for organ donation, after I am dead for example, I am not for being killed for my organs :-)

      The issue is actually rather black and white, just as we cannot be a "little bit pregnant", especially as a guy, we either kill others for our uses, or we do not. Throughout time, our societies change, for example, think of human slavery in many developed nations, and how its still having repercussions to this day.

      I'm a 23 year old New Zealander, in 1981, years before my birth, was "The Tour". South Africas team visited my country for a tour. This was hotly protested, its a defining moment in my nations history.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_South_Africa_rugby_union_tour_of_New_Zealand

      A sporting boycott was initiated against South Africa, because of Apartheid. Among the more rural areas, there was "keep politics out of sport", said by our centre Right party to gain approval from those most likely to enjoy the sport, those likely to vote centre Right, against standing up for human rights overseas. Many of our own native people, the Maori were vehemently against the racism, having been prejudiced here.

      Early South African tours ran into trouble, with White South Africans not wanting to play a game of sport with "brown" people. We stood up over that, with "No Maoris, No Tour" slogans. Well, now we further refine that, no "Maori", being no plural S in the Maori language, we have further progressed. Times change.

      Issues of "welfare" do not matter. All farmed animals live horrible lives, which end in them being killed, "Dairy" cows, Chickens for Eggs, animals such as Sheep from whom we take their Wool, and kill them... they all die the same horrible way.

      I am sorry you are diabetic, I am glad you personally are involved in tests. I have family member who were in more dire situations who also were involved in trials. Thank you for helping others. I myself have given blood many times, I'm not sure how much, we dont have "pints" here in the Metric world :-) Although, for tradition, older men order "a pint" of beer.

      I think we can agree there is a hell of a difference between those forced into experiments, human and nonhuman equally, and those who volunteer. Nonhumans appreciate and deserve their lives as much as you or I do. Certainly, I love Falafel, but not as much as my Rooster friend :-) http://bit.ly/roosterfalafel

      I suppose we could liken the "farming" of animals for xenotransplantation to if we were to do as such to other, "lower classes" of humans, "but they're going to die in poverty any way". We wouldnt argue "but they had a great life living in sterile concrete" because we see *all* human life as valuable, where as currently nonhumans are seen as "lesser", as our "things". An interesting moral question is of a doctor treating a young, healthy patient for a broken bone, when there are several dying patients, who may need a new heart, a new kidney, a new liver etc. Would it be moral to kill the one healthy man, who broke his arm, to save the many? We would never feel this way, surely?

      I hope you can respect me for being consistent in that I believe its wrong to hurt others, to class them as our property, to regard them as "things". I wouldnt lie to you because of personal circumstances re diabetes.

      If you'd like to learn more about Veganism, please visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ to learn more about Veganism.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    4. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      Hi mattack2,

      I wouldnt "have" anyone die, human or nonhuman. I certainly wouldnt kill one person to save one other, or two others. Do you think to act as such would be ethical?

      All animal use is equal, why, or perhaps better, how would we rank evils?

      Its as easy to be Vegan as not, and its the least other animals deserve.

      If you are further interested, might I suggest this recent post on my blog, in regards to speaking out for respect towards other animals. I mention both The Animals Film , and Earthlings, while I never normally bring them up, I dont believe actual footage helps initially, its important we actually *know* what we are doing to others. You mentioned the awful "experiments" and "testing" we force on other animals:

      http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/2010/12/iphone-or-ipod-touch-is-activists-best.html

      For anyone else interested in Veganism, I'd recommend again

      http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

      Thanks for replying to me mattack2 :-)

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    5. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yes, killing an animal to save a person IS definitely ethical.

    6. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      why mattack? We are animals ourselves afterall.

      Why would we feel it were ethical?

      Is it right to kill another human to save someone you love (in terms of another presenting no threat, ie, not someone with a gun shooting at you and your loved one)? Is it right to kill one person to save two?

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    7. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why are you so cruel and killing the poor defenseless plants you eat? They are alive too.

    8. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      I love these short replies mattack2 :-)

      Thanks for playing Defensive Omnivore Bingo!

      http://bit.ly/veganbingo

      I'm currently listening to the most recent Intelligence Squared debate about killing others, its focused on Vegetarianism, rather than on Veganism like it should be.

