**Canadian scientists CURE diabetes in mice**

[Bluebear]

December 16, 2006 2:29 p.m. EST

Canada (AHN) - Toronto scientists have discovered proof that the body's nervous system triggers diabetes. The latest development could pave the way for a potential cure of the disease.

Researchers had applied a substance to counteract the effect of malfunctioning pain neurons in the pancreas and amazingly diabetic mice tested healthy virtually overnight. "I couldn't believe it," said Dr. Michael Salter, a pain expert at the Hospital for Sick Children and one of the scientists. "Mice with diabetes suddenly didn't have diabetes any more."

They caution that the research has yet to be tested on humans, and results from human studies can be expected within a year.

"I've never seen anything like it," said Dr. Hans Michael Dosch, an immunologist at the hospital and a leader of the studies. "In my career, this is unique."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005877830

[otherlander]

1. Yay!

:bounce:

[Maddy McCall]

2. This is AWESOME! Rec. #1.

Great news for people with diabetes!!

:thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

71. Yep. It's even greater news for mice!

:dunce:

[opihimoimoi]

3. Lets all hope for the Best...quickly I might add....I have type 2 and hope the cure comes before my

CASE GETS WORSE oops...

[Wonk]

4. Here's yesterday's LBN thread on this potentially awesome breakthrough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2654358&mesg_id=2654358

[Az]

5. Yay Team Science!!!

:applause: :party: :party: :party: :applause:

[file83]

26. Science = 1, Bible = 0 ... Science wins!

(I'm just fooling around so I hope no one takes my joke seriously!)

On a serious note, I hope hope hope this leads to an overnight cure for human diabetes!
:applause::bounce::applause:

[The Straight Story]

28. The bible had the cure in it a long time ago

We just haven't found the secret decoder ring yet in the bible codes ;) :rofl:

[svpadgham]

32. Maybe it's in

one of the "forbidden texts" like the Apocrypha. All that stuff that the Romans didn't want the riff-raff to read.

[Clark2008]

90. That's hardly fair.

Honestly, what does this statement have to do with anything?

I don't go around claiming the Bible cures diabetes, or even has the potential. Your beef is with the fundies, it shouldn't be with the Bible.

[file83]

144. Tsk, tsk, you took my joke seriously.

I told you not to, otherwise you might get upset...look wha happen.:think:

[aquart]

6. Please, please, please work and soon.

[krispos42]

7. You mean praying to Jesus didn't do it?

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

Yay!!!! No more diet soda for my fat ass! Gonna get my 64-ouncer filled up with 800 calories of sweet, sweet high-fructose corn syrup!

:bounce: :beer:

[Mind_your_head]

8. Somehow I 'fear' that this will work better on mice than men.......

There haven't been any CURES ~ CURES!!! (or irradication) ~ of any disease since Jonas Salk and Polio! That was what? 1952?

So much money has been put forth looking for a cure....so much money donated.....and yet we have scientists who can create "meat in a vat" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) but yet they can't CURE anything at all. Why?

I'm "mad as hell".....I hope you are too.

Peace to all in this 'season of hope',
M_Y_H

[svpadgham]

35. Big Pharm

don't want no cures. Control-yes, cure-no. Mice get cured all the time because mice don't have $$$$.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

41. I agree

It's in Big Pharma's best interests to NOT cure a disease. Instead, they create "treatments" that Americans pay for over years and years.

[Patiod]

48. Nonsense

"Big Pharma" is not some monolithic cabal which decides which drugs they are going to develop and which they are not.

There are plenty of small start up pharma and biotech companies where the management know they will all become rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams if they hit the cure for diabetes.

Let's say that the paranoid fantasy that "Big Pharma don't want no cures" is true :tinfoilhat:, there are plenty of little guys who are smacking their chops to get at this market. Let's say one of them hits the answer, and they get the patent first. You think they're going to sit on it so that GSK or Novartis won't lose money?

And, knowing the little guys would develop this in a heartbeat, the big companies know they'd better be working just as hard on finding a solution so they don't lose the control dollars or the cure dollars.

I work with these people every day - they're not cackling and rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns while they sit on a cure. They are real people who have relatives and friends with diabetes, and they're just as interested in finding a cure (hopefully before someone at another company does).

[sendero]

68. Lee Iacocca disagrees with you..

... and so do I.

The companies with the RESOURCES to tackle this problem are not remotely interested because THEY MAKE A FORTUNE SELLING insulin, supplies, etc.

http://www.iacoccafoundation.org/

[Patiod]

72. I still think that view is simplistic

The pharma business isn't like big oil. If oil companies make life unaffordable for the rest of us, too bad, they've isolated themselves and their families from the (mostly financial) repercussions that the rest of us have to face. So they can screw us with impunity. But if somebody at Merck "shelves" a cure for diabetes, she and her family can't have it either, and many of the researchers, marketers and managers have family and friends with diabetes - some may even have it themselves. They can't screw us without screwing themselves. I do believe that if they can patent it, they will make it.

Good for Lee Iacocca - the more money put into research the better - but I still don't believe there's a pharmaceutical cure out there that someone has shelved or decided not to pursue, even if he says there is. It's possible that the only potential cure might be pharma or biotech at all - it might come from a surgical source instead - for instance, maybe the process for pancreatic islet transplantation could finally be perfected (I haven't followed that one for a while). Perhaps Iococa is right in that a cure has not been found yet because Pharma companies don't fund research into new surgeries or other non-pharma treatments - that's entirely possible. But you can't really argue that funding research into surgical treatments is their job. Hopefully that's the type of research Mr. Iococca's foundation pursuing.

/on edit: Also, let's say the "substance" applied to the mice cells is a simple, generic compound that Big Pharma can't patent. Then big pharma/biotech isn't going to pursue that, either. If they can't patent it, they're not going to fund research into it. Not exactly public-spirited of them, but not exactly nefarious, either. Glad there's a foundation like Iacocca's to fill that gap.

[sendero]

74. You cannot expect me ..

... to be rational about this. My wife has type 1 diabetes, and is on the kidney transplant list.

The fact is, big pharma is not interested in curing ANY disease, they are interested in endless treatments. There is no well-funded activity in the business of CURING anything because there is no money in it. Sure there are various biotech outfits, few are "well funded".

I'm sure I sound hopelessly cynical to you, but I offered up Mr. Iacocca because I don't think a reasonable person could call him cynical.

I am of course very excited about these new discoveries. One thing is for sure, when a cure DOES come, it wont' come from big Pharma, I'll bet you any amount on that.

