Slashdot Mirror


Can Two Injections of Tuberculosis Vaccine Cure Diabetes? (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Fortune: The causes of Type 1 diabetes can be significantly reversed over several years with just two injections of a common tuberculosis vaccine injected a few weeks apart, researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital announced Thursday in a paper published in the journal Nature. Researchers found a substantial reduction in the blood-sugar marker HbA1c that is used to diagnose diabetes.

All subjects with diabetes who received the vaccine had a 10% reduction after three years and 18% after four years, bringing them below the cutoff point for a clinical diagnosis. Those subjects followed for a full eight years retained most of the reduction. Participants who received a placebo or were in a reference group that followed normal diabetic management saw their blood sugar measurement rise by a few percentage points during the same periods followed... A 10% reduction in Hb1Ac reduces the risk of death as a result of diabetes by 21%, and drops by 37% other complications, like blindness and loss of feeling in hands and feet, according to a 2000 study.

124 comments

  1. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by greenwow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or maybe scientists and researchers should have some ethics to make sure their studies are valid and repeatable before pushing claims?

  2. Type 2 help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this work for type 2? I am on 2 medications that are low dosages for it, but if I could get this done and take less medicine or maybe even none that would be awesome. Although it sounds like avoiding as much sugar as possible would still be a good idea.

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

      No, type 1 only.
      oops, i RTFA

    2. Re:Type 2 help? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      So perhaps type 1 has some sort of auto-immune connection (congratulations on RTFA I didn't)

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:Type 2 help? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The article suggests that it might, but that would involve a separate study (and more grant money :-).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

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

      Do we know that, or did they not even try it for Type 2?

    5. Re:Type 2 help? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Would this work for type 2?

      Nope. Type 1 only.

      I am on 2 medications that are low dosages for it

      Try cutting back on the soda and fries. Walking or biking to work may also help.

    6. Re:Type 2 help? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The article suggests that it might

      The article does not say that. There is no plausible mechanism for this to work on type 2.

      The sample size in the study (12 people, 9 getting the treatment, and 3 in the control group, and only 3 receiving the treatment were followed for the full duration) is so small, that it is not even clear if it works on type 1.

    7. Re:Type 2 help? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      "no plausible mechanism for this to work on type 2"
      A few years ago the same thing could have been said about type 1.

    8. Re:Type 2 help? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      A few years ago the same thing could have been said about type 1.

      I don't think so. It is widely accepted that early stimulation of the immune system can head off autoimmune disorders, including Type 1 diabetes. The only thing new here is that the stimulation occurred when the patients were older.

      But Type 2 is not an autoimmune disorder, so there is no known mechanism for stimulation of the immune system to have any effect, and no evidence that it does.

    9. Re:Type 2 help? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      According to the poster above this was a very small sample group consisting only of type 1 patients.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Type 2 help? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      You should avoid carbohydrates too. Cut them out of the diet completely for a good month or two in fact, then re-introduce them in very small measures. Bulk up on animal protein. Always grilled or broiled. Do not fry, boil, or bake. Green vegetables, but not the "leafy" ones; they are useless. Go for broccoli, asparagus and the like - and this is important - you must never microwave the vegetables.

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

      So stop eating simple carbohydrates (or, for that matter, complex ones). Your body isn’t handling them. Completely ditch sugar and starches as ingredients. Protein, fat, and leafy green vegetables.

    12. Re:Type 2 help? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's been known for a while.

    13. Re:Type 2 help? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if "stimulation" is the right word, being that Type 1 is an autoimmune disease. It almost seems like "suppressing" may be the correct term.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    14. Re:Type 2 help? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      The sample size in the study (12 people, 9 getting the treatment, and 3 in the control group, and only 3 receiving the treatment were followed for the full duration)

      Agreed, this sounds like a case study. I think Andrew Wakefield had a bigger sample size in his anti-vax trials, and we know how that turned out.

      I'm Type 1, and I want this to work more than anybody. There's a lot of very smart people trying to find a cure, but at the end of the day it's a very complicated disease with multiple factors that could trigger it.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    15. Re:Type 2 help? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Over 100 years actually. Problem is no one has figured out "why" the immune system randomly gets up one day and decides to start destroying the pancreas of a 4 year old.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Type 2 help? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Got some more quasi-religious nonsense to share?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re: Type 2 help? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      His doctor probably wants to sell him the meds. Diabetes 2 is big biz right now for big pharma.

    18. Re: Type 2 help? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      and this is important - you must never microwave the vegetables.

      Oooo wah woo.

      Do I need to keep my veggies away from my cellphone and wifi router, too?

    19. Re:Type 2 help? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You rely on health and nutrition information from InfoWars? Seriously?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    20. Re: Type 2 help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a TV show (small sample shown on the programme, less than 10 people. I guess theyâ(TM)ve done it with others) recently that showed a dramatic diet change (they were on specially designed protein+vitamin shakes under medical supervision, 800cals a day for 8 weeks basically) in T2 diabetics with high hBA1c and blood glucose gave them huge reductions in both. The biggest drop was about 70% from what I remember. Pretty dramatic results but no idea what will come of it and it clearly needs discipline from the patient. https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week24/fast-fix-diabetes#

    21. Re: Type 2 help? by Memnos · · Score: 1

      No, that's ridiculous. Just make sure your veggies use WPA2. And for God's sake, don't leave the default password in use, on your broccoli, especially.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    22. Re: Type 2 help? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Instructions unclear, have just given my bank details to a Nigerian cauliflower mogul who needs to move his assets out the country.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    23. Re:Type 2 help? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Would this work for type 2?"

      Quien Sabe? The study was done on a VERY small number of type 1 diabetics. Frankly, while I think it's worth following up, I'm quite skeptical that the study really shows anything meaningful.