      The mention of absurd arguments are brought up during the first speakers opening:

      http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/dont-eat-animals

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    9. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I knew this was going to be a 'common' retort, but you're calling it absurd. If you get to call KILLING PLANTS absurd, then I get to call LETTING PEOPLE DIE (when animal products could save them) absurd.

    10. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      I've got chickens too,
      one of them a Bantam is in a bit of a bad way being the smallest she has been bullied by some of the other bigger birds. I've moved her out so she has a chance to rest and recuperate it is unfortunate but that is the way with chickens they can be pretty horrible to their compatriots.

      There is very much a quality of life for all animals, including humans and you must admit there are animals living in better conditions than humans.

      You obviously look after your chickens but why can't you give similar credit to farmers obviously standards of care vary from excellent to very poor indeed.

      There is a cycle of life and there is compromise, there has to be. I guess in some ways I'm very different from you. I don't kill all my own meat and fish but I do some. It is important to me not to cause needless suffering which is why I will make a death as quick and pain free as possible. You see I think if you are going to eat meat then you should be prepared to kill it and butcher it too. It's more respectful and you appreciate the cost more.

      It is good to have strong beliefs, but I really think you should concentrate more on the worst abusers such as smithfield. I don't know if you are a parent but what would you sacrifice for your children. If an animal which was bred and engineered to provide a life saving organ which your child needed would you refuse it and let your child die?

      To be honest if my child needed an organ and my body could give it , I would and if an animal could provide the needed organ i'd use that animal organ first.

       

    11. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      mattack2, this is another thing I find odd when others argue with Vegans, of talking about "KILLING PLANTS!" "HA! YOU'RE A MURDERER! PLANTS THINK YOU'RE HITLER!", this talk is very strange indeed!

      I'm not Vegan to try and judge others, any more than how I dont "not steal" to feel better about myself, to feel "better" than those who DO steal.

      On this New Zealand news story, about "boiling Lobsters to death" (we call them "crayfish"), it was brought up, "ha, those craaaaaazy Vegans who think we shouldnt treat others as things, they think its wrong to hurt celery...." which got a lame snort of a laugh in response. "now, we put the knife through ITS central nerve cluster"....lets be honest here, a knife through the animals brain. I argue that its "not humane", whatever we deem "humane" to mean.

      Vegans most certainly *do* eat plants mattack2. It certainly is *absurd*, using our word of the day, to argue that mowing a lawn is the same as grinding up day old male chicks. Plants are *not* sentient.

      "Letting them die when X could save them..."

      Lets be clear, there is no evidence that "killing this one nonhuman animal will help this one human animal". "Animal" Experimentation is fundamentally flawed, when our bodies are so obviously different. Really, should we not be killing other humans instead? Because to do otherwise is "letting people die (when blood and guts from humans could save them)"

      We wouldnt say that, right? Because to do so, to harm another human is unethical. We recognise other Humans have a right to live. We should offer respect to all animals. It does not mean we need to be giving Dogs drivers licenses, it simply means not treating others as "property", as "things".

      Nice to hear from you again.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    12. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      Hi blackest K!
      Sorry for the delay in answering your comment.

      I'd first like to state again that *we* are also animals, isnt it interesting how upset some people get over this simple, evolutionary fact? A recent debate I heard mentioned this, of how we like to see ourselves as Gods above all other live forms here, and possibly any others we discover elsewhere, no doubt if we do colonise other planets, find other animals smaller than us, we'll "farm" and kill them too! Oh, but if we find "more Godlike" animals, capable of killing us, then we'll kreech on about how unfair it is!

      I certainly know the current casual use of the term "animal", meaning nonhuman animals, and people to mean "above other animals", we can leave it now.

      I certainly dont like to think of them as "your Chickens", they are my friends, just as if I might have a flatmate. They live in my backyard, and I close the door to their coop each night, and open it in the morning for them. This is to protect them from Cats. They put themselves "to bed" when they feel like it, they feed for themselves etc. They easily care for one another without my help, they are not dependent on me, although there is a great chance they would soon be killed by Cats at night, without the door closed for them. Perhaps they could fend off Cats in the night, there are four of them, probably one Cat, I'm not sure, they cannot see very well at all in the dark.