[Patiod]

75. Type I sucks.

Sorry about your wife, and we all hope something is on the horizon. I apologize if I was snippy - this is obviously an important issue to you.

I agree with you 100% that if a cure comes from a non-pharma direction (surgery, an innovative use of an "old" compound), then it's not going to come from Big Pharma.

Someone with a firmer ground in medicine than I have might be able to provide better examples, but it seems to me like most of the things that can be cured by pharmaceuticals (bacterial infections and some cancers come to mind) have been cured. The low-hanging fruit has already been picked. The stuff that's left (viruses severe and minor, the big long-term, inflammation-based illnesses) are going to have to be approached differently - gene therapy, transplants, stem cell, costly cell-based biotech therapy, who knows. Until then, all pharma companies will be capable of offering us is treatment. I just don't believe they have an answer hiding away in a vault like the secret to coca-cola.

And now (in the interest of full disclosure) I have to put on my consultant's hat, and go back to writing a report for one of them, detailing physicians' reaction to ads for antibiotics.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

63. Your post is odd, since you don't seem to have been someone privy to the study.

Yet, you speak as if you have expertise.

And, the chickenpox vaccine has virtually eliminated childhood varicella, at least in the US.

Um, oh yeah, you forgot smallpox. MKJ

[samplegirl]

9. I would say the cost would be

out of the reach of anyone "middle class"

[Raine]

10. Terrific...if you're a mouse

who is diabetic anyone else is out of luck for ages and ages. I wouldn't hold my breath on this.

[NV1962]

11. Well, if there IS a neurophysiological connection, this is certainly a hopeful bit of news.

Yay Canadian scientists!

K&R

[KamaAina]

128. Canada 2, diabetes 0

Yay Canadian scientists!

Who do you think discovered insulin in the first place? That's right. The Canadians. Generations of diabetics have lived because of Canadian research.

Remember that next time Big (U.S.) Pharma tells you their hyperinflated prices are necessary to cover the costs of research. :P

[Zookeeper]

12. It's certainly good to have another avenue of research...

to explore. My 14 year old was diagnosed with Type 1 over ten years ago, and she is sooooo tired of dealing with it. As a result, she doesn't test enough and her blood sugars are out of control. Then she gets sick and misses too much school, which creates more stress and high blood sugars.

It really is a dreadful disease.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Frederick Banting and his dogs would be proud nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. Where are the "ban animal testing" folks?

Out protesting in front of Pfizer HQ? Throwing rocks at doctors? I expected this thread to be a total flamewar. I am pleasantly surprised.

[Lurking Dem]

15. I dunno

An online group of them told me once I had no right to be alive because dogs died in the development of insulin and that I should be "spade" (yes that is the word they used) so I didn't spread my genetic abnormalities.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Better to be spade than clubbed

And you know that at the bottom of their heart they wish you would DIamond.

:D

So sorry....I need my coffee this morning....

[Lurking Dem]

17. .

Here ya go! LOL

[Jackpine Radical]

42. A heartless comment

[Stuckinthebush]

99. I am well suited for it

;)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. I try to avoid engaging them in discussion.

Well, at least the extreme ones. Our respective frames of moral reference are so divergent that there's no point.

[rockymountaindem]

27. I love it when people put animals ahead of people

:sarcasm:

Besides, insulin was developped in the 1920s. Should you be held accountable now?

[Lurking Dem]

54. Apparently.

Karma is a bitch, though. One of the guys arguing with me, a vegetarian for some 20+ years, developed type 2 diabetes. I wonder if he had to go on insulin.....?

I'd stopped banging my head on that brick wall by then.

[The2ndWheel]

30. Still not sure

why these tests weren't done on humans. You know, human progress and everything. We could care less abut the mice, they're objects to be used. But then science has been justified and rationalized for quite a bit through time.

You asked. Just here to help.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. Well, in that case...

...I assume you'll be volunteering yourself for human trials of very experimental drugs, should such trials ever take place.

[The2ndWheel]

36. Not a chance

But if we're going to do those tests(and we will), testing on humans makes sense. At the very least, test on the people that are doing the testing.

See I don't want any of these tests, human or non-human. The only reason we do it to mice(or whatever other life that can't say stop), is because we know these tests are wrong. If we didn't know that, we'd be happy to volunteer and see the tests done to humans. But we know they're wrong, and if we can distance ourselves from that feeling(by defining sentience, might makes right, it can save human life, whatever excuse we come up with), if we can rationalize the violence(it's just a damn mouse, it's just a woman, it's just a slave), then we can feel better about it.

So I wouldn't volunteer. I wouldn't force non-human life to be in a lab. I wouldn't want any other person to be subjected to it. But it makes no difference, because we're going to do the tests, and it will be done to non-human life, because, again, they don't speak our language, they can't say stop, they can't take anyone to court, and they have no option. Other than to fight back, but then they'll be shot if they dare. It's about our benefit, and that's all non-human life is there for. They don't exist for their own sake. The Bible said so, and Science allows us to take the Bible up on that. Both sides say you can do it. Must be a crazy world when science and religion agree on what they can do to you.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

39. Well, good.

Sure hope you didn't vaccinate your kids against polio. Or smallpox. Because given what you've just said, that would be horribly, horribly unethical in your worldview.

[The2ndWheel]

43. Don't have kids

I'm sure it might change things. Or maybe not, who knows.

But then many of the things we have to vaccinate against are nature's way of trying to balance things out. That is what we fight against, nature. We also don't like evolution, because we try and stop it. We know it happens, we just don't like it.

I could rationalize some violence myself. Someone wants to throw a brick(or whatever) or two through Halliburton, I won't lose any sleep. Hell, wish I had the guts to do it myself. So we all have our thing.

Want to do the tests? Conduct them on humans, simple as that. It's for human progress, not mouse progress. But like I said, it doesn't matter. Your worldview already won a long time ago. I guess if you can be happy about something in this crazy reality we live in, that's something to hang onto.

I'm not trying to be a complete jackass or anything. It's just one of those issues I feel strongly about. I'm on the losing side of the topic, because it's completely rational to do exactly what we're doing. We're all hypocrites in some way. We're all ironic in other ways. We're all just spinning around the sun with no destination, making shit up as we go. We don't know where we're going, but we have to get there quickly.

[kiahzero]

45. You're right... you did lose.

Thank the Gods you did.

[The2ndWheel]

50. Ouch. Way to rub it in

Sore winner. I'm sure we have a pill for that.

