Medical research and free markets.......

Related:
Create New Tag

6/23/2018 8:03 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/23/2018 8:07 PM

Don't know if anyone else has seen the news about Dr Denise Fuastman's research on a Type 1 diabetes "cure" (not exactly a cure, but damn close!). She's been studying the use of an old, generic drug used for TB since around 1920. It appears that the mode of action is to spur the body into making TNF (tumor necrosis factor) and that ends up killing the rogue T-cells that kill off the islets in the pancreas that are responsible for the creation of insulin.

Her findings show that 2 vaccinations, given a month apart, keep a patient's A1c levels close to "normal" for 8 years and counting after vaccination. This is incredible for Type 1s, as a lower A1c is huge for averting the problems that diabetes causes over time.

The problems that Dr Faustman has had with funding underscore how the generic thought that free markets always produce the best outcomes is flawed at best. The JDRF hasn't supported her research in the past, instead focusing on "management" research, because the major donors of the JDRF all just so happen to manufacture drugs and devices to "manage" the disease that costs thousands of dollars every year per patient. In other words, there's no support for "curing" a disease for pennies per patient, if that means the loss of a $20 billion "management" industry.

How much is the cost difference between "managing" Type 1 and "curing" it? My wife and oldest daughter would each have to pay over $10K per year for their insulin, metering supplies, and insulin pump supplies if we didn't have decent insurance. The cost of the generic BCG that Dr Faustman is using is $1 per does 2 doses lasts 8 years so far, so about 25 cents a year.........

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2018/06/21/Trials-Generic-vaccine-reverses-effects-of-type-1-diabetes/3091529585455/

|

6/23/2018 8:18 PM

That management over cure shit pisses me off.

|

6/23/2018 10:20 PM

there is not much money in curing people, compared to having them on drugs for the rest of their life,
and its shit, drug company's care way more about their bottom lines than people,

|

6/25/2018 9:06 AM

What they should be doing is researching and developing stem cells. Take stem cell grow islet cells. Transplant them into the diabetic. Or take stem cells and grow a functioning pancreas and transplant it into the diabetic. Wont need anti rejection meds because the diabetics stem cells were used.

I’ve cared for people who have had a kidney and pancreas transplant. After the transplant they’re not diabetic. Unfortunately they’re attached to anti rejection meds for life. I think stem cells is the key to avoiding use
Of donor organs. Maybe.

|

GP740
Since 1987

6/25/2018 10:42 AM

But but but but the free market system for health care is supposed to eliminate that kind of stuff.

If only there was an alternative that focused more on cures and creating a healthy and productive society at a reasonable cost while making it available to everyone.

|

[LINK TO IMAGE]

Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

6/25/2018 11:04 AM
Edited Date/Time: 6/25/2018 11:08 AM

Unfortunately you can’t force people to be healthy and productive rooster. Well this is a slippery slope. Profit yields innovation. If companies can’t profit they aren’t going to develop new drugs.

The red tape they have to go through to develop a drug costs a lot of money. 10 years worth of salaries for all those involved, and it all might be a flop. But once it’s ok’d by the fda they have to make their money back and that’s why they pass the cost onto the consumer.

A lot of these drugs are expensive to develop and then they only will be prescribed to a fraction of the population. Which makes it hard to get a profit margin that say...Tylenol can get. which is basically sold to everyone at some point or another.


As far as funding research for cures, for a company it could bankrupt them. There has to be monetary value attached at the end of the process for them to succeed. bt it looks like the doc in your article is Atleast going in the right direction. Raising money through 5k runs and bicycle rides would be a great start

Velosano is a cancer research drive that’s been pretty successful for a large hospital system in Cleveland, Ohio. You gotta be able to raise a lot of money to apply it to research. Nobody can bill for research. And nobody makes money off non-billable services. I don’t see any huge innovations coming out of socialized MED countries. Access to basic care before a the bubble bursts is only thing that appears to be the pros in those systems.

|

GP740
Since 1987

6/25/2018 5:30 PM

GeorgiePorgie wrote:

What they should be doing is researching and developing stem cells. Take stem cell grow islet cells. Transplant them into the ...more

That's kind of a catch-22, though. The reason that the diabetes is "cured" is because the rogue white cells don't recognize the pancreatic tissue from the donor, so don't destroy the islets. If you are growing your own tissue using stem cells, then it would be encoded with your own genetic material, making it the same target that your rogue white cells are attacking.