      I dont think we should be "owning" other animals in the first place, to assign ourselves as their "lords", that they are property. Think of Farm animals, certainly, we "tag" their ears with ID numbers, and now increasingly RFID tags. I'm talking about in New Zealand by the way, where I live, I know quite a lot about other parts of the worlds through books, documentaries, podcasts, websites etc, but talking with you, I'd like to stick to the areas I've been and seen myself.

      I dont believe we can judge how we "care" for animals, when we are treating them as things, as our property. I dont think I have any more right to kill one of the Chickens that I love than any of my other, human Friends.

      Blackest K, could I ask you please, do you think a Hen loves her life any more or less than you or I would? I would most certainly agree that other animals love being alive as much as you or I. I dont think we could possibly judge either "more" or "less", how would we do such?

      "A cycle of life" meaning that we kill other animals on our whim? That we see them as our belongings? Who initiated such a "cycle"? We did. When White men "bought" Black men, that too was such a "cycle of life", "this is the way shit goes, and always will".

      Quotes on Slavery is quite useful for this discussion, I rather like this pro slavery quote:

      "[The servants] have all behaved extremely well, indeed I cannot utter the least complaint of them, they are deeply interested and very sympathizing with us all. They often speak to me about the war and there was great rejoicing in the kitchen at the news of our recent glorious victory in Virginia [Battle of Bull Run]. What would those miserable abolitionists say to such manifestations of devotion and affection on the part of the poor maltreated slave, whose heart, according to them, is only the abode of hatred and revenge against their master—They know nothing of the bond that unites the master and servant[,] of its tenderness and care on the one side, and its pride[,] fidelity and attachment on the other. ~ Louisa Quitman Lovell (July 1861)"

      http://quotesonslavery.org/they-know-nothing-of-the-bond-that-unites-the-master-and-servant/

      We find such talk abhorrent today, yet was most certainly The Done Thing during its time in that part of the world. Societal norms change, however, I dont believe fundamental rights of others do.

      "who is the abuser" is a question that comes up o

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    13. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqliklVgNWE little video of my bullied bantam enjoying an evening by the fire.

      Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals eat other animals and will even eat animals of their own species.

      Of course we generally don't eat our own species but it happens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 and the people eaten were the friends and relatives of the people doing the eating the alternative was to die. I wonder if you were in the same circumstances would you remain vegan?

      This is an interesting story
      http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/five-reasons-henrietta-lacks-most-important-woman-medical-history
      She has been farmed to an amazing extent. Would it be better to stop.

      Your slavery comments are interesting but slavery goes back thousands of years and is not colour based Africans and Arabs were selling slaves long before western Europeans came to Africa.

      Slavery has never really gone away it is just presented differently.

      "Would you agree it would always be unethical to kill another human we didnt know to take his or her organ/s? I think most would."

      What if that person was on death row for some horrible crimes could we take his organs then? A mass murderer giving life to others seems almost karmic.

      Death isn't a terrible thing once it's happened it's over done. The only problem with death is when and how.
      we don't want to be in drawn out pain and most of us don't want it now.

      Since I had a heart attack there is a 50% chance of dying in the next 6 to 8 years, I don't aim for that to occur and year 1 is the worst thats 25% the stats are scary 30 out of 100 die when they have a first heart attack of the 70 left 17-18 will die within the year. Death gets very real when your trying to drag yourself to an A&E department when you have a coronary artery 97% blocked. that was the 2nd time i got close. Fear is the worst thing about dying but it does finish once you are dead and so does the pain and suffering. Let me just say it took some adjustment for me to get used to the idea of having a reduced life expectancy.

      To take molly for example if I didn't choose to bring her inside feed her keep her warm, then she would probably be dead already or suffering. She doesn't seem to be in pain so her quality of life seems reasonable and compared to the average chicken she has got it made.

      But if she was suffering it would be best if i killed her rather than her be in pain.