[kiahzero]

51. Just emphasizing how utterly wrong you are. (n/t)

[The2ndWheel]

53. I've already been proven wrong before the issue came up

I do appreciate your emphasis though. I don't know the feeling, because you haven't forced me to understand exactly how wrong I am, but I'm sure the mouse knows what it felt like to be all those people that stood in the way of progress around the world over the years. You know, the savages, the uncivilized. They were wrong too. Thank the Gods for that. Even more wrong than me by the way, since I don't have the guts to stand in the way of anything. Just a domesticated animal in a pen, passively watching life and diversity die. Now I'm right.

[kiahzero]

58. Prove mice can even believe anything. (n/t)

[The2ndWheel]

62. Prove they can't

And you're not allowed to use the definitions we came up with for the words we created.

[kiahzero]

65. Um... if you reject definitions then language is meaningless. (n/t)

[The2ndWheel]

76. Kind of tough to prove

something without that language to control it, huh? It all depends on who is defining what terms. Whoever controls language can always win a debate.

[kiahzero]

77. Hence the process of coming to terms.

Why bother communicating if you're not willing to accept definitions?

[The2ndWheel]

80. That's pretty much what everyone has ever fought for

Someone comes up with a word, creates a definition for it, and imposes their will on others. Like King George and the birth of America. By definition, he was king. Some people didn't accept that.

They're just animals. They can't feel or think. We say so, so we can do as we please. It's our language. We created it, we define the words, and nobody will stand in our way. Pretty much what every empire was ever built on.

[kiahzero]

83. Strawmen, what a surprise. (n/t)

[The2ndWheel]

91. Or accurate

It's the same mindset, our domination of other people, our domination of nature. We do it because we can. I'm nowhere near perfect, I come up with excuses for the things I do too. We all do.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. What the fuck is "mouse progress?"

I'd really like to know.

[The2ndWheel]

52. Exactly

We could give two shits about the mouse, but we test on it for human progess. It is an object. It has no value other than what it can do for us. It cannot tell us to stop, it cannot fight back, it cannot stop us from testing on its own offspring. That's why there is no mouse progress, and why it's so easy for us to do what we do.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. See, this is why I tend to avoid discussions with you people.

You're more than welcome to believe that a mouse is the same sort of thing as a human being. And you're more than welcome to stop having your children vaccinated and watch them die of horrible diseases, begging to be killed because the pain is so severe, if it so suits you and makes you feel better about your place in the world. I'm sure mice would be building grand civilisations were it not for the interference of us pesky humans and our pesky medical experimentation.

Well, I'm done with this insane conversation. I hope you never actually have to live with the insane consequences of your gibberish.

[The2ndWheel]

64. But this is why I love discussions with you people

Plus you brought it up.

"You're more than welcome to believe that a mouse is the same sort of thing as a human being."

What, animals? Living things?

"And you're more than welcome to stop having your children vaccinated and watch them die of horrible diseases, begging to be killed because the pain is so severe, if it so suits you and makes you feel better about your place in the world."

Good one. Again, why don't we do these tests on the species that the tests are designed to benefit? Would they beg to be killed if we did? That's all I'm saying.

"I'm sure mice would be building grand civilisations were it not for the interference of us pesky humans and our pesky medical experimentation."

If they wanted the kind of control that humans want, maybe they would, if they could. You're the one supporting the complete control of life. I hope you never actually have to live with the insane consequences of that.

[kiahzero]

69. Human life is more important to humans than mouse life.

Shocking, I know.

I won't apologize for taking necessary medication that's derived from mouse antibodies. In fact, I find it disgusting that you want me to suffer in favor of lab mice.

[The2ndWheel]

79. Why not lab humans?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's completely rational what we're doing. Still, if you were to step up to the plate and get experimented on so that you don't suffer...wait, you might if you did that...then there's no problem. Just like if someone supports the war, they should go fight it.

We're all about fairness here. If you need medication, it should be you who's over on the lab table. But not in our specialized world. Just like we don't have to actually fight a war we support, or never even have to see a field to eat, we don't have to be experimented on for our own progress. It makes complete rational sense. I'm not denying that.

[kiahzero]

84. More strawmen.

Animal rights activists making crappy arguments in support of stupid ideas? Who would have thought?

[The2ndWheel]

92. All I said was go get experimented on

It is your health.

[Lurking Dem]

95. Mice are used for numerous reasons.

The NOD mouse has been bred (technically, inbred) to have type 1 diabetes. The syndrome they exhibit includes all of the same aspects as human type 1 diabetes. This includes, but is not limited to, abrupt onset of glucosuria, hypercholesterolemia, polyphagia, polydipsia, polyuria, and ketonemia.

The mice are extremely cheap and easy to handle. There are gazillions of them.

They are short lived and so many generations of testing can be performed. You can know whether a drug treatment affects a fetus, whether something about it carries over onto offspring, etc.

This cuts testing down to years rather than decades. Yes, decades.

I have guinea pigged drugs that were found to be SAFE to see if they were EFFICACIOUS. I almost died once doing that.

Bring on the fucking mice.

[The2ndWheel]

96. We do this for numerous reasons too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2934903&mesg_id=2934903

I couldn't stop this train if I wanted to. Which I haven't even tried by the way. So all the experiments are safe! There is no need to worry. We're well on our way to destroying whatever life is for some perfect state.

[Lurking Dem]

97. Helluva strawman.

[kiahzero]

104. He doesn't care.

He's healthy, and doesn't foresee ever getting sick, so it's very easy to take the ridiculous stance that medication is bad.

[The2ndWheel]

109. Didn't say medication is bad

"doesn't foresee ever getting sick"

What?

[kiahzero]

111. It's clear from your statements

If you believed there was a chance that you'd need the medication that you're decrying, you'd cave in a heartbeat.

Of course, the fact that you're less likely to get sick and die because other people take the medication you're so against and don't spread diseases hasn't even entered into your calculus.

[The2ndWheel]

112. Stop saying I'm against medication

Goddamn. I'm against the way we go about getting it. And once again, I have yet to stop A single experiment on any non-human life, or human life for that matter. All I've done is type some words onto a screen. I have not stopped you from getting whatever help you've needed, in any form.

[kiahzero]

113. Do you support the production of Remicade?

It's produced using mouse antibodies.

[The2ndWheel]

115. I'm not going to stop the production

I wouldn't ban it, I wouldn't want the power to ban it. There's no turning around at this point. We've chosen this road, and we will travel the length of it as far as it takes us.

[kiahzero]

117. Do you think it's immoral?

Do you think I'm immoral for taking a medication derived from mouse antibodies? Or is it more like bathing, which, by your definition, is unnatural?

[The2ndWheel]

118. You live in the reality that is 2006

You're just taking advantage of the system that you live in. We all do in some way or another. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Where did I say that bathing is unnatural? You brought bathing up because you seem to think I'm part Pig Pen from Charlie Brown, and part Howard Hughes.