I think that the first step to "curing" autoimmune diseases like Type 1, MS, etc. is to identify and neutralize the cells that are turned against the patient's body. If there is a way to use stem cells to grow tissue that functions fully without being identified as a target by the rogue cells, that'd be ideal, but I think that's quite a ways further down the path. And in the meantime, if we are able to effectively "cure" these diseases by eliminating the antagonistic cells, that's a great place to be while we are conducting research towards the stem cell approach.

|

6/26/2018 8:49 AM

They might cure diabetes. Hep C is now curable. So they are on the right path. There are still researchers out there looking and finding cures.

|

GP740
Since 1987

6/26/2018 10:05 AM

If healthcare is a for profit, free market system...what would be the benefit of curing a disease? Management is much more profitable, common sense.

|

6/26/2018 7:03 PM

Governments, science, and medical communities generally put up some sort cash and recognition prize for those who can solve or cure a difficult problem. Maybe not much to make a killing off of, but its something, and im not sure if thats applicable in this situation but its a thought. Not to mention the opportunity of fame, the fortunes and opportunities that it could bring you, and the chance to permenatly write yourself into human history.

In the eyrs of profit, It also eliminates competition by being the first, you get the opportunity to reep the rewards of being the only one with a cure or prevention (even if cheap). Look at fidget spinners, those cheap little toys that are now made 100s of companys was once a niche market yielding huge profits.



|

6/26/2018 9:49 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/27/2018 5:07 AM

GeorgiePorgie wrote:

What they should be doing is researching and developing stem cells. Take stem cell grow islet cells. Transplant them into the ...more

That’s definitely way more invasive and expensive compared to the BCG vaccine and the other vaccines being developed/tested though.

|

6/27/2018 7:46 PM

How is a vaccine helping after the damage is done ? Once
Your diagnosed your pancreas is already wrecked, or Your islet cells are wrecked. Or your body just attack’s itself. Multiple different t causes of type 1 and type 2 combined. What are we vaccinating exactly ? What’s the vaccine doing ? I dont recall specifics in that article.

|

GP740
Since 1987

6/27/2018 8:00 PM

GeorgiePorgie wrote:

How is a vaccine helping after the damage is done ? Once
Your diagnosed your pancreas is already wrecked, or Your islet cells ...more

The "vaccine" is originally for TB. It appears to cause an increase in production of TNF in the patient. The pancreas isn't exactly "wrecked", the islets are attacked and aren't functional. Usually when you are diagnosed, your pancreas still produces insulin in sporadic bursts, but not regularly and not predictably, which makes regulation very difficult.

Rogue white cells are what attacks the islets. The TNF destroys the rogue white cells. The kicker was that when this was first discovered in mice, once the rogue white cells were eliminated, the pancreas/islets began producing insulin again. In human trials, the patients showing response were not "newly diagnosed" patients, but rather patients who had been diagnosed up to 20 years earlier. This is obviously the most promising part of the whole project, and was completely unexpected to be able to occur.

There isn't a recommendation to use BCG as a treatment yet, but the results thus far should make it a great candidate for research to improve the quality of life for Type 1s. Ideal dosages are still not known, length of efficacy is not clear, etc. But the basic info so far is very promising. It just won't be profitable to industry, or the major donors to the JDRF.

There is really only one cause for Type 1 diabetes, the destruction of the islets that help produce and release insulin into the body.

Type 2 is obviously completely different than Type 1.

|