I was type up a question that Karl just answered. Why would a Type 1 sufferer not just go to a doc and request a TB vaccine? Perhaps just claim you are going to travel abroad. Ask a different doc a month later if the first is not willing to do another. Pay cash, there should not be any reason to not have your request granted. If the drug companies can use marketing to get you to ask your doctor for specific drugs, and they most likely will give them if you are asking, why not this?

Most docs I know of, dont' carry the vax. Might be hard to get here. But ez in Mexico, as far as I know.

And in mexico you just walk into a pharmacy and ask for it.

Sean wrote..

BTW, I disagree with your All homeopathy - maybe 75%+

Oh ferSure ! because in 25% of the cases water does indeed have memory , and the more diluted the solution is the stronger the memory FerSure !



So lets assume this works and is a real, no bull**** cure, with a 90% hit rate.

I imagine any company that begins marketing this thing as a cure for diabetes will get sued up the ass by the fda. Why would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on fda approval where your chances of breaking even are slim to none.

So go FDA ! Its common sense that this agency exists. Don't like it move to Somalia you anarchist !

Debtpie wrote..

Single payer system folks; lets look at Taiwan and improve upon it.

Wow. Yea definately.

From the same article you linked

Quote:

Revenues from Taiwan's plan come from a combination of individual payroll deductions, employer and government contributions, with additional funds coming from a "sin tax" on cigarette sales. Every participant gets a "smart card" that contains their basic medical data. They can use that card at any clinic or hospital in the country, handing over a small co-pay. When swiped along with a doctor's and hospital's card, the smart card accesses a unified, national database that's a powerful tool for tracking health trends, such as the spread of swine flu.
....
That's not to say health care in Taiwan is flawless. In a nutshell, the system is underfunded and overused. It's been in deficit since 2007, with the government forced to borrow from banks to cover costs.

Meanwhile, with co-pays so low, many Taiwanese — particularly the elderly — go see a doctor for every minor ache and pain. So much so that some clinics have become a lively social scene for gray-hairs.

So what is there to improve upon? Maybe we can run faster medical deficits in the US ? Maybe instead of a government card where all your medical info goes into a government database, we just have it all tattooed on our foreheads ?

Funny it does seem that every single payer government health care system is going bankrupt and/or implementing rationing schemes. But we should learn from them!

Sure. That makes sense.

As already discussed in this thread, the drug is already FDA approved and many physicians will issue prescriptions for "other than intended purposes".

Many years ago in a bitter custody battle my ex took my kids to be treated by a psychiatrist. The bitch put my 9 year old son on anti-psychotics. Not approved for the purpose she outlined and not approved for people under 18.

I personally handed her ass to the court. Her best defense was "we do this all the time".

well its apparently its approved for TB, not diabetes...

Look at the case of wellbutrin (mild anti-depressant) and its use in stop smoking

IIRC they needed another FDA approval for allowing it to be used/marketed as an stop smoking aid

So now (assuming it works) who pays the fda ?

Let me preface my comment with the following. I don't condone illegal action, however.. I would LOVE to see what's in the data warehouses of the big pharma's. Uncovering that they had cures for diseases and wouldn't release them to the public should be punishable by death.

Quote:

Meanwhile, with co-pays so low, many Taiwanese — particularly the elderly — go see a doctor for every minor ache and pain. So much so that some clinics have become a lively social scene for gray-hairs.

Same thing has been happening in Canada for years.

People go to the doctor for basically anything... thing is, here there's not even a co-pay... all ``free``.

If they put a 100$ basic fee just to be there, a lot of people would stop wasting the doctors time.

Quote:

Meanwhile, with co-pays so low, many Taiwanese — particularly the elderly — go see a doctor for every minor ache and pain. So much so that some clinics have become a lively social scene for gray-hairs.

Government welfare programs of any kind (and socialized medical care is nothing but) are brought to you by the kinds of people who put out a bowl of milk at night then act shocked, SHOCKED! that there are ten previously unknown cats on the front porch in the morning.

They then repeat the process, then are SHOCKED! that the cats are having kittens...

"Guess we'd better increase the milk budget!"

Not once does it occur to them to stop feeding the damn stray cats.

It's like being surprised that people overeat at an all-you-can-eat buffet. The incentives are all wrong.

What was that about doing the same thing expecting a different outcome?

I' m a Type I Diabetic.

"Coming soon to a Mexican clinic near you."

Quote:

I imagine any company that begins marketing this thing as a cure for diabetes will get sued up the ass by the fda. Why would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on fda approval where your chances of breaking even are slim to none.

If this drug has been through proper channels, the FDA would have egg on its face trying to kill it after the approved release. What more likely would happen is they would start throwing hurdles to its release to favor the agency's cronies.

Typically FDA fines, shuts an organizations doors (483 violation), or inhibits release to market. Criminal charges can then be brought if criminal actions have occurred. Its usually up to individuals or class action suits to recover damages.