[Lurking Dem]

119. He's just pointing out where your line is drawn.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, then you wouldn't bathe.

It's Ingrid's "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" argument. And it's bullshit.

[The2ndWheel]

124. Then you're reading a different argument

because that isn't mine. I'll admit, I have never been very good at expressing my thoughts. Maybe my argument came out sounding like that, I don't know.

All I said was human experimentation for human progress. That's it. No bath, bathroom, sink, tub, water, soap, bubbles, nothing like that.

[kiahzero]

126. The problem is in your justification for that position.

Your justification for that position leads to the absurd results that we've mentioned. Thus, by rejecting those absurd results, you either have to accept that your position is incoherent / irrational, or dispense with your position.

[The2ndWheel]

129. My justification

is that if human progress is that important, then human beings should be willing to be tested.

And the logical conclusions to your philosophy are the end of death, for one species at least. The objectification of all other life, as nothing more than tools to be used, or something standing in the way of our perfect state which requires eradication. The same rationalization for colonization, slavery, genocide, stuff like that. You want to be called immoral? Fine. Am I evil? I may be. Do I not give a damn about you or other people with various medical conditions? Sure, why not?

I guess we're all a little bit fucked up then. We all have our inconsistencies. We all have our different levels of hypocracy. Nobody, no thought, no philosophy is perfect. We'll try though. We'll chase down every way, no matter what, to find perfection.

I haven't stopped you, or anyone, from doing anything, to anyone. How can I? We destroy life everyday. Even this evil fuck who kills the germs on his body each day. I'm guilty. Just like everyone else.

Bring on the fucking mouse, because I am tired of living this lie. I'm tired of giving a damn about anything. You won. I'm irrational, and you're rational. Doesn't make either one of us better than the other, because we both kill. For survival, and for enhancement. You're right, it feels much better.

[kiahzero]

135. Why should human beings be willing to be tested?

Mouse life is less important than human life, in the same sense (though not to the same degree) as bacterial life being less important than human life.

Scientific ethics resists the pure objectification of animal life. If, as you claim, other life was no more than "tools to be used," there would not be restrictions on animal testing.

You appear to be correct that the argument in favor of animal testing is similar to the arguments for odious things of our past; however, there is a key difference - the soundness of the argument. The premises are correct, or at least much closer to the truth.

[The2ndWheel]

136. What are the restrictions?

"Why should human beings be willing to be tested?"

Why shouldn't we? If the restrictions are good enough, why not?

"Mouse life is less important than human life, in the same sense (though not to the same degree) as bacterial life being less important than human life."

Maybe that's where the disagreement starts. I don't see it as less important. I'm not saying we should never kill an animal for food or anything. That's how we lived for most of our existence(or all of it, but I'm talking before modern civilization). But it's the important part that gets me. More important, how? They live for their own sake, they evolved within their environments, they face danger, same as the rest of life. Less important to humans, yes. Less important to...existence? They're made of the same stuff we are.

[kiahzero]

137. Does existence have a capacity to judge "importance?"

It seems to me that's merely humanity imposing a heterogeneity of value, and thus not substantively different than the question of "less important to humans."

I'm no doctor or med student, and I'll be honest that animal testing isn't one of my big issues, so I'm not as familiar with the regulations as I might be with, say, Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence. However, with less than a minute of Googling, I stumbled across: http://www.ahc.umn.edu/rar/ethics.html

I'm sure there's more out there if you're curious to look.

[kiahzero]

123. I bring bathing up because it's just as unnatural.

It kills inferior life in order to preserve our life. In order to be consistent, your philosophy would require that you not bathe or wash your hands or do anything else of the sort.

[The2ndWheel]

127. That's evolution

It is existence fighting against itself. The only thing we are fighting against is death. We're not fighting the mice to survive. We're not lions and zebras in the wild, running and chasing over time. We are completely molding existence to fit our wants. We have no counter balance to that(there is no zebra to our lion anymore). We have no counter balance period, other than life itself. We're fighting against entropy. We always do(which is why we have to eat), as does all life, but we're trying to end it. Entropy always wins though.

As I've said before, I have stopped NOTHING. I haven't stopped a test, a thought, a desire, a want, a need, NOTHING.

[The2ndWheel]

107. So then we're not killing the whole of life on the planet

for our own good?

The only reason we keep staying alive after going beyond limits is that we continue to up the ante. At some point, we're going to run out of chips.

I was agreeing with you. We do a lot of things for numerous reasons. Just as men who control women are weak and scared, so is the human species which seeks to control nature. We would have died out a long time ago if we didn't.

You don't have to worry about a thing. We're not going to stop the experiments. Like I said, I wouldn't stop it if I could. I wouldn't want that kind of power, nor the burden of having to make sure the process didn't start again.

[kiahzero]

44. I bet you don't have anyone in your family that has a medical condition.

I trust you don't take any medication whatsoever, since you're so against it.

[The2ndWheel]

49. Like I said, we can do all the testing we want

Just do it on the species that those experiments will benefit. That's all I'm saying. We know it's wrong to do it to humans though, so we do it to non-human life that can't tell us to stop.

There are people in my family with medical conditions. I do not take any medication myself. I lucked out, so far.

You don't have to worry though, nothing will stop because of what I say. I wouldn't even want that kind of power. The medications are safe, the experiments on mice and other lesser life will continue, and both will probably only get better as we improve technology. We'll probably become the ultimate species; eliminating pain, enhancing pleasure, extending life to limitless limits, maybe even curing death. We may end up with complete control over what happens around the world(or maybe beyond). I may have some thoughts, but I have yet to stand in the way of that. Mostly because I couldn't stop this train if I wanted to. I exist, I go about the day, have a thought or two, and that's about it.

[mconvente]

66. You need a reality check with the food chain

I by no means am an anti-environment, always pro-human person. But just look at nature to find the answer to your problems. I bet the gazelle in the African safari couldn't "say no" to the hungry tiger when being attacked and eaten because, well gee, being eaten doesn't do anything for that species. It's called natural selection my friend. In the same environment, the tiger has acquired mutations that benefit itself over the gazelle in their same environment. Why is it we think that these same mutations and new traits that humans gained over hundreds of thousands of years "don't count"? In testing disease -curing methods on animals, we are just using what extra intelligence we have over mice for the survival of our species.

[Lurking Dem]

67. Apparently, the NOD mouse

(Non Obese Diabetic) is an undiscovered Picasso. Or something.

[The2ndWheel]

78. Like I said, what we're doing is completely rational

I never said it wasn't.