      1. The sample size is very small

      2. There are surely a large number of probably poorly controlled variables (diet, exercise, other medications, lifestyle changes, etc,etc,etc) Is every aspect of YOUR life that might affect blood glucose levels unchanged over the past five years?

      3. "They" have only the haziest idea of underlying mechanisms.

      It'll be nice if this works out, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    24. Re: Type 2 help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'd like to reach over and slap you, repeatedly. Type 1 is diagnosed by the requirement for insulin, which is *flipping expensive* due to the new patents and manufacture of "human" insulin, That part is actually pretty stupid. Beef and pork insulin worked *better*, and had dropped over time to less than $50/bottle. New bottles of "human" insulin now cost over $300/each, because of new patents and the frankly fraudulent claim that it is "better" by some miracle of no particular tested benefit. It's slightly faster, but human insulin also contributes to hypoglycemic unawareness, which gave me a *hell* of a time when I was first compelled to switch. I managed to switch back for a while, but the animal insulins are simply no longer available in the USA, or even in England (where I used to sneak mine from).

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

      "No" because Type 2 diabetes is mostly resistance to insulin. Most Type 2 diabetics have *plenty* of insulin in the blood stream. Us Type 1's have little to none, for most of us because the insulin producing cells have been destroyed by the underlying auto-immune problem.

      The distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 is actually a treatment distinction, whether or not insulin is needed. So it's not a completely effective means to determine the cause of diabetes. But if you go with the numbers, this will not help Type 2,. There are a few people who have *both*, but it's hard to get good numbers on that.

    26. Re:Type 2 help? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Type 2 responds quite well to intermittent fasting.

    27. Re:Type 2 help? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      >Type 2 responds quite well to intermittent fasting.

      20/4 here. My experience matches this. I haven't had any appreciable weight loss, but my doctor is happier with my lab results. (Though candidly I do miss my morning McDonald's sausage biscuit with cheese.)

      Part of me wonders if this isn't an artifact of the tests though. Triglyceride testing specifically is extremely sensitive to fasting.

      Unfortunately it's not helping my knees. They are suffering accelerated wear due to excessive loading.

    28. Re:Type 2 help? by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Maybe combine it with low carb or keto. That's what I did. I only lost 10 kg in 2 months but I was only slightly overweight to begin with. My insulin resistance has vanished and I can eat stuff like bread again but I won't go back to dinners with a ton of rice or spuds with something to color it a bit. Not gaining any weight back so far.

    29. Re:Type 2 help? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      InfoWars stole this information from ME.

    30. Re: Type 2 help? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The patent protections on the old insulin ran out. Lilly Pharmaceuticals can't have you using that *old* insulin that they don't have a patent on.

      It's similar to (offtopic warning) the way that Freon formulations are determined to be 'bad for the environment' after DuPont's patent runs out on them. Then a new Freon type * needs to be used and your refrigeration equipment updated or scrapped.

      (*that DuPont happens to have a patent on)

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

      Bro, I'm 54 . I had Type 2 and took increasing doses of metformin for 2 years. When my pet got sick, I got depressed and ate very little. I also became vegan to try to get some good karma into the house. Anyhow, after 3 months, I lost 40 lbs and my blood sugar numbers came back to normal. I told my doc and he said that weight loss decreases the load on the liver and other organs. I wish the fucker had told me that in the 2 years I was taking pills. 3 months of good dieting stopped the diabetes. Sadly, my pet left me, but if it wasn't for that situation, I would still be diabetic. I think he left me a blessing.

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

      STFU Maggot.

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

      I'm not sure if "stimulation" is the right word, being that Type 1 is an autoimmune disease. It almost seems like "suppressing" may be the correct term.

      Vaccines stimulate an immune system. That's how they work as vaccines.

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

      Got some more quasi-religious nonsense to share?

      I know you're thinking that post was foolish/funny. But the truth is, two years of a strict low carb diet have essentially "cured" my type 2. And by "low carb" I really mean low sugar/starch but tons of fresh veggies, etc. This is really not all that different from described above, albeit without any citations provided.

      As to it being religion, well, verbal nonsense as stated above (re: microwaving) would never have convinced me to try it. There might be something to it with respect to killing off microbes that might contribute positively to your gut microbiome, but there is currently not a lot of research activity in the field. I credit most of my good health to research done by Drs. Phinney, Noakes, Rosedale, and Fettke. I read a ton of research papers, journal articles, and books before coming to realize the lie of generally accepted nutrition advice. Now THAT is the real dangerous "quasi-religious nonsense" that has caused the current obesity/diabetes epidemic, IMHO.

      And this tangent really has not much at all to do with Type 1 anyway...

  3. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

    How's that working for the ex-Google employees who refused to work on gubmint programs?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  4. Big Pharma might not allow it by emaname · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It strikes me as though there is a large number of oral medications and injectables all geared toward "managing" diabetes. That's a lot of revenue for somebody. Now to have something that (if it's true) can reduce the need for diabetic medications seems like it would make those drug manufacturers very unhappy.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    1. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      It strikes me as though there is a large number of oral medications and injectables all geared toward "managing" diabetes. That's a lot of revenue for somebody. Now to have something that (if it's true) can reduce the need for diabetic medications seems like it would make those drug manufacturers very unhappy.

      Therein lies the quandary for the development of humanity-saving drugs... life-long prescriptions produce far more revenue than the next generation of super-antibiotics.

      I suspect this might be a flaw in the free market solves all ills school of thought... unless a future that includes a reduction in the human population of the planet is viewed as a net positive.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Gilead just had a huge lesson in the area. Their blockbuster drug cured so much Hep-C that its sales have already plummeted. Cures are short hits. The boom-bust cycle can be more destructive to a company than just never having the boom.