      I don't think I know what I would do in a violent situation, I know, because sometimes somebody has to do something and I know I have done what needed to be done on several occasions.

      I'm not going to stop eating meat but that doesn't mean I don't care about the well being of animals, any animals including the human animal.
      I guess you see a happy pig and think about its death and how it will be killed, me I see a happy pig and the pig is happy enough and death tends to be a short lived surprise. Most animals live in the now they don't think about tomorrow or yesterday.

    14. Re:The horrid ethics of "using" others by dafing · · Score: 1

      Hi again! :-)

      "Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom."

      I see other animals as loving their lives as much as I do mine, as having the same basic right *not* to be regarded as a "thing", as our "property". I am not making the distinction here that some Animals are "more equal" than others.

      I see the mention of what other Nonhumans do to each other again. We wouldnt use other species as our "moral guide" for any other issue, would we? ie "but Mum, the Monkeys at the zoo fling their own poop at people..." or "but X practice incest, cmon! We're also animals you know!..."

      Why would we use "other animals hurt and kill each other" as our excuse? When we can most certainly choose either way, not having any need for harming others.

      I like the extreme example too! Cannibalism after being stranded on a mountain range! Sorry, out of the 7 Billion people in the world, roughly how often does that happen? Oh yeah, about once or twice! :-) Isnt it normally Vegans who are accused of being "irrational" or "overly emotive"?

      The fact remains that you and I are *not* stranded somewhere, left to kill each other, to then die of starvation, and loneliness, after killing the other. We live in New Zealand, and I believe Ireland? We can be as easily Vegan as not. I would argue that its cheaper, more efficient, more beautiful (aesthetically no guts, eyeballs, fur, teeth, shit, sex organs to get rid of) and of course the *least* other animals deserve. If you are indeed Irish, please visit Vegan Ireland,

      http://veganireland.vegaplanet.org/

      I, like many outside of a few countries am against "the death penalty". I dont agree with "taking" their organs. Have you heard the rumoured "political dissidents" who are said to be executed in China, their organs sold on the "black market" to wealthy individuals elsewhere? I can well understand donating blood, a kidney, my other organs after my death. Being killed for a crime, or a SUPPOSED CRIME in this case, to be stripped of your life, and your organs is heinous.

      I can fully understand death being "quick", and yes, once we are gone, I am sure there is absolutely *nothing*, that we may as well be asleep for the rest of eternity, without dreams.

      We most certainly would not use such an excuse to do with other humans, "oh yeah, well I killed her sure, because I wanted to eat her, and I killed him because I wanted his head on my wall, but cmon now! I killed them "humanely", with a blow to the head, then cut through their throats with my knife....they bled to death QUICKLY!", right? :-)

      I truly believe myself as seeing Humans and Nonhuman Animals as being similar, in the same ethical group, with no imagined "division" for our convenience. Think of countries at war, who see the enemy as "different", why? BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT! Why are we killing them? BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT! Who decided they were different? WE KNOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT! :-)

      I'm sorry to hear about your personal health. I dont know about yourself, and I wouldnt like to talk about your personal health, as thats personal, but surely we have both noticed the increases in "diseases of the affluent"?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases_of_affluence

      Many of those, if not all are related to "nonVeganism". There will *always* be genetic problems with our hearts etc, but surely the majority are based on lifestyle? Again, please dont assume I'm meaning you personally, I'm talking about generally, in our own countries. The links are not controversial, just as Smoking is seen as linked directly to Cancer, people get Cancer without smoking, but its more common to be a Smoker, who happens to get Cancer, and related pro

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  23. Unfortunate implications in a divorce or breakup by phrackwulf · · Score: 1

    If this technology were readily available and one were to get in trouble with a significant female other?

    "Honey! Let's talk about this! You can burn the baseball cards, but please, not my testicular insulin cultures!!!"

    She'd literally have one, "by the balls" *rimshot*

    --
    What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
  24. Finally... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Proof that testosterone does play a part in the way you metabolize your food, either through protein break down process or other means, but it is easily linked to your diet, and why you could have a bodybuilder using insulin to help the growth of his muscles, and not become diabetic, go figure...who knew they already knew all of this !