for the T1 diabetics - possible cure?
Options
Replies
-
I saw a similar article this week, too, but it only showed significant progress in newborns diagnosed within the first few months, but it was for them taking sulfonylureas. Something about how it worked in that classification... So completely different, but interesting... It's good to see progress in these subjects.0
-
Wow. This would be awesome.0
-
I saw an article from another source about the same research, but I have to say I'm skeptical. It's way too early in the research process and far too little is understood at this time to be excited.
Having said that, if this works out such that a patient is functionally cured within 3-4 years and the Viacyte stem cell research continues to show short term success; then let's do both - stem cells for short term during the 3-4 years it takes for TNF cells to be altered.
I'm still skeptical.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I saw an article from another source about the same research, but I have to say I'm skeptical. It's way too early in the research process and far too little is understood at this time to be excited.
Having said that, if this works out such that a patient is functionally cured within 3-4 years and the Viacyte stem cell research continues to show short term success; then let's do both - stem cells for short term during the 3-4 years it takes for TNF cells to be altered.
I'm still skeptical.
My main skepticism is really that pharmaceutical companies will find some way to discredit this or to make the vaccine far more expensive. Having something that is effective and cheap and already available is not good for the bottom line.4 -
cstehansen wrote: »
My main skepticism is really that pharmaceutical companies will find some way to discredit this or to make the vaccine far more expensive. Having something that is effective and cheap and already available is not good for the bottom line.
There is a lot of money to be made off diabetics.
0 -
I read another article that detailed the study results and using the word reversed is kind of ridiculous. Actually, it makes zero sense at all.
The study results were simply that the A1c in the study group was on average 6.7 even after the 8 years compared to much higher in the non vaccinated groups. It didn’t have any effect at all on insulin production. Somehow it’s effect is on glucose absorption without use of insulin. It explained in detail some way some cells are able to take up glucose without requiring insulin to do it. So it just helps to clear glucose from the blood.
It can not restore or effect insulin production at all and the A1c achieved isn’t even all that spectacular especially when you compare it to the results of the study from the Type 1 Grit Group following Dr Bernstein’s diet achieving normal non diabetic A1c of under 5.5 insome cases even 4.8.1 -
This one explains it much better.
https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/breaking-research-bcg-vaccine-reduces-a1c-long-term-579539/
1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I read another article that detailed the study results and using the word reversed is kind of ridiculous. Actually, it makes zero sense at all.
I have always maintained that if you manage your glucose with diet and exercise, you have not reversed diabetes. It is great that you are doing that, but to my way of thinking you are still a diabetic, even if you are off meds and your A1C is normal. If you can go back to the SAD, and have a normal A1C, then it is reversed.
In this case, I am not seeing a normal A1C.1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I read another article that detailed the study results and using the word reversed is kind of ridiculous. Actually, it makes zero sense at all.
I have always maintained that if you manage your glucose with diet and exercise, you have not reversed diabetes. It is great that you are doing that, but to my way of thinking you are still a diabetic, even if you are off meds and your A1C is normal. If you can go back to the SAD, and have a normal A1C, then it is reversed.
In this case, I am not seeing a normal A1C.
Type 1's do not manage diabetes with diet and exercise, or at least not exclusively (it is still one of many tools). Type 1's will die without taking insulin. Sure, it might take a few days to go from normal and healthy to sick, dehydrated, abnormally acidic blood pH, losing lots of weight really fast, and then dead. Still, we die without insulin. This is a way that might work such that we can survive without taking insulin.
We know there are pathways to uptake glucose without insulin, but those pathways are not tremendously efficient and are not enough to keep up normally. However, I sometimes try to have no insulin on board - not even basal insulin - when running because the efficiency is greatly increased. This is also why I'm strongly considering eating carbs again when I get to 100+ miles/week running. I figure I can eat certain carbs at certain times such that it will become glucose and immediately get taken up for use by muscles.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I read another article that detailed the study results and using the word reversed is kind of ridiculous. Actually, it makes zero sense at all.
The study results were simply that the A1c in the study group was on average 6.7 even after the 8 years compared to much higher in the non vaccinated groups. It didn’t have any effect at all on insulin production. Somehow it’s effect is on glucose absorption without use of insulin. It explained in detail some way some cells are able to take up glucose without requiring insulin to do it. So it just helps to clear glucose from the blood.
It can not restore or effect insulin production at all and the A1c achieved isn’t even all that spectacular especially when you compare it to the results of the study from the Type 1 Grit Group following Dr Bernstein’s diet achieving normal non diabetic A1c of under 5.5 insome cases even 4.8.
I don't think this is an either or situation. I am fairly confident those in the study were following a diet much closer to the ADA guidelines (i.e. 60 g carb per meal plus 15 g per snack times 2-3 snacks a day). So, from that standpoint, getting down to 6.7 is not bad. If they were then to follow a low carb diet like Dr Bernstein advocates, perhaps the increased glucose uptake from this vaccine could put them into a situation where they would need little to no exogenous insulin to maintain a healthy A1c.
By following Dr Bernstein's law of small numbers, the amount of insulin needed should be small, therefore if glucose uptake can be facilitated to some degree without insulin, then that small amount could possibly become zero.
A treatment like this, if it does work, follows the biggest test for me which is first do no harm as this is something that has been around a very long time with a proven track record.
It passes the second test as it is both easier and cheaper than the current course of therapy.