    3. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Rats. Our only chANCE is that pharmaceutical companies evolve to develop life-changing cures that have to be taken, er, for the rest of our lives.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect this might be a flaw in the free market solves all ills school of thought

      But this is also a problem that can be solved by the free market. See, a pharma maker with a drug that manages a disease (rather than curing it) may not be inclined to produce a drug that could cure said disease, but another company, one that does not make such a drug (especially a company that is a competitor to the first) does have a strong incentive to produce a cure, as not only would it make them a large amount of money (even if for a short period of time), it would undermine the revenue stream of the competing company, a win for them. Note that this requires the market to actually be free. Collusion between companies can prevent it from happening, because then it ceases to be a free market (note that this does mean a free market requires some government intervention at times).

      This is why all the conspiracy theories about researches not actually wanting to find a cure for cancer make no sense. Aside from the fact that researchers themselves have ethical incentives to find a cure (not to mention reputational: there is, after all, a Nobel prize in medicine, and a cure for cancer would be a guaranteed shoe-in), and of course the fact that cures for plenty of other diseases have been (and continue to be) developed (which shows that pharma companies really do still put out cures), the company that discovers a cure for cancer would make all the money in cancer treatment, not just some of it, and for quite a long time, and would completely decimate their competitors. Plus ongoing money, since cancer would still occur and need curing (in fact, they could probably end up making even more money in the long run, since people surving cancer means they're more likely to develop another cancer in the future)

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      I suspect this might be a flaw in the free market solves all ills school of thought...

      You might want to pay more attention to that school of thought. A "free market" is a market with full transparency of information, and no barriers to entry for either sellers or buyers.

      Medicine has huge barriers to competition, and buyers have almost no information, since doctors don't post prices and often don't even reveal them at the time of delivery. Buyers also have little ability to compare providers for quality. Even review sites like Yelp tell you far more about the rude receptionist than the outcome of the treatments. Furthermore, the "buyer" is insulated from the price, and usually only pays indirectly through their insurance company.

      Healthcare in America is about as far as you can get from a free market. Perhaps this is an area where socialism actually makes sense, but we could do it with no net increase in government by de-socializing tasks the free market can do just fine, like package delivery.

    6. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, maybe... if it achieves Lipitor-like success, which would require life-long medication.

      Assuming constant incidence, survival, and cost, we projected 13.8 and 18.1 million cancer survivors in 2010 and 2020, respectively, with associated costs of cancer care of 124.57 and 157.77 billion 2010 US dollars. This 27% increase in medical costs reflects US population changes only. The largest increases were in the continuing phase of care for prostate cancer (42%) and female breast cancer (32%). Projections of current trends in incidence (declining) and survival (increasing) had small effects on 2020 estimates. However, if costs of care increase annually by 2% in the initial and last year of life phases of care, the total cost in 2020 is projected to be $173 billion, which represents a 39% increase from 2010.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    7. Re: Big Pharma might not allow it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why this researcher has had to pursue other types of funding. The work is very interesting (Iâ(TM)m following it closely). The final word is not in, but it is, at least, based on a specific mechanism, rather than âoeOh look, this seems to do somethingâ.

    8. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by gweihir · · Score: 2

      That is probably the reason this study is so small. But according to Wikipedia, Type 1 is only 5-10% of all cases, so Big Pharma may just not care, not enough money in it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Informative

      but another company, one that does not make such a drug (especially a company that is a competitor to the first) does have a strong incentive to produce a cure,

      This company would make even more money if they just produced a competing drug to manage the disease rather than curing it.

      Here are some examples of the best selling diabetes drugs, from different pharma companies. None of them would benefit from a cure.

      https://www.pharmaceutical-tec...

    10. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      They are already complaining about the Hep C cure and how they want to focus more on managing instead of curing.

    11. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Researchers would love to cure all kinds of things. Big pharma, on the other hand, doesn't care even slightly about curing anything. It just wants to see a profit. These goals are sometimes compatible, and sometimes not, but the real danger in this system is consolidation. Capitalism only works in the presence of competition. Consolidation leads to greater barriers to entry into the market, because larger corporations have more money to spend buying legislation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by volmtech · · Score: 1

      So none of the millions of researchers in China and India can find these cures? Wouldn't countries that now have socialized healthcare benefit from cures? Why is it only the US that can do these things? The same goes for stem cell research, nothing can be developed because of America's abortion laws. For some reason aborted Russian, Japanese, and Chinese babies can't be used.

    13. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Isn't Type 1 what most kids who are diabetic have?

      Won't someone think of the children?!?

      seems quite appropriate here.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    14. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is why all the conspiracy theories about researches not actually wanting to find a cure for cancer make no sense."

      You are assuming that people act rationally. A dangerous assumption.
      A similar error in thinking is that criminal masterminds are highly intelligent...

    15. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...doctors don't post prices and often don't even reveal them at the time of delivery."
      Doctoring often involves not knowing what services will be provided before they provide them. At at initial encounter the doctor talks with the patient, takes some history, does and exam...and at each step there is the possibility that what is done in the next step changes. Follow up visits or continuing care is more, but not always straight forward.
      Doctors office, groups, clinics of large organizations hire billing experts or outside companies who bill according to standard practices. The doctors often have no idea what patients are charged. They are not involved in that. Doctors do things which are assigned billing codes. Either the doctor or the billing department decides what codes best describe what was done. The doctor's office has some but not much wiggle room in the amount charged for each code. If they are billing insurance or working under a managed care contract those companies often lower the charge to an allowed amount.
      In the end, one person may be charged $5,000 for something, and another person with the same exact condition and treatment may be charged $20,000. It is irrational. You can also pay $5,000 or $2000 to carpet a house.

    16. Re:Big Pharma might not allow it by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I suspect this might be a flaw in the free market solves all ills school of thought... unless a future that includes a reduction in the human population of the planet is viewed as a net positive.

      Or regulatory capture of the FDA is being used to prevent development of less economical treatments. Pick your poison.

      There is no free market in medicine.