Although being eaten in the wild as part of a natural process, and being sliced open by men in white suits in some strange lab might be a little different. One is chance, one is not. But it is completely rational, of that I cannot argue.

[kiahzero]

85. It's hardly chance that lions eat gazelles. (n/t)

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

88. How is there any difference?

They are fundamentally the exact same.

Your original pretense is that humans are included in one massive pool of living organisms. I'll assume however you were sticking to concious life with a central nervous system.

Animals consume one other solely based of their own self interest. Their primary concern is their own survival, the mouse is slain and digested without a second thought by various predators. One of the human's defining characteristics is its ability to create and utilize advanced tools. Naturally this combined by a comparatively highly level of concious awareness the tools themselves advance in complexity. The consumption of mice by predators helps to ensure that predators of survival. Humans consume mice differently, as you mentioned. Instead of being consumed as a source of food they are instead sliced open as you said by men in white suits in some "strange" lab. We still consume mice in terms of self interest much like the animal kingdom. Rather than eat them we use them in the advancement of our tool creating capacity, doing so provides income directly to the individual which acts as a humans means to survival, and is perceived to further the guarentee of the survival of the species.

If the utilization of complex tools by humans is human nature as it must be as we currently do so than it must be natural. Anywhere that leads therefore must also but natural unless of course we are somehow distinctly different and above the rest of the animal world. How can anything humans do possibly be unnatural if nature is responsible for our creation, isn't it a direct contradiction of terms for nature to make something capable of unnatural behavior?

if this is not "natural" than humans have transcended the animal kingdom and should not be so casually lumped into the category. We cannot transcend human nature as we are bound to it. Whatever it is we do it is what we have evolved to do, there is no escaping it.

[The2ndWheel]

94. It's completely rational

I don't doubt that. Obviously we know it's wrong and creepy to do these experiments on other people, so we do it to whatever we can because we can. It makes total sense. Like you said, it's fundamentally the same thing. We stopped evolving a long time ago though. Now it's about control and manipulation. We're molding life to us, instead of evolving with it. We're becoming apart from nature, not a part of it. If any species could do it, they would.

[mconvente]

143. Depends on what type of definition of "chance" - hear me out

Yes, there is an individual "chance" about what specific gazelles are eaten. There isn't a predestination of when exactly a gazelle will die. However, the holistic process - members of your population being eaten as per their intrinsic definition as prey for the tigers - is not based on chance. That process WILL occur, unless outlying circumstances occur - if all the gazelles and/or tigers find a new habitat, etc. Individually being eaten is a chance event, but overall, gazelles WILL be eaten.

[kiahzero]

87. It's really too bad that we can't trade immune systems.

You can have mine, the one that attacks my colon and leads to inflammation, fistula, fissures, and abscesses. I can take your healthy immune system that doesn't. Then we'll see if you stand by your ridiculous moral stance against any medical research. Somehow I doubt it.

[The2ndWheel]

93. Test on humans for human progress

That's my stance. Do all the goddamn testing you want, just do it on the species that gets something out of it. Go nuts.

[kiahzero]

103. That would end effective medical research.

Of course, you don't care, because you're lucky enough to be healthy. You also don't care that simply by existing, you're inhibiting the progress of the bacteria your body naturally kills on a regular basis, or the bacteria that you kill every time you bathe. Why not crusade against bathing, because of all the life that's destroyed?

I'll tell you why. Because human life is more important than bacterial life, too.

[The2ndWheel]

108. But why would it end research?

If the research is that important, survival level important, isn't it worth the price?

"Of course, you don't care, because you're lucky enough to be healthy."

Keep telling yourself that I don't care.

"You also don't care that simply by existing, you're inhibiting the progress of the bacteria your body naturally kills on a regular basis"

Yes, that's a natual process. That's existence fighting against itself to a balance. That's called evolution. What we do in labs is not.

I have yet to stop one test being done to anything. So I'm on no crusade. Again, that's power and control, and I want none of it.

[kiahzero]

110. Ah, I see.

I'm just supposed to let you spout bullshit, and try to convince others that your bullshit is anything but, because you're "on no crusade." I'm not going to shut up, and I'm not going to let your horrible evil arguments to go unchallenged.

So, because my disease is relatively rare and generally doesn't kill its victims, it wouldn't be able to get a significant level of testing. Not only that, but the existing treatments would become completely unavailable, since they are dependent on mouse antibodies. So what you're arguing is that I shouldn't have access to my medication.

I can't imagine why I'd be upset about that. :eyes:

Let me put it this way: when Bush called medications like mine "human-animal hybrids" and proposed that they be banned, I called him an ignorant fucktard with no compassion.

[The2ndWheel]

114. Damn, I'm pretty sure we have a pill for rage

I have done nothing to you. I wouldn't want the kind of power Bush has. I have stopped exactly 0, zero, none, nobody, from getting whatever help they need. I don't plan on stopping anyone from getting that help.

My whole point is go get experimented on yourself. Human experiments for human progress. Someone somewhere should have enough compassion to do it, whether or not they had the funding, or enough previous tests, or whatever the reason. It is life we're talking about.

"Let me put it this way: when Bush called medications like mine "human-animal hybrids" and proposed that they be banned, I called him an ignorant fucktard with no compassion."

:hug:

All I said was human experimentation for human progress.

[kiahzero]

116. All I'm saying is that your arguments suck.

I'm going to keep calling out your bullshit arguments so that no one accepts them, and leads to my harm. You know full well that only allowing human experimentation will drastically set back medical research, and you don't let that stand in the way of your rhetoric.

[The2ndWheel]

120. That's true

I do know that full well. That's kind of my whole evil point. The non-human experiments are just a small example of the entirety of the way we've been doing things for the last few thousand years.

Again, I haven't done anything to you, or anyone. I have never convinced anyone of anything, and I'm not looking to do so. You're safe, don't worry. The experiments on lesser life will not be going anywhere. You're going to live. I'm not going to stop that.

[Lurking Dem]

122. You didn't address the issue

of decades versus years with the research. What about that? How many generations?

Then there are things like Tay Sachs. You going to volunteer somebody's in utero fetus for drug testing?

[The2ndWheel]

130. No, I won't

I haven't stopped a test, and I won't stop a test. I have saved zero mice. I have killed zero people as a result. Non-human testing is going nowhere. You don't have to be afraid.

[Lurking Dem]

131. I think you mean you "can't".

And I'm not "afraid". I'm pissed off. It's no different than the arguments against stem cell research - you just have a different criteria set.

