As far as I know (being type I), immunosuppressant drugs are considered worse than insulin in general. IF your diabetes is well regulated, your health can be perfect. Immunosuppressants on the other hand seem to cause some risks.
The situation is different if the diabetes is not well regulated, for instance if the kidneys have been destroyed. In the latter case, when a kidney transplant necessitates immunosuppressants anyway, I believe it is quite common to also implant an extra pancreas (hopefully from a dead donor...) and this way curing the diabetes.
As I read the article the new thing is not to implant pancreas tissue, but rather that the donor is alive, which will of course increase the availability a little bit.
This is a rather stupid discussion, since the algorithms and data are public. Working in climate research myself, I would hate to have to clean up comments, write user's manuals of my programs etc. instead of doing research.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know (being type I), immunosuppressant drugs are considered worse than insulin in general. IF your diabetes is well regulated, your health can be perfect. Immunosuppressants on the other hand seem to cause some risks.
The situation is different if the diabetes is not well regulated, for instance if the kidneys have been destroyed. In the latter case, when a kidney transplant necessitates immunosuppressants anyway, I believe it is quite common to also implant an extra pancreas (hopefully from a dead donor...) and this way curing the diabetes.
As I read the article the new thing is not to implant pancreas tissue, but rather that the donor is alive, which will of course increase the availability a little bit.
Anyway, this whole discussion is beside the point: In http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/s cience/McKitrick Tim Lambert's blog I found a reference to ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/IT RDB/NOAMER/pca-noamer.fMike Mann's tree-ring source program (fortran), which he apparently has made public. Happy refuting!