Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Coax Human Embryonic Stem Cells Into Making Insulin
First time accepted submitter kwiecmmm writes A group of Harvard scientists reported that they have figured out how to turn embryonic stem cells into beta cells capable of producing insulin. This discovery could cure diabetes. From the article: "'It's a huge landmark paper. I would say it's bigger than the discovery of insulin,' says Jose Olberholzer, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Illinois. 'The discovery of insulin was important and certainly saved millions of people, but it just allowed patients to survive but not really to have a normal life. The finding of Doug Melton would really allow to offer them really something what I would call a functional cure. You know, they really wouldn't feel anymore being diabetic if they got a transplant with those kind of cells.'"
Of course, when the problem you're facing is insulin resistance, this isn't going to help you all that much. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
There have also been examples when a procedure was first pioneered with embryonic stem cells, that later was able to be replicated with adult stem cells from the patient themselves. Initial attempts were probably made in part due to religious objections surrounding the use of embryos, but it has happened enough to consider that they might be able to do it here, with the patient's own cells, so there wouldn't be much of an issue with rejection.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Embryonic is easy mode, the cells can become literally any cell of the body.
Next you figure out what traits are absolutely necessary to make a cell produce insulin and compare it to the traits of pluripotent cells made from adult cells of various parts of the body. Maybe skin cells can be coaxed into it, or maybe muscle cells, or liver.
With this breakthrough they have a template that could quickly lead to diabetics being cured by a quick sample being cut out then reimplanted a month later after being changed into insulin producer cells.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Less of some types of carbs, yes, but more other stuff too: https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr... ...
"Excess weight interferes with insulin's functions, and is the primary risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes. Therefore the most effective treatment for type 2 diabetes is significant weight loss. However, the primary mode of treatment by physicians today is glucose-lowering medication. These medications give a false sense of security, providing implicit permission to continue the same disease-causing diet and lifestyle that allowed diabetes to develop in the first place. Many of these medications promote weight gain -- making the patient more diabetic; most importantly, these medications do not prevent diabetes from progressing and causing complications.
The key to diabetes reversal is superior nutrition and exercise. It may take a little extra effort, but avoiding the tragic complications of diabetes and a premature death is well worth it. My diabetes-reversal diet is vegetable-based with a high nutrient to calorie ratio, containing lots of greens and beans, other non-starchy vegetables, (such as mushrooms, eggplant, tomatoes and onions), raw nuts and seeds, and limited fresh fruit with no sweeteners or white flour products. When diabetics eat in this style, they lose their excess weight -- the cause of their diabetes -- quickly and easily, reducing or eliminating their need for medications and they also flood the body with disease-protective and healing micronutrients and phytochemicals that aid the body's recovery and self-repair mechanism."
For Type II diabetics, such a diet with weight loss brings the body's ability to respond to glucose in line with the remaining capacity to make it as needed. Exercise that builds more muscles and that is done when sugar is spiking can also help in managing glucose levels.
For Type I diabetics however, where the body can't produce much glucose at all if any, this improved diet/exercise is not enough, even if it can improve the situation some what as far as reducing complications. For Type I diabetics, this sort of breakthrough with stem cells, if it works, would be truly amazing.
Sometimes type I diabetics are really misdiagnosed type II, and vice versa, so there is a small level of confusion here where sometimes diet works when you would not expect etc..
BTW, vitamin D deficiency (from lack of natural sunlight) may be involved with the autoimmune response that could cause type I diabetes or perhaps make type II worse.
More from Furhman:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-...
More from others:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/
http://www.fatsickandnearlydea...
https://www.drmcdougall.com/he...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/0...
The deeper issue is that our brains and microbiomes are adapted for a scarcity of refined carbs, and we struggle with the abundance of cheap ones:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
"Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Furthermore, the statement by the bioethicist in the article is false:
"It's the destruction of an individual unique human life for the sole purpose of helping other persons."
I'm not sure why anyone would put it that way, since no one is out there having abortions for the purpose of supplying stem cells, and it is very nearly criminally irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
And if a pregnant woman elects to end her fetus's life wouldn't it be unethical not to use that tragedy to do some good for someone?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
The problem is that Type 1 diabetes is from an auto-immune reaction.
Millions owe their lives to insulin. The genetically engineered human insulin is superior to both the bovine and pork insulins. Blood testing and self-injecting become habits that are easily integrated into your daily routine. The only real hassle is when you miscalculate how much insulin you need based on your food intake and ensuing energy output and your blood sugar goes too low.
So you wake up in an ambulance once in a blue moon because you passed out in public. It's a lot better than waking up missing toes, feet, legs etc from untreated or mismanaged diabetes.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The key to diabetes reversal is superior nutrition and exercise. It may take a little extra effort,
I just love phrases like this. "A little extra effort' indeed. Pretty much every diabetic patient gets counseled to lose weight. They get sent to dieticians. They get nagged at by their insurance company hot line. They don't lose weight.