  5. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this case it's the "The study relied on the bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine" which has been in use since 1921.

    All you need to do if you have Diabetes type 1 is to find a vaccination clinic which has the vaccine in question.

  6. Unfortunately it causes autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So take your pick. Vaccines are bad ok?

    1. Re: Unfortunately it causes autism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not. BCG has been in use for more than 100 years.

    2. Re:Unfortunately it causes autism by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Found the moron in the discussion. The study that claimed that was for one specific vaccine, the primary author had an alternate vaccine coming out a few months later he claimed was better and his PhD was by now removed because the study was completely fraudulent. Look it up. No, vaccines do not cause autism.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  7. Title is misleading or the answer is just 'no'. by puck01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    To be clear, the intervention is not a cure for type I diabetes mellitus. The authors go out of there way to prove and explain this:

    "In this study we observe the long term and stable lowering of blood sugars in humans after BCG vaccinations. In the human, this stable blood sugar control was not driven primarily in these human subjects by pancreas recovery or regeneration. The human pancreas after BCG even at four years after repeat vaccinations did not secrete significant insulin as clinically measured by C-peptide. The mechanism for lowered HbA1c values was not equivalent to the NOD diabetic mouse pancreas regeneration after BCG treatment, despite equally restored and long term improved blood sugar control. The BCG-treated type 1 diabetic subjects at year 4 after glucagon challenge had a negligible to no return of clinically significant C-peptide. The C-peptide values after glucagon were in the range of 2–3 pmol/L of C-peptide (Fig. 1c), but with no known clinical significance. Therefore we concluded that BCG vaccinations did not induce a clinically meaningful return of C-peptide levels in the pancreas by regeneration, as observed in the NOD mouse model of diabetes17,18 Thus pancreas rescue or regeneration could not fully account for the persistent and long term HbA1c lowering in humans receiving BCG."

    The study didn't include type 2 so we really can't say how this intervention will work on that group; however, I don't see a reason to think it wouldn't be effective in this group.

    This is a really interesting study. I've been heavily involved in the past with diabetes mellitus management. This is a novel approach as far as I know. This may revolutionize the approach to treatment for many with diabetes mellitus.

    1. Re:Title is misleading or the answer is just 'no'. by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2

      I'm somewhat sleep deprived, am I correct in reading that this implies it would lower almost anyone's blood sugar levels slightly for the long term? My understanding is that lowering average blood sugar levels slightly is significantly beneficial to overall health.

    2. Re:Title is misleading or the answer is just 'no'. by puck01 · · Score: 2

      The study is consistent with the possibility that it could improve glycemic control for patients with other types of hyperglycemic disorders (ie. type 2 diabetes mellitus or pre-diabetes) but it certainly hasn't proven this.

    3. Re:Title is misleading or the answer is just 'no'. by arth1 · · Score: 2

      My understanding is that lowering average blood sugar levels slightly is significantly beneficial to overall health.

      No, that's not a given. You don't want to push people with an already low blood glucose level down to hypoglycemia levels.

      Low blood sugar can be a problem not only for diabetics who take too much medicine, but also people with Addison's disease, non-diabetic alcoholics, and people who do endurance sports or very high levels of exercise.

    4. Re:Title is misleading or the answer is just 'no'. by sessamoid · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that lowering average blood sugar levels slightly is significantly beneficial to overall health.

      No, that's not a given. You don't want to push people with an already low blood glucose level down to hypoglycemia levels.

      Low blood sugar can be a problem not only for diabetics who take too much medicine, but also people with Addison's disease, non-diabetic alcoholics, and people who do endurance sports or very high levels of exercise.

      If you read the study, they did address this.

      Semi-annual surveys confirmed that during year 03 to year 08 after BCG vaccinations there were no reports of severe hypoglycemia by any patient, even with lowered HbA1Cs near the normal range, and no change in their care as it related to new insulin pumps or continuous glucose monitoring devices. The placebo group of subjects continued to show hypoglycemia events during the same time periods of monitoring.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    5. Re:Title is misleading or the answer is just 'no'. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If you read the study, they did address this.

      No, they didn't. The study and control group were all diabetes patients, where the risk of hypoglycemia is from medication. That's a very different situation than someone who has low blood sugar values for other reasons and where lowering it would bring them below a threshold and cause problems.

      My response was to point out that lowering the blood sugar is not always beneficial overall. And indeed, they don't propose that either.

  8. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    There probably are several new medicines that will cure or alleviate symptoms for all manner of things developed each month. Sometimes the news is a bit premature as the drug hasn't even been tried in humans yet. Once further testing is done some of these are found to cause all manner of nasty side effects, some worse than what they cure. Sometimes the FDA approves it anyhow if the side effects don't appear to be life threatening, even as off-putting as they may be.

  9. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer to this stoopid libtard question, as always, is no. But thanks for asking.

    AE911Truth org

    1. Re:No by rmdingler · · Score: 0

      The answer to this stoopid libtard question, as always, is no. But thanks for asking.

      AE911Truth org

      Off the cuff, I'd have assumed Betteridge was a better speller.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:No by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with diabetes, but they're the ones who begged for $1800 to finance a press release informing the Iranian authorities that apartment building fires are actually caused by explosives. Please look elsewhere for rubes to fleece. Thanks!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  10. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by rmdingler · · Score: 0

    Or maybe scientists and researchers should have some ethics to make sure their studies are valid and repeatable before pushing claims?

    Sure

    Certainly though, a societal trend seems to have developed that indicate getting your possibly inaccurate scoop out there trumps carefully researching your data.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  11. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you just shittin on Demos cause he shat on Pubtards? Type 1 diabetes is inherited, it is not from germ phobia.

  12. As some one pointed out by bferrell · · Score: 1

    The article refers to type one diabetes, not the far more common (and epidemic) type two.