Your convoluted rantings may have no power in and of themselves. But philosophies similar to yours have done nothing to advance, and much to hamper, the human condition.

[The2ndWheel]

142. Can't works

I can't do it either. If I could, I wouldn't.

So about this human condition, what have all these advances given us? We still die, that's number 1. We live longer, but we're dependent on a lot for that, and new problems with older age keep popping up, so we never quite get ahead. We have more people, living longer and healthier, demanding more, and so the two problems of overpopulation and overconsumption come up. Which then leads us to limits, and whether or not we still have them. If we don't, then it'll be smooth sailing. If we do, then at some point we'll run out of the energy required to keep entropy from taking over on a massive global scale, and that won't be pretty.

To what are we advancing? Does anyone know? Is there a goal? Is it just endless advancement? Will nobody ever be satisfied in that case? If there is a goal, at we get to it, what then? Obviously we can't stop advancing, or else we fall behind, and/or die.

I can't speak for anyone with a similar philosophy. They may have their own wants and desires. I haven't stopped anyone or anything from doing whatever it is they want to do. That's all I want to control.

[DrunkenMaster]

105. I'm right here, genius

and if YOU bothered to do a little research you would find that amimal testing is littl better at predicitng human results than a coin flip. Look it up -- the studies are widely available and pretty much rock-solid.

[IDemo]

18. My outlook on this as a Type 1 for 45 years

I've seen so many research 'breakthroughs' over the decades, but the news stories all ended with the same disclaimer as this one: "Don't get your hopes up too soon".

Part of the problem is that mice aren't miniature humans. While they may share the same basic organ physiology as we, experiments that work well in the lab don't automatically guarantee success with human patients.

A huge delay is introduced because of FDA testing requirements. From this link: "From beginning to end, it can take as long as 15 years to produce an FDA-approved drug." And, - "Only about 10 percent of the drugs that are developed ever make it to market."

From another post of mine on this topic:

Many seem convinced that pharmaceutical companies will attempt to roadblock any diabetes cure because of the profits they currently enjoy with insulin and blood glucose monitoring equipment. Big Pharma won't stifle this, but they are businesses, after all. If this works at all with humans, I'm inclined to believe that pharmaceutical companies will extract the greatest possible profit from this neither by shelving it nor making it a permanent cure, but by engineering it to function as a 'maintenance medication'. The results of the testing on mice indicated a degree of variability on the effective timespan: "Some have remained in that state for as long as four months, with just one injection."

If it is determined that the only 'safe treatment' winds up being annual or bi-annual injections, profits will remain in place and patients will (mostly) be happy.

[Lurking Dem]

19. If this actually turns out to be a cure

in our regrettably shortened lifetimes (remember the "cure in 5 years" bullshit we grew up with??), I say we all meet up at Taste of Chicago and party like there's no tomorrow.

[IDemo]

20. That sounds great

I may make a stop off at the new Cheesecake Factory they just opened here..

:toast:

[Bluebear]

22. Don't sell hope short.

In the 80's HIV was a death sentence. Now it can be a chronic manageable disease. (If you are in the New World and have the insurance for the treatment, but that's another topic.)

Point being, i hope you can fairly gorge yourself on cheesecake without a testing meter in sight within your lifetime. :toast:

[IDemo]

25. I have hope, but tempered with experience

After a lifetime of hearing about the latest mouse miracle, I've come to wish that researchers would refrain from public announcements such as this unless and until human tests have provided the same or better results. It begins to create a cycle of raised hopes/expectancy/disappointment after awhile.

Still, I do believe that a cure will occur in the lifetimes of children who now have diabetes, whether because of this experiment, stem cells, or...?

[Zookeeper]

70. Yes. People tell me constantly about new "cures"

for Type 1 Diabetes. I appreciate their good will, but I won't get excited until my daughter's doctor tells me it's real. And I certainly don't want to put her through that rollercoaster.

[LynzM]

29. I will so be there....

I'm torn between being optimistic and pessimistic about this, due to many things already mentioned on this thread. Fingers crossed, and hope to be partying with you! :bounce:

[Lurking Dem]

38. I'm right in the middle with you.

After 30 years you kinda stop believing.

In the case of diabetes, treatment (which has a host of morbidity/mortality side effects) took center stage and became a $90 billion a year business, which I refer to as diabusiness. For quite some time, cure research was all but abandoned or had to be privately funded.

I would very much like to hope but I'm probably a tad gunshy.

[Patiod]

57. Again with the tinfoil hats, people

There is no cabal that involves every big and little pharma and biotech company in the entire world shelving all the "cures" and producing only treatments. :tinfoilhat:

If there ever IS an actual CURE drug, that can be given once, and *poof*, your diabetes is gone, SOMEONE in the industry will produce it, thereby making other dosing schemes irrelevant, and driving them off the market and making a fortune for whoever has the "cure drug". THAT is the disincentive to "choose" the most profitable dosing schedule when they have a better option available -- management know if they found a better option, someone else will too, and that someone else will product that less-profitable-dosing scheme drug, and drive their more-profitable one off the market.

Companies bring to market the very best drug they have, just so long as they can patent it.

Will the company that makes the cure charge everything they get away with for it, maybe putting it out of reach for a lot of people? Yes indeed they will (as long as the price is in reach of enough people or plans to make it profitable for the company). But that's entirely another discussion. As is the the fact that if a pharma researcher stumbles on unpatentable treatments, they won't put any resources into publicizing them, since no company can profit from finding a new use for an "old" drug. For instance, some researchers found out that simple low-dose generic steroids can help sepsis patients more than costly branded drugs, but that finding didn't get much press attention (but notice, it did get out - these people aren't ogres). The problem was who was going to go to bat for plain old hydrocortisone when there's a branded alternative to pitch? The information gradually got out, but it got out a lot slower than news about some new branded breakthrough would have.

[SidDithers]

23. More here, from The Toronto Star....

though their headline is a bit more conservative:

Team finds hope for diabetes cure

Sid

[IDemo]

33. "the team's findings have no relevance to people who already have Type 1 diabetes."

Guess I'd better hold off on that cheesecake for awhile....

[LynzM]

40. Yup, guess so.

:cry:

Ah well. Par for the course. :hug: At least diabetes is treatable now. I shudder to think what it would have been like to die a slow death from this disease, as so many did (and still do).

[Lurking Dem]

56. Ahh but it does.

they can already transplant islet cells. What they haven't been able to do is keep them from getting attacked again by the same syndrome.

This might be the answer to that. (someday)

[berni_mccoy]

24. This is also up on the JDRF website

www.jdrf.org

It looks like this could lead to a cure in humans in a few years. The key breakthrough is identifying the trigger of the autoimmune response. Now that they know what causes the disease and they have a way of preventing that trigger (at least in mice so far), they can work on a solution for humans.