Hence the drugs which do pretty much what you say they do and have some real, but hardly earthshattering, effect on the disease. If it were 'just' a matter of losing weight then we would 1) not be in the middle of an obesity and diabetes epidemic and 2) not having this conversation. But long term weight loss IS a big deal. So much so that the first person or persons to come up with a method that doesn't involve the usual suspects (changing one's diet and exercising more) gets booted into the top 0.1% instantly.
And yes, we have all seen the anecdotal stories of brave Slashdotters who have gone from next week's heart attack candidate to a lean macho machine by some combination of willpower, Doritos avoidance and free weights. But as we've all seen, the group of people that is the Slashdot community has little in common with the Rest of Them.
Weight loss is hard. Very hard. Especially in a population of random people.
And, BTW, Vitamin D is the current wonderthing. The vast majority of claims will undoubtedly be found to be spurious for reasons that we have amply documented in other threads.
but avoiding the tragic complications of diabetes and a premature death is well worth it.
We're doomed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Umm, pretty much every diabetes study out there suggest otherwise - take your pick and do a search for "The rats/mice were fed sugar until they developed diabetes." Granted that's rodents rather than humans, but I've never heard anyone competent in the field suggest the same doesn't hold true for us. Now you can *also* inherit a predisposition to diabetes, in which case you may develop the disease even if you eat healthy your entire life, but pretty much anyone on a sufficiently sugar-rich diet is at risk of developing the condition - insulin resistance can also develop from prolonged exposure to elevated insulin levels.
Or in your context: pretty much everyone has *some* level of insulin resistance, our design isn't perfect after all. Exacerbate it hard enough and it becomes a problem, unless you're one of those lucky few who are graced with biochemical "immunity" on that front - hey, it happens. Some genetic freaks get horrible conditions, others are essentially immune to horrible things and may never even know it - medical science has only recently begun exploring the latter group.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Probably true. The real problem is in funding the research in the first place - you'll have investors lining up to fund your development of the next big thing in treatments for balding or erectile dysfunction - those are huge markets in which a recurring treatment can make ridiculous profits, especially if it's substantially more effective than existing treatments. An actual cure for cancer, diabetes, etc. on the other hand would replace a steady cash cow with a one-time treatment. Why would a big pharmaceutical company invest in such technology when their are far more profitable investment opportunities available?
Of course in a country with socialized medicine you might well get investment in such research, but the US is leading the charge in medical research, and while findings like these do occasionally emerge from academia here, it's unlikely that they'll find domestic funding for the extensive (and expensive) drudge work necessary to get it approved for human use. The questions will be, will a nation with fewer perverse incentives in their medical industry take up the cause, and will the researchers accept such sponsors knowing that it means they're unlikely to get rich from it. I'm hopeful that the second answer at least would be yes - especially if it becomes obvious they won't find the funding they need within the morass of perverse incentives in our domestic medical industry.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I'd say yes - yes it would. Fire insurance would cover it anyway.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
It's hard to anticipate much of value from somebody who manages to cram so many terms that are both heavily loaded and almost totally vacuous into a single sentence.
In addition to your point (it's very, very, unlikely that the embryos were produced for this purpose at all, let alone solely, since most of the embryo supply is surplus from IVF work, which humans obviously do for other reasons), the rest of the sentence is little more than a fabric of implicit assertions padded with a few nearly meaningless bits.
"Destruction": This process only works because the embryonic cells are undifferentiated (any later in embryonic development and it'd be fun with cell reprogramming) and will only be medically relevant if the resulting beta cells form a reasonably long lived cell line(possibly not immortal; but the more frequently the patient needs new ones implanted, the lower the benefit over just injecting insulin). Does this change in developmental trajectory count as 'destruction'? Arguable; but hardly self-evident.
"Individual": As opposed to the other kind? Did I miss all those collective humans out there? Maybe a hive mind? What would a 'non-individual' human life even look like?
"Unique": Both irrelevant (would the procedure be somehow more or less ethical if it were non-unique? One of those creepy, soulless, clones?) and questionably accurate (very early stage embryos can, and sometimes do, split and form two cell masses that each continue to divide. We call them 'identical twins' and usually don't tell them that they are non-unique, or that a 'unique human life' was destroyed when the original zygote split into two). Given the age of the cells the researchers were working with, chosen specifically for their plasticity, it's actually somewhat tricky to argue that the embryo is 'individual' and 'unique'. In a terribly vacuous sense it is (this embryo is unique because no other embryo is also this embryo); but beyond that you really have to argue for it.
"Human life": This one is as old as the hills, and a classic of the abortion wars. Is it human? Yeah, sure, to the same degree that any other cells in my body are. Is it a 'human life' in the moral personhood sense that you are invoking? Arguable; but you certainly haven't argued it yet.
I sure hope that this bioethicist was either taken out of context or hasn't given up the day job.
Honestly, the hardest thing about subverting free will is actually chasing down a demonstrable instance of it to subvert.
The business of modifying people's behaviors and decisions, on the other hand, at least at the "all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time" population level is absolutely ubiquitous, rather effective, and at least as old as civilization.