    Nice, but not as useful

    1. Re:As some one pointed out by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
      There's recent research showing a cure for type 2 diabetes, as well. The conclusion:

      "Our findings show that, at 12 months, almost half of participants achieved remission to a non-diabetic state and off antidiabetic drugs. Remission of type 2 diabetes is a practical target for primary care."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:As some one pointed out by bferrell · · Score: 1

      Let us hope. I've know too many with all of the serious complications.

      I'm always leary of "it's a target"

      It reminds of the old Microsoft joke... "it's gonna be great"

    3. Re:As some one pointed out by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      There's recent research showing a cure for type 2 diabetes, as well. The conclusion:

      "Our findings show that, at 12 months, almost half of participants achieved remission to a non-diabetic state and off antidiabetic drugs. Remission of type 2 diabetes is a practical target for primary care."

      Since I have type II diabetes, I clicked that with interest to read what miracle might be there. To sum it up...intensive weight loss via exercise.

      Well no shit.

    4. Re:As some one pointed out by eskayp · · Score: 1

      "To sum it up...intensive weight loss via exercise.
      Well no shit."

      Are you sure you didn't mean
      "...minimal weight loss via intensive exercise.
      Oh well, no shit time left in the day."

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
    5. Re:As some one pointed out by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Most cases of type 2 can be prevented and treated with a better (no sugar/no grains) diet.

    6. Re:As some one pointed out by bferrell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let me know how successful you are with that. It's not JUST sugar/grains... Expand it to the more general and appropriate "carbohydrates" and then tell me what has carbs and how to scrupulously avoid them.

      I the cheese you eat isn't extremely sharp, the residual lactose is a carbohydrate. Legumes, some "good" carbs (not digestable) still some "bad" ones too.

      Did you know protein can metabolize into glucose? Carbs.

      I live this.

      It's not fun but worth the effort.

    7. Re:As some one pointed out by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      Let's keep a sense of perspective. You want to keep your blood sugars to a "healthy" level. As I understand it, that's between 70 and 100mg/dL fasting and generally below 140 all the time (yeah you spike after eating).
      If you're not dead, you have a blood sugar level of some sort.
      My point is, you should NOT be trying to eliminate sugars or things that will turn into sugars from your diet. You need them. Just figure out what you can eat such that your blood sugar stays at a level your nerves aren't dying off.

  13. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Type 1 diabetes is inherited, it is not from germ phobia.

    Type 1 diabetes, like many other autoimmune disorders, is correlated with excessive cleanliness.

    Both Type 1 and Type 2 have a genetic component, but it is actually stronger for type 2. The heritability for type 1 is about 3% if you mother has it, and about 5% if your father has it. For some Native American tribes, such as the Pima people, the type 2 rate is nearly 40%, nearly all of which is heritable because their genetic heritage isn't adapted to a modern diet.

  14. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    BCG is hard to find in the US. Vaccination with it will cause a person to have a positive PPD (tuberculosis test), and the rate of TB is low enough that public health policymakers would rather have a very accurate and simple test than vaccinate everyone. The only use for it in the US that I’m aware of is in treatment of bladder cancer.

  15. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Alright, you're trying to make this a dig about Republicans all being fat, and it's working, but you don't have to go that far for the punch line here. The truth is that this is about religious fanaticism more than party lines. The (+80% Christian) Republicans think type 1 diabetes is punishment from God, because you're born with it. That is why they care less about it than type 2.

  16. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems like it's possible to find at clinics which specialize in travel vaccines. (granted the research done was a couple of googles.)

  17. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure none of us will be around to feel stupid. --Captain Obvious

  18. Europe does't put up with their crap by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    like the US does, so a lot of good basic research is getting done over there. Eventually it makes it's way over the pond.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Europe does't put up with their crap by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Europe does't put up with their crap, like the US does, so a lot of good basic research is getting done over there.

      Which is why this study was done at the "Massachusetts General Hospital"?

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  19. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that I am a conservative, and a medical researcher, working on pancreatic disease issues at a class 1 research medical school and that the vast majority of my team is not only conservative, but religious and of a strain you would wrongly call fundamentalist all I can say is: What you talking about Willis. I do not know any Christian's who think type 1 diabetes is a curse on the individual or a punishment.

    But, if you really think as you do and are thus smoking that much crack, maybe you should go get a nice naltrexone injection, say 150 mg?

  20. Natives and Gypsies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Native tribes and gypsies are not known for excessive cleanliness. So the germophobia link is likely pure BS.

    1. Re: Natives and Gypsies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germaphobic is too general. What if they are afraid of some germs but enjoy others?

    2. Re:Natives and Gypsies by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Native tribes and gypsies are not known for excessive cleanliness. So the germophobia link is likely pure BS.

      The Native Americans get Type 2. The lack of germs causes Type 1.

    3. Re:Natives and Gypsies by tempmpi · · Score: 1

      The native tribes part was for diabetes type 2 which is likely NOT an autoimmune disorder. The idea is that many autoimmune disorders happen when parts of the immune systems that were evolved to target once common germs and parasites never encounter their true target and then target similar human proteins.

      "Germ phobia" or "excessive cleanliness" is not such a good description, e.g:: even without any focus on cleanliness, nearly everyone in developed countries will only drink clean water free of worms and similar parasites. They used to be very common, however.

      --
      Jan
  21. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing is that they have a new assay, quantiferon gold that will tell you if you have actual TB vs antibodies to the vaccine.
    BCG is pretty much useless for TB, but they still give it out to everyone in the philippines. They should instead work on quarantining people that are sick.

  22. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please share some of what you're smoking. That's done dank shit.

  23. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    It's probably under patent any longer.

    Big Pharma is hard at work on new, patentable therapies for diabetes.

  24. There is no money in curing a disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pharma and the medical community wont push for this.