This is extremely wonderful news.

[TheFarseer]

31. OMG - We have to suppress this

what will Big Pharma do if they can't sell diabetes supplies to people?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. Sell more viagra. n/t

[Patiod]

59. OMG, take off the hat!

:tinfoilhat:

Big Pharma might be screwed, but some little guy startup biotech (and there are a LOT of them out there) will be rolling in the dough and not giving a damn whether GSK or NovoNordisk goes out of business. Did Bill Gates care what happened to Smith Corona?

[proud patriot]

37. Very Cool

:woohoo: I know a few diabetics

[TommyO]

89. Very cool indeed!

My mother is an insulin-dependent diabetic, and my father had untreated diabetes before his death. This leaves my brothers and I with a high propensity for developing diabetes.

I've already given my mother the information about these findings and she'll be discussing them with her doctor to keep an eye out for human trials when they start up (knowing that it will be several years, most likely).

[Minnesota_Lib]

60. Time for the U.S. pharmaceutical companies to step in and try to somehow...

...suppress or stop this guy’s research. This will cost them big bucks in the long run.

I hate to be so pessimistic and conspiratorial but these guys will fight tooth and nail to keep people ill in order to sell their drugs.

[Patiod]

73. No one who works there has family with diabetes?

You think someone at a pharma company is going to undermine something that might help his or her own kid?

I work with these people. They are regular people with families who get sick. If someone ordered them to suppress or stop someone's research into something that would cure diabetes, they would be talking to the NYT in a nanosecond.

It's more the case most likely that the cure for diabetes isn't a patentable pharmaceutical, so they're not funding it (maybe a surgical technique or a simple generic compound used in unique way) so they're slowing the progress of a cure becayse the research follows the money, and big pharma is spending its money on research which looks for pharmaceutical or biotech answers.

[name not needed]

61. I may never have to hear Wilford Brimley say "diabeetis" again!

[truedelphi]

81. Thanks for the infor and for the discussion n/t

[Telly Savalas]

82. Yet another omen that the Leafs will win the cup this year.

[roguevalley]

86. I will volunteer for the trials. God bless smart people and god bless

those precious little mice.

[IDemo]

98. Just to clarify

It should be noted that this is a "preventive cure", not a reversal. What the Canadian scientists found was that injecting mice with 'substance P' reversed islet cell inflammation or prevented it from occurring in mice bred to be diabetes susceptible. They were not attempting to cause the spontaneous regeneration of islet cells in a pancreas where none still existed.

The most likely outcome of this, if human testing is successful, will be in preventing Type 1 diabetes in children with a family history, or in reversing it in newly diagnosed patients. If it eventually has any benefit for those of us already long since diagnosed, it may be in combination with anti-rejection drugs after an islet cell or pancreas transplant, or (ha ha) stem cell therapy.

[Bluebear]

100. Not to differ with you, but the article said clearly this was a REVERSAL

Mice who were diabetic were suddenly not diabetic.

Wouldn't it be wonderful?

[IDemo]

101. From the Toronto Star article:

http://tinyurl.com/y3ds6h

"The research is still in its early days, cautioned Dr. Ehud Ur, professor of medicine at Dalhousie University and chair of the clinical and scientific section of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Like other experts, he is less convinced about whether diabetes can be cured, noting the team's findings have no relevance to people who already have Type 1 diabetes."

I believe what they were referring to by "mice with diabetes" is those with a relatively short history of the disease, where islet cells were still alive but highly inflamed and non-functional.

[IDemo]

102. It should also be noted that complete beta cell destruction does take time

From the US National Library of Medicine: "Within 5 to 10 years after diagnosis, the insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas are completely destroyed, and no more insulin is produced."

So there may indeed be hope for children or others without a lengthy history of the disease.

[DrunkenMaster]

106. Animal Testing is NOT Accurate!

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/animaltesting.html

The drug company Ciba-Geigy has estimated that only five per cent of chemicals found safe and effective in animal tests actually reach the market as prescription drugs.4 Even so, during 1976 to 1985 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 209 new compounds-102 of which were either withdrawn or relabelled because of severe unpredicted side-effects including heart attacks, kidney failure, liver failure and stroke....

Even the most widely respected textbook on animal experimentation states: "Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans."

The best-known example of this is thalidomide. Mothers who took this drug to ameliorate morning sickness gave birth to children with shocking deformities, with most lacking developed limbs. Animal tests had not predicted this. The first recorded case of side effects occurred on Christmas Day 1956, but in 1957 the drug was released anyway...

Other prescription drugs were initially unavailable to people because animal studies predicted side effects not found in humans. They include:

Corticosteroids: These have been shown to cause cancer in some rodents, despite their being used safely by humans for years.
Depo-Provera: This contraceptive was barred from release in the US in 1973 because it caused cancer in dogs and baboons.
FK506: This anti-rejection drug was almost shelved before it proceeded to clinical trials. After experimenting on dogs, researchers said animal toxicity was too severe to proceed to the clinical trial stage.
Furosemide: Mice, rats and hamsters suffer liver damage from this diuretic, but humans do not. It is widely prescribed for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart disease.
Isoniazid: This medication, commonly used for treating tuberculosis, caused cancer in animals.
Penicillin: The release of penicillin was delayed when its discoverer, Alexander Fleming, put it to one side because it did not work in rabbits. This is because rabbits excrete penicillin in their urine. Only when Fleming had a sick human patient and nothing else to try, did he administer penicillin -- with excellent results.
Prilosec: The release of this gastrointestinal medication was delayed for 12 years because of an effect in animals which did not occur in humans.
Streptomycin: This popular antibiotic caused birth defects such as limb malformations in the offspring of rats.

UNSAFE FOR HUMANS
The following, taken from Dr Ray and Jean Greek's book, are just some examples of pharmaceutical drugs which have been deemed safe for human use after extensive animal testing, but which were later found to cause serious side effects.

•Amrinone: Use of this drug for treating heart failure led to 20 per cent of patients developing thrombocytopenia (a lack of blood cells needed for clotting), despite a comprehensive program of animal studies in mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, dogs and rhesus monkeys. Some of these patients died.

•Birth control pills: These are known to cause life-threatening blood clots in some women, yet scientists have still not been able to reproduce this finding in animals. In fact, dog testing predicted that the pill would decrease the likelihood of clotting.