As Karl stated - Charities or people that truly want this to happen is the real key.

If this drug has been previously brought to market it has undergone Stage 1 [safety trials] through Stage 4 trials from its primary indication.

Stage II testing is needed to determine a proper dosage and how effective the drug has been. A new indication would have to start here under the US system. New indications, however, can also mean extension of patent applications by the innovator under current law. Some profit motive is still here if the company can retain patent for a time.

This saves a lot of cost but not as much savings as an ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Application) filing. ANDAs are filed primarily for companies seeking approval for generic drugs that have lost patent.

Physicians still have the flexibility for off label use. Its just a matter of time before the government tries to take that flexibility away too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_u....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbreviated....
http://www.pacificbiolabs.com/drug_stage....

Ever wonder why medications are so expensive? Trials are not cheap either. Even with all these hurdles, very little actual supervision exists and corruption games the system.

This ticker sounds a lot like what reputed conspiracy nuts have been saying about cancer cures, and also about energy technology. Could some of the reputed crackpots actually be right?

No. And if tin invades here accounts will go poof.

FDA=Federal Death Administration

1. kickstarter.com <br>
2. Olivier Ameisen, M.D. who pioneered the treatment of alcoholism with
dose-dependent baclofen came to the same conclusion as KD; he was told by
many there was no interest in an off-patent older drug. See his book
<i> Heal Thyself </i> [hardcover title, <i> The End of My Addiction </i>,
c. 2009. <br>
3. Richard Bernstein, M.D. the pioneer of the low-carb & physiologial
dosing of insulin, for diabetes was told by a a top endocrinologist: if a patient dies of complications from high BG, it's the disease. If he dies of hypoglycemia bc of an insulin injection, it's my fault. This is online
at his site. I had thought his approach was fairly well known now, but
apparently it is not; see his discussion of the ACCORD study, which many
believe to have discredited his regimen. Don't have a link handy. This was
a few years ago now <br>

to Genesis: I'll have to look up tin, I want to keep my account. <br>
Any number of alcoholics have not waited for clinical trials, a brief online
search will find several sites. BTW, I wonder what genuine medical ethics
would say about a double blind study for ppl with a fatal illness, the
projected Tx being an Rx universally acknowledge to be safe. (that's about
baclofen)

Blackswan: diet (low-carb, not low-fat) is important in controlling BG. the
right dosage of insulin is important, as is the timing. Dr. Bernstein's books
discuss this in detail.
Laura Dolson, in 2008, lowcarbdiets.about.com is a quick introduction to the
ACCORD study and another one in Australia, the ADVANCE study.
Pika-Steph. wow. just wow. but not surprising, not any more.
P.S. sorry about the HTML in my earlier comments.

The man who figured out how to cure ulcers had to fight for years...he and his info were suppressed. Treating is SO much more profitable than the curing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9576387/ns/h....

Eventually he had to do some grandstanding, so he tried to infect himself.

Quote:

Dr. Barry Marshall was so determined to convince the world that bacteria — not stress — caused ulcers that he drank a batch of it.

Five days later he was throwing up, and he had severe stomach inflammation for about two weeks.

It was just the result he was hoping for. His bold action over 20 years ago symbolized the perseverance Marshall brought to proving a controversial idea — one that gained the ultimate validation Monday as he and Dr. Robin Warren won the Nobel Prize in medicine.

The discovery by the two Australians that ulcers weren’t caused by stress, but rather by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, turned medical dogma on its head. As a result, peptic ulcer disease has been transformed from a chronic, frequently disabling condition to one that can be cured by a short regimen of antibiotics and other medicines, said the Nobel Assembly of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

'No one believed it'

Warren, a retired pathologist, said it took a decade for others to accept their findings.
The long-standard teaching in medicine was that “the stomach was sterile and nothing grew there because of corrosive gastric juices,” he said. “So everybody believed there were no bacteria in the stomach."

“When I said they were there, no one believed it,” he added.

The two researchers began working together in 1981. “After about three years we were pretty convinced that these bacteria were important in ulcers and it was a frustrating time for the next 10 years though because nobody believed us,” said Marshall, a researcher at the University of Western Australia.

“The idea of stress and things like that was just so entrenched nobody could really believe that it was bacteria. It had to come from some weird place like Perth, Western Australia, because I think nobody else would have even considered it.”

Marshall later wrote that he consumed the germ-laden drink himself in July 1984 because it was impossible to infect rats, mice and pigs with the bug. He was fine for about five days, then he began to get early-morning nausea and vomiting.

The stomach inflammation he was hoping for lasted about two weeks, he told The

“I didn’t actually develop an ulcer, but I did prove that a healthy person could be infected by these bacteria, and that was an advance because the skeptics were saying that people with ulcers somehow had a weakened immune system and that the bacteria were infecting them after the event.”
Curing ulcers with antibiotics

He and Warren believed the bacteria came first, causing inflammation, then ulcers. The experiment helped establish that.