    1. Re:There is no money in curing a disease by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why we still don't have any way to prevent smallpox or polio—there's entirely too much profit in waiting to treat those diseases after they occur!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  25. What About Type 2? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Since getting those injections does no harm why not test responses tor type 2 diabetes?

  26. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Memnos · · Score: 1

    If you think that an opioid antagonist is going to have an effect on a dopamine agonist, maybe you should go retake some of your med school classes?

    --
    I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
  27. Number of problems with this study by niittyniemi · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'll try and identify a few of them.

    First up: define what a Type 1 diabetic is.

    We had this come up some weeks back, when some Scandinavian doctors came up with the conclusion that the several thousand diabetics they studied did not fall neatly into 2 groups ie. Type 1 & 2. Instead they identified some half a dozen groups.

    I angrily posted about this at the time because this was known over 20 years ago. What was worse is that I (a diabetic who needs insulin) wasn't covered in their groupings and neither was somebody with gestational diabetes or ....etc.

    There's also the problem of what an American doctor diagnoses as a "Type 1" might be somewhat different to what a British or Japanese or Ugandan doctor does. It may even subtly vary among the doctors in just one hospital.

    Treatment regimens will vary also: human or analog insulin? Which analog? Short acting, long acting, mix? Pump, pen, syringe? Which pump running what software?

    The authors of this paper obviously start with the assumption that all the "Type 1 diabetics" they studied were as a result of this mysterious auto-immune disease, a disease whose pathology or very existence is entirely unclear.

    They say in the paper that their cohort had all been diagnosed as "Type 1" as if it's a choice between black or white. It's not, because that term is undefined and in clinical practice covers a significant spectrum of people.

    --
    The Machine stops.
    1. Re:Number of problems with this study by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      It does, apparently, seem to be, as you describe it. It's unclear to me why the Type 1/2 diagnosis isn't based on blood insulin levels. Little or no insulin = Type 1. Lots of insulin but elevated blood glucose (A1C) = type 2.

      But it's not. And if it were, diagnosis would still be difficult once supplemental insulin was used.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Number of problems with this study by niittyniemi · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the whole business of diabetes, it's diagnosis and it's management is a complete shambles. That wouldn't be so bad if it was an uncommon disease.

      In the old days, type 1 & 2 were essentially known as 'juvenile onset' and 'age onset' respectively and you were chucked in to one or the other category.

      The great & the good decided that those 2 categories didn't quite correlate with the true picture and in their wisdom they decided "Type 1 & 2" was so much better. Of course, it wasn't; it's still just 2 categories and it doesn't represent the true picture much better at all. It's just misleading instead of entirely misleading.

      If I had it in my power, I would go completely mad and categorize diabetes into a WHOLE 3 CATEGORIES! 'Dog', 'Cat' and 'Cow'.

      By doing that, I would have immediately improved the categorization (and hence treatment) significantly and surely I will be remembered in history and get my well-deserved Nobel as a matter of course.

      This sort of idiocy is an ongoing problem and nor is it the only one.

      For instance, diabetics who required insulin used to be given animal insulins, namely cow or pig, extracted from the animals' pancreases after slaughter.

      The problem with those insulins is that they are not quite as efficacious as human insulin. Why? Other mammalian insulins are not quite the same as human. So IIRC human insulin is a protein consisting of some 40+ amino acids strung together - some of those amino acids being the same. Pig insulin is the same but with 1 or 2 of the amino acids being different, in either position on the protein or chemically. Cow insulin, it's 3 or 4 that are changed because in evolutionary terms, our common ancestor with a cow is further away from us than that of a pig.

      Remember your high school biology? What happens if you introduce foreign proteins into a human body? You get an immune response from the body and it attacks the foreign protein. That's why organ transplant patients are given immunosuppresants: so the transplanted organ doesn't get destroyed by the response from the host.

      The same thing happens with the animal insulins; being foreign proteins means that they're attacked and the longer you take animal insulin, the more you have to take in order to get your blood glucose down to the same levels that you got when you first started taking it. After decades on it, patients ended up having to take huge doses which comes with it's own associated problems.

      In the '80s with the advance of genetics and being able to engineer and grow yeasts that produced human insulin, everybody became significantly happier.....except the drug companies. "How can we make any money on this human insulin shit? We can't patent it!" they howled....quietly to themselves.

      Enter 'insulin analogs'. These are insulins in which the amino acids of human insulin have been fucked around with. Whoopee! Patentable! Let the big bucks roll in!

      These 'analog insulins' should remind you of something: animal insulins.

      Drug trials don't last decades though, so the problems as evidenced with animal insulins to treat diabetes in humans haven't shown up yet and certainly didn't during the trials.

      The drug companies of course have convinced the medical profession on the basis of entirely bogus data, that these analogs are so much better then that God-given human insulin shit. They modeled them to be quicker acting, they say, hence less long-term damage from hyperglycaemia, they say. Horseshit, I say. You've got fuck all worthwhile evidence and what's more, you never will have.

      Am I right in thinking that some 25 year ago, before 'folding@home' and such like existed, modeling how a protein, say like a fucked around piece of insulin folded wasn't doable? So if you don't know how it's going to fold, how the hell are you going to have any idea how effective it is going to be at it's job ie. metabolising glucose?

      For 20 years I've managed to avoid the a

      --
      The Machine stops.
    3. Re:Number of problems with this study by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, the whole business of diabetes, it's diagnosis and it's management is a complete shambles. That wouldn't be so bad if it was an uncommon disease."

      Diagnosis? I'll give them a B+. A1C seems useful and is repeatable if you don't demand more than +- 0.5% accuracy. I'm less wild about blood glucose measurement. The measurement seems repeatable. But my experience is that different meters give results that are more different than they reasonably ought to be. And even with just one meter, my results are all over the place -- soaring occasionally for no obvious reason and sometimes coming in quite low despite no obvious dietary or activity related reason. Maybe OK for preliminary screening. Not something I think should be used for diagnosis. I check it once a day and run a profile a few times a month just to make sure that it's -- on average -- under control.

