Posted by Alan F. Bachrach, M.D. on December 01, 1997 at 00:22:25:
In Reply to: Re: CYGNUS TEST RESULTS posted by Marina on November 30, 1997 at 20:35:41:
Marina,
First of all, I am not eager to abandon Plan A, islet cell transplantation. I never said I was. Second, I never said islet cell transplantation was getting "priority" funding. I simply said I don't believe it should be funded exclusively. Third, we had quite an exchange recently concerning the definition of a cure for diabetes. If a Type 1 diabetic could undergo a single tansplant of islet cells and then, after a few months of observation, never have to undergo another transplant, never have to test blood glucose levels again, never develop side effects from the transplant, and could be certain of never developing the complications of DM I would consider this a cure. I pray this will be so. However, consider some alternatives. Suppose the patient must continue to monitor blood glucoses (though perhaps less often) and would have to undergo transplantation of additional islets every few years. I would not consider this to be a cure, but it would likely be a major advance since the patient would be expected to remain euglycemic most of the time and (assuming hyperglycemia is actually the cause of complications of DM as opposed to complications being caused directly by some other agent such as iselt cell antibodies) the risk of long term complications would be markedly reduced. If the second scenario were to develop then a new "diabusiness" with "return customers" would develop.
Al,
On this forum the businesses which supply diabetics seem to be viewed as "evil." However, if there were no profit in the items they sell do you think we would have these items at our disposal? It may be true that Lilly and others would prefer never to see a "cure." However, aren't the smaller companies such as Encelle, VivoRx, Matech, etc. in business to make a profit. If not, why would they maintain proprietary rights over their technologies and products? Why not just publish them for all to see and use and may the first one to develop a cure get the glory (but not the money!). I for one have nothing against the small companies making a profit (or for that matter, Lilly). I hope the individual/company who develops a cure gets rich as Gates and my kids get to benefit. I think we need to view all of this in a more balanced fashion. And, if someone develops a continuous monitor/pump system (with money from whatever source) which assures euglycemia and spares my kids from long term complications AND they make a lot of money from "return business" I say great! I must say that I looked at the website with the Cygnus anouncement and it is not clear to me that the "watch" described will be adequate for incorporation into such a system. Perhaps you know more about this and could comment.
Alan