•Chloramphenicol: This antibiotic caused life-threatening anaemia in humans. Chloramphenicol is an example of a drug whose effects vary from species to species: dogs do well with it, cats die from it, cows tolerate it but horses do not. It is so toxic to susceptible humans that its use has been outlawed in animals used for food. The tiny amount consumed from ingesting a hamburger made from a treated cow will cause death in such a person unless they receive a bone marrow transplant.

•Clioquinol: This anti-diarrhoeal passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

•Diethylstilbestrol: This synthetic oestrogen was designed to prevent miscarriage, but it did just the opposite by increasing the rate of spontaneous abortions, premature births and neo-natal deaths. No human trials were done; all the safety data were collected from animals.

•Eraldin: This heart drug was withdrawn in 1975 after causing serious side effects in an estimated 7,000 victims, 23 of whom died. It had been tested for six years in mice, rats, dogs and monkeys and when introduced on the market was "particularly notable for the thoroughness with which its toxicity was studied in animals, to the satisfaction of the authorities".10 Even long after the drug was withdrawn, scientists failed to reproduce these results in animals.

•Floxin: This antibiotic progressed through animal testing, only to cause seizures and psychosis when used by humans.

•Isuprel: A medication used to treat asthma, it proved devastatingly toxic to humans in the amounts recommended based on animal studies. In Great Britain alone, 3,500 asthmatics died from using the medication.

•Manoplax: This heart drug, which had been tested on rats, mice, rabbits, cats and guinea-pigs, was withdrawn worldwide in 1993 after analysis of patients showed that those taking it were at increased risk of hospitalisation and/or death.

•Methysergide: This treatment for migraine led to severe scarring of the heart, kidneys and blood vessels in the abdomen, although scientists have been unable to reproduce these effects in animals.

•Opren: This treatment for rheumatism and arthritis killed 61 people and caused 3,500 adverse reactions. Withdrawn in 1982, the drug had been tested on monkeys and other animals for nine years with no adverse side effects.

•Phenylpropanolamine (PPA): This drug, found in many common cold and flu remedies, was banned by the FDA in the US after it was linked to causing between 200 and 500 strokes in young women a year.

•Primacor: This medication, given when the heart is not pumping enough blood, worked well in rats but increased deaths in humans by 30 per cent.

•Ritodrine: This drug, prescribed to avert premature labour, induced pulmonary oedema (fluid in the lungs, causing breathing difficulties and possibly death).

•Suprofen: This arthritis drug was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release, researchers said this about the animal tests: "...excellent safety profile. No.cardiac, renal or central nervous system in any species."11

•Tamoxifen: This drug, used to treat and prevent breast cancer in women, caused liver tumours in rats but not in mice or hamsters.12 The drug has been shown to be harmless to the developing foetus of rabbits and monkeys, but to cause bone abnormalities in rat foetuses.13 One of the side effects is nausea and vomiting, but this was not predicted in animal studies, even though high doses were tested in dogs -- the species considered most predictive of vomiting in humans.14 The drug has also been implicated in uterine cancer, blood clots, memory loss, absence of periods, and eye damage such as cataracts.15

•Zomax: This arthritis drug killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. Tell it to the scientists.

I'm sure they'll put it in their file next to the "stem cells haven't cured anything" argument.

[DrunkenMaster]

132. is false analaogy all you are capable of?

Do you EVER argue any stand by itself or do you depend upon false analogy every time?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. Why is it a false analogy?

It's an analogy, and it's an analogy between the two false ideas that animal research and stem cell research are invalid scientific tools. But the analogy holds.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

140. As for your arguments themselves...

none of them hold any weight.

Here's how drugs are tested- first their tested on cell cultures in petri dishes, if they pass that they go into animal testing, if they pass animal testing they go on to healthy human volunteers, if they pass that they go on to volunteers with the condition in question, and passing that they go on to the market, altough it's still monitored carefully.

Because drugs such as thalidomide did not pass human testing does not invalidate the animal testing.

Animal testing is done to see whether or not the drug is safe to begin testing on humans.

[negativenihil]

125. Wow!

This is amazing. hopefully this will get any and all needed funding...

[IDemo]

133. Another promising story from last April

- the experiment described below appears to be a "preventive cure" as was the Canadian experiment

Cure For Diabetes

Researchers permanently reverse diabetes in mice.
By Dave Mosher
April 24, 2006 | Medicine

Since the first insulin injection in 1922, a long-term cure for type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes has been a number-one priority among researchers. It may soon be reality, thanks to a collaboration of investigators at the La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology in San Diego, according to a study published April 20 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Dr. Matthias von Herrath says his team combined short-term therapies for type 1 diabetes and cured around half of the mice used in the study.

In a type 1 diabetic, symptoms begin to appear when the body loses roughly 80 percent of its beta cells - the pancreatic tissue responsible for producing insulin and enabling the body to use glucose for energy. The culprit of the disease is a diabetic's own immune system, specifically T cells known as CD4+ and CD8+. Like a tag-team, the CD4+ T cells detect a threat and then instruct CD8+ T cells to launch an attack. For reasons still not fully understood, these cells can become aggressive toward beta cells.

Curing type 1 diabetes, von Herrath says, requires blocking the activity of aggressive T cells with their counterparts: Regulatory T cells, or Tregs. "As long as they're around, they're endogenous peacekeeping machines," von Herrath says.

more -->> http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives-archive/next-two/

[DrunkenMaster]

138. If I May Humbly Suggest

I think the either/or dichotomy described here by several posters -- "do you think mice are more important than humans"?, etc -- is absolutely at the heart of our current environmental crisis.

We have stripped the seas clean because humans are more important than fish. We have devasted populations of creatures like the Tiger because our needs (tiger penis soup among them) are more important than their lives. We continue to destroy the climate becasue our "needs" outweigh the needs of wildlife and the ecosystem. The list goes on and on.

I am NOT claiming that "animals are more important than humans", which is the flip side of the either/or coin: what I am suggesting, however, is that if we are to survive this crisis we have to move BEYOND the dichotomy and into a space where we don't rely on some kind of simpleminded black and white definition and instead begin to speak of webs of connectivity and interdependance.

How we see animals and our relationship to them is intimately connected to how we view ourselves and our place on the planet. We can't change our voracious, mindless consumption of every possible "resource" and "commodity" until we begin to examine this aspect of our consciousness.

Well, I'm not going to post anything else here. Thanks for reading.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

141. I'm not seeing how your arguments fit.

Lab mice are bred specifically for the purpose of doing the research. Nobody's stripping the environment for mice, nor devastating the mouse population, nor destroying the climate in doing such research.

[DrunkenMaster]

139. self-delete, repeat

mods, please delete. Thanks!