      Management? Maybe a C or C- My experience was that I was totally unable to adequately control blood glucose with mealtime insulin even with tight control of dietary carbohydrates. I eventually, on my own, quit using mealtime insulin (before I killed myself) and settled for Metformin plus a daily shot long acting insulin My blood glucose settled to moderately erratic, but not frightening and I later found that I could be relatively relaxed about carbohydrate control. For me, it just doesn't seem to make much difference. Throughout the process the medical folks seemed sincere, knowledgable, and helpful. But I really don't think they know as much about diabetes as they think they do.

      Overall, I think the doctors do sort of OK. Much better with diabetes than things like lower back pain and hypertension where I think the state of the art might best be described as mostly-clueless. I would say that overall, things medical have improved a lot since my youth in the 1940s when in lots of cases you might well have been better off without medical assistance. But they still have quite a ways to go..

      "The problem is, if you go on to a different insulin, you then have to spend months testing several times a day and finding your right insulin regime. I just haven't got the energy for that"

      Yes -- when they put me on insulin, I was pretty much completely unable to control my blood sugar. Good luck with yours.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  28. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty much useless, but somehow still managed to all but wipe out TB in the UK in the 50s? I may have a small scar from my BCG vaccination, but I'm still very happy to have had it. TB is back on the rise in the UK, largely because the BCG vaccination program was phased out 15 years ago.

  29. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe scientists and researchers should have some ethics to make sure their studies are valid and repeatable before pushing claims?

    Scientists don't publish claims, they publish results. The media publishes claims.

  30. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They vaccinated a total of 9 people. Cannot possibly be valid.

  31. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by vtcodger · · Score: 2

    "BCG is pretty much useless for TB, but they still give it out to everyone in the philippines."

    So Type 1 diabetes is pretty much unknown in the Philippines?

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  32. Type 2 is a lifestyle choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Type 2 is a lifestyle choice, srsly, at least for 95% of humans.

    Switch to a mostly veggie diet (by bulk) with reduced carbs and walk fast for 1 hr a day, 5 days a week.
    Reduce rice, potatoes, breads, especially for the first month.

    No need to be no-carb or even lo-carb, but by reducing carb-based calories to less than 30% of the total, it is amazing the changes most people will see. I dropped 50 lbs, which freaked me out. It freaked out my doctor too.

    But it won't work for everyone. Some people need to drop below 20% calories from carbs to get results. Different bodies are .... different.

    My libido is much higher/larger/bigger now too, since reducing the carbs.

    And forget the whole "net-carbs" crap.

    1. Re:Type 2 is a lifestyle choice by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      type-2 is truly a lifestyle choice.

      Speak for yourself.

      I'm a disabled veteran. I don't eat poorly, but I can't exercise very well (or hardly walk) because of the injuries that caused my medical retirement. Type-2 diabetes is also caused by corticosteroids - right now I'm in the middle of working to get my Type-2 diabetes connected as a secondary condition to one of my service connected disabilities, because I didn't have Type 2 diabetes before having to get massive steroid injections and prednisone treatments.

      There *are* a lot of fat fucks that could lose their diabetes if they would put away the cookies and get on the treadmill - but there are OTHER causes too.

  33. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They do and did. The real work is being done by Dr. Faustmann's lab at Mass. General Hospital, and I've been keeping an eye on it. It also requires tight blood sugar control for the month of the treatment, which is why at first other laboratories could not reproduce the results in lab animals. Tight blood sugar control for Type 1 diabetics requires many blood glucose tests and careful diet, schedule, etc. And it costs a lot more in personnel to do the animal care and the blood glucose test strips are $1/each, it really raises the cost of the lab animals. So other labs failed to replicate the work until they did a "laying on of hands", sending personnel from Dr. Faustmann's lab to other groups to see what the issue might be. This is startlingly common in research and science: unstated, implicit components, such as the frequency of blood glucose testing and quality of lab animal care, are not automatically spelled out in even a good scientific paper.

    There was a similar, not so well documented and published study at University of West Virginia more than 20 years ago. I was never able to find what the chemical treatment was, only that they had encouraging lab animal results. Eli Lilly took, owner of insulin production around the world, over their funding: as best I can tell, they've never published anything useful again. Don't know if the approach failed, or the manufacturers of insulin helped poison the research to protect a market. Mass. General Hospital, fortunately, is big enough and has enough political pull and political savvy to avoid that trick.

    If this works, and works well, but gets held up by at the FDA for decades more of human testing, I expect medical tourism to India, or even Cuba, to balloon with Type 1 diabetics like me taking badly needed month long vacations for a cure. A month or so of complete dietary control, daily exercise at the beach or the gym, and very attentive diabetic treatment to keep things right during the cure are *much* cheaper than a year of Type 1 diabetic supplies. With 6 test strips daily at $1/each, Humalog short-acting insulin at $25/day, insulin pump or insulin pump supplies adding a few more bucks a day, $2000/month is pretty reasonable for us Type 1 diabetics even if we're stable.

    I'd do it in a *heartbeat* once I have a sense of the doses. The trick for me would be keeping tight blood sugar for the whole month, especially avoiding hypoglycemia as my insulin production improves and I'm still using an insulin pump. That's tricky, like any general lifestyle change for us Type 1 diabetics.

  34. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by sessamoid · · Score: 1

    I've worked in US communities with a very high concentration of Philippino immigrants and their recent offspring. My anecdotal observation of Type I diabetes rates in this community is that it's markedly lower than what I'm used to seeing in areas of the US with predominantly European genetic stock. World health statistics also show that the Philippines has significantly lower rates of diabetes than the US.