Dr. David A. Peura, president of the American Gastroenterological Association, said the prize-winning work “revolutionized our understanding of ulcer disease” and “gave millions of people hope.”

He read about the H. pylori theory in 1983 while serving as a gastroenterologist in the Army, and “I thought it was crazy,” he recalled Monday.

But he and a colleague were intrigued, and soon they discovered they could cure ulcers in their own patients with antibiotics targeted at H. pylori.
“It was such an intriguing theory that everybody tried to disprove it and couldn’t, so we all became believers,” said Peura, now a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville.

Peura, who met Marshall when both worked at the university and considers him a friend, said Marshall’s perseverance was responsible for the eventual acceptance of the theory. “Any lesser of a person probably would not have been able to withstand some of the ridicule and scorn that was thrown at him initially,” Peura said.

Marshall and Warren celebrated their new honor with champagne and beer.
Advertise | AdChoices


“Obviously, it’s the best thing that can ever happen to somebody in medical research. It’s just incredible,” Marshall said by telephone from Perth, the Western Australia state capital, where the pair were celebrating with family members.

Warren said he was “very excited also a little overcome.”
Their work has stimulated research into microbes as possible reasons for other chronic inflammatory conditions, such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis and atherosclerosis, the Nobel assembly said in its citation.

The discovery came about after Warren had observed bacteria colonizing the lower part of the stomach of patients and noted that signs of inflammation were always present close to the bacteria. Marshall became interested in Warren’s findings and together they launched a study of more patients.

Marshall also succeeded in cultivating the previously unknown bacterium from patient biopsies, in part because he accidentally left a sample in his lab over the Easter holiday in 1982 — unwittingly giving his cultures time enough for success.

Together, the two men found H. pylori present in almost all patients with stomach inflammation or ulcers in the stomach or the part of the small intestine called the duodenum.

The Nobel prize in physics will be awarded Tuesday and the chemistry prize on Wednesday. Those for literature, peace and economics will follow.

Oh no, one of the other 200 countries in the world may have to do something for once

If this is real, then another academic center in a socialized system would pick up the research and run with it. What would the FDA do? Declare war on this medical advance? No. The people who make this work (if it can work) will be hailed as heroes, win all sorts of accolades, etc....
So fine. A theory is proposed, and a researcher complains that the U.S. 'system' won't run with it. WELL THAT MUST BE THAT! BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ALL ADVANCES IN THE SCIENCES COME FROM THE U.S., RIGHT?!?

What a crock. Doctors want to help their patients, and yes, SOME are only interested in making a dishonest, disinterested living. If it has merit, some good will come of this.
Type 2 diabetics would help themselves out alot (I know, a little off topic) if they would just eat a proper diet, exercise regularly, and take cheap meds to keep their sugars under control. Oh yeah, and stop smoking, stop drinking alcohol, and stop bitching about why other people 'refuse' to help them (when everyone knows that they could IF they really wanted too).

Patriarch wrote..

What a crock. Doctors want to help their patients, and yes, SOME are only interested in making a dishonest, disinterested living. If it has merit, some good will come of this.

It seems you're assuming that all doctors are equally informed, competent, and good.

No matter what the motivation, doctors are human (not gods or angels) after all and that includes faults and weaknesses. One weakness is going along with the herd, not rocking the boat, etc. This is especially true when acting as part of an organization:

http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-....

They don't have to be overt conspirators to participate in institutionalized ignorance. They just have to be human and part of an institution.

Ask anyone who has the 'wrong' blood test numbers about dogma. Take statins! Get those numbers down! But the more you research, the more you find that the science isn't quite so clear.

Why assume that doctors are immune from the effects of dogma and appeals to authority? Surely the average doctor is like the average person: going along to get along, etc.

This medical article implies a lot, but says very little. If you read the publication what you find is this is still in the scientific phase, not the clinical phase yet. Benefits were transient. There is no evidence that this is a CURE. Be careful whenever you read a medical report that uses the terms like "may", "could", "might", "suggests"

Prior studies with the use of BCG have not shown benefit. Diabetes associations are not even sponsoring the research because it is too theoretical at this point and prior studies showed no benefit. The balance of data (from the limited reading I have done on this) does not support the use of this vaccine. There is no evidence of a lasting effect yet, and even some studies that "suggest" harm.

If I were a pharmaceutical company, I would not touch this with a 10 ft pole. NIH grant dollars maybe, and that may be what the author is pushing for.

Too soon to determine harm from the therapy, especially with the idea of planned repeated doses.

If any physician prescribed this vaccine for the treatment (note, there is no evidence of cure in the article) of Type I Diabetes I would think they lacked critical reasoning skills.

I suggest people read the actual article and then read other studies associated with BCG and diabetes. Export editorials are helpful. They may have an entirely different take on this article.

Rafter, amen. And to this day, I'm still having to steer fools who have ulcers and think it's because their lives are so stressful, to this info.