0 -
I admit I have not yet had an opportunity to read the research, but here is another article with some additional information:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ada/73696
It's definitely not a cure, but it is a very interesting lead that strongly warrants additional research. Unfortunately, the ADA won't let her present for 2 years and the JDRF is not willing to provide resources for this at all. Also, the ADA and JDRF released a joint statement that clearly shows their biased position in opposition to further research. I fully expected this from the ADA, but not JDRF. I guess I was just too optimistic about JDRF's intentions.0 -
cstehansen wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I read another article that detailed the study results and using the word reversed is kind of ridiculous. Actually, it makes zero sense at all.
The study results were simply that the A1c in the study group was on average 6.7 even after the 8 years compared to much higher in the non vaccinated groups. It didn’t have any effect at all on insulin production. Somehow it’s effect is on glucose absorption without use of insulin. It explained in detail some way some cells are able to take up glucose without requiring insulin to do it. So it just helps to clear glucose from the blood.
It can not restore or effect insulin production at all and the A1c achieved isn’t even all that spectacular especially when you compare it to the results of the study from the Type 1 Grit Group following Dr Bernstein’s diet achieving normal non diabetic A1c of under 5.5 insome cases even 4.8.
I don't think this is an either or situation. I am fairly confident those in the study were following a diet much closer to the ADA guidelines (i.e. 60 g carb per meal plus 15 g per snack times 2-3 snacks a day). So, from that standpoint, getting down to 6.7 is not bad. If they were then to follow a low carb diet like Dr Bernstein advocates, perhaps the increased glucose uptake from this vaccine could put them into a situation where they would need little to no exogenous insulin to maintain a healthy A1c.
By following Dr Bernstein's law of small numbers, the amount of insulin needed should be small, therefore if glucose uptake can be facilitated to some degree without insulin, then that small amount could possibly become zero.
A treatment like this, if it does work, follows the biggest test for me which is first do no harm as this is something that has been around a very long time with a proven track record.
It passes the second test as it is both easier and cheaper than the current course of therapy.
No insulin isn’t the goal. It’s required. We’re talking about T1D’d here. Who make no insulin. Regardless of something facilitating uptake of glucose by some other means, insulin will be required. The study doesn’t even fully understand the mechanism by which it’s even happening. Not all cells are able to do it. Only certain ones. Without insulin, the person would still die. I actually wonder if a low carb diet the likes of Bernstein would become dangerous under such circumstances. If something other than insulin is taking up glucose without your ability to control it, what if it prevented proper glucose availability to cells that still do require insulin and what if someone got down to such a low insulin dosage that those cells began to suffer because of it?
Who knows but I think they are valid questions.
Honestly, to me it just looks like a way to keep people eating carbs. I think it’s going to prove helpful to insulin resistant people but I’m not sure there won’t be a cost long term.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »cstehansen wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I read another article that detailed the study results and using the word reversed is kind of ridiculous. Actually, it makes zero sense at all.
The study results were simply that the A1c in the study group was on average 6.7 even after the 8 years compared to much higher in the non vaccinated groups. It didn’t have any effect at all on insulin production. Somehow it’s effect is on glucose absorption without use of insulin. It explained in detail some way some cells are able to take up glucose without requiring insulin to do it. So it just helps to clear glucose from the blood.
It can not restore or effect insulin production at all and the A1c achieved isn’t even all that spectacular especially when you compare it to the results of the study from the Type 1 Grit Group following Dr Bernstein’s diet achieving normal non diabetic A1c of under 5.5 insome cases even 4.8.
I don't think this is an either or situation. I am fairly confident those in the study were following a diet much closer to the ADA guidelines (i.e. 60 g carb per meal plus 15 g per snack times 2-3 snacks a day). So, from that standpoint, getting down to 6.7 is not bad. If they were then to follow a low carb diet like Dr Bernstein advocates, perhaps the increased glucose uptake from this vaccine could put them into a situation where they would need little to no exogenous insulin to maintain a healthy A1c.
By following Dr Bernstein's law of small numbers, the amount of insulin needed should be small, therefore if glucose uptake can be facilitated to some degree without insulin, then that small amount could possibly become zero.
A treatment like this, if it does work, follows the biggest test for me which is first do no harm as this is something that has been around a very long time with a proven track record.
It passes the second test as it is both easier and cheaper than the current course of therapy.
No insulin isn’t the goal. It’s required. We’re talking about T1D’d here. Who make no insulin. Regardless of something facilitating uptake of glucose by some other means, insulin will be required. The study doesn’t even fully understand the mechanism by which it’s even happening. Not all cells are able to do it. Only certain ones. Without insulin, the person would still die. I actually wonder if a low carb diet the likes of Bernstein would become dangerous under such circumstances. If something other than insulin is taking up glucose without your ability to control it, what if it prevented proper glucose availability to cells that still do require insulin and what if someone got down to such a low insulin dosage that those cells began to suffer because of it?
Who knows but I think they are valid questions.
Honestly, to me it just looks like a way to keep people eating carbs. I think it’s going to prove helpful to insulin resistant people but I’m not sure there won’t be a cost long term.
I'm pretty sure there are already pathways where insulin is taken up by cells without insulin. They are just not very efficient and can't keep up normally. However, I know I can go for a long run - long enough to extend beyond my insulin's half-life - and suspend my pump, but still see BG decrease because it is getting used by muscle cells. For this reason, I think these pathways are more efficient during exercise. Otherwise, they just can't keep up and BG will rise faster than the glucose can be used. Additionally, the glucose cannot be accessed at a fast enough pace to supply adequate energy. And that seems very counter-intuitive when you figure that exercise requires more energy than a sedentary state and yet it works better.
Anyway, this new discovery isn't more efficient either. So yes, insulin is still needed.2