    --
    "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  35. Type 2 is a lifestyle choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 things:

    a) You don't need "intensive exercise" - 1 hr daily of fast walking. How fast is fast? As fast as you can go, based on your current conditioning. Waddle if you must. Stroll when that becomes easy. Walk when strolling is too east. And keep going faster and slower for the hour until you are walking the full hr as fast as a fit 18 yr old crossing a huge University campus. Add in hills, then mountains,if you can.

    b) each fewer carbs. Get your carbs from veggies only the first month. Drastically reduce potatoes, bread, rice for the first month. Cake is gone. Then you can add back a little over the week - perhaps 1-2 sandwiches and 1 sweet potato. Try to stay below 30% carbs by calories. That means you'll be eating more healthy fats and proteins. Just don't go crazy on the fats. Too many nuts is a bad thing when dropping weight and getting fit is the goal. Eat food that looks like nature made it. Anything that doesn't look that way, should be drastically removed from your eating plan. I've never seen a Cheez-It on a tree.

    It really is that simple. The added fats solve most hunger issues. I always have a handful in my daypak. I used to be starving by 10am before when eating 70+% of my calories from carbs. It becomes easier over time as you learn all the new possibilities.

    No need for most people to go low-carb (under 20%), but perhaps 2% of a population won't see the results without going low-carb. I'm lucky, below 30% works well for me.

    And be certain to have protein at every meal. Something about protein+ fats takes away hunger. If I need to skip a meal, it isn't a big deal. I wouldn't have believed that was possible last year.

    After eating this way since Sept, I've dropped 80 lbs. After the first few months, I was able to add back "splurges" for 1-2 special situations a month. Mostly for social things like birthdays. About a month into my efforts, I started doing a 2K ft vertical mountain trail a few times a week nearby. That took more than 1 hour, but the top was beautiful and satisfying to achieve.

    Make the decision and do it. Start tonight with a walk. I like walking early in the morning, before everyone else is awake.
    If you do this, your type-2 problems will go away, quickly. You can even fall off the wagon for vacations and not have type-2 issues after the first 3 months. Just be certain to get back on the plan.

    Type-1 is completely different, but type-2 is truly a lifestyle choice.

  36. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by niittyniemi · · Score: 1

    BCG is hard to find in the US. Vaccination with it will cause a person to have a positive PPD (tuberculosis test), and the rate of TB is low enough that public health policymakers would rather have a very accurate and simple test than vaccinate everyone. The only use for it in the US that I’m aware of is in treatment of bladder cancer.

    When I was a kid in the UK in the '60s I was vaccinated with BCG. TB was still common enough then, that even though I lived in a 'well-to-do' town, you'd see these large white vans parked up on occasion which contained an X-ray machine. The idea was to X-ray people's chests and look for TB lesions. I last saw one of those vans in the mid-70s.

    TB is still diagnosed over here but mainly in immigrants from 3rd world countries. I've no idea if kids still routinely get BCG (it used to be done at school).

    --
    The Machine stops.
  37. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by budgenator · · Score: 1

    naltrexone also blocks certain endorphines

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  38. Bayes' Theorum by PaulHammant · · Score: 1

    Does Bayes play here? https://www.google.com/search?... I don't have access to PubMed but others here might. Would those May 2017 research articles suggest the area of research around treatment that is now publishing?

  39. I use Crystals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a lot better since I apply some evidenced based medicine and started using crystals. Any crystal will do. I like amethyst, because I think their pretty. Here is the Rx:
    Fill your pockets with 20 pounds of crystals. Speed walk 2 miles a day.
    This will increase your physical fitness over speed walking without crystals.
    BTW, I don't like to microwave food. I'm afraid it will get contaminated with all those little micros.

  40. 18 year old study? by martinfb · · Score: 1

    according to a 2000 study.

    Does this mean this study was done in 2000?
    Or, is the data from this study compared to a different study in 2000?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    1. Re: 18 year old study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will never be a cure for Type 1 diabetes, only new devices ......The drug companies will see to that.
      Iâ(TM)ve been waiting 50 years already.

  41. Re: Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude. Go on a ketogenic diet. Eat as little carbs as possible, supplying your body with energy the other ways (read up). It's possible then to live on basal alone. What they don't want you to know....

  42. Re:Too bad the Republicans will never let us have by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid in the UK in the '60s I was vaccinated with BCG.

    When I was a toddler in the 1960s, my granny died of TB. Unsurprisingly, when I got my TB test in the 1970s, I was positive - I'd been exposed to the bacterium enough that my immune system had a response to a challenge dose. So I didn't get BCG'd, because I was already immune. Since then I've worked in TB clinics (test on joining, test on leaving) and I've had three call backs to be re-tested because someone at my workspace has come back from working abroad and then developed TB (XDR, fatal in one case if the grapevine is correct).

    TB is expected to become endemic again in the UK in the near future as drug resistance spreads. It certainly remains a quite common diagnosis. If they've stopped vaccinating schoolkids, then that's a false economy. My immunisations passport remains up to date.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  43. Herbs cured my hiv by tarrahisarah222 · · Score: 1

    Natural herbs have cured so many illness that drugs and injection cant cure. I've seen the great importance of natural herbs and the wonderful work they have done in people's lives. i read people's testimonies online on how they were cured of herpes, hiv, diabetes etc by Dr. Ogba Kosu herbS, i contacted the doctor because i know nature has the power to heal anything. I was diagnosed with hiv for the past 7 years but Dr. Ogba Kuso cured me with his herbs and i referred my aunt and her husand to him immediately because they were both suffering from herpes, they were cured too .I know is hard to believe but am a living testimony. There is no harm trying herbs. He is also a spell caster, he cast spell to restore broken marriages and he cast good luck spells to prosper and excel in life. Contact Dr. Ogba Kosu on: drogbakosu@gmail.com Phone/Whatsap no: +2348137291215 facebook.com/Dr.OgbaKosucurecenter/