DescentBB

Um, my post is related to the initial post.

Red_5 wrote:Pills that would only repress the destruction of that particular bacteria. That would be possible.

You'd just have to create a bacteria with protein tags on its membrane that are kindof like ID's. I'm not sure how hard that'd be, but to want to do something like that, you'd have to be pretty sure that the bacteria isn't going to wreck anything.

Wouldn't it be more straight forward to repair the pancreas - or to block the particular genes that cause it to malfunction? Seems better to me to treat the cause of the disease instead of the symptoms.

roid wrote:maybe you could engineer the insulin producing gene (with feedback from blood glucose sensing) into some other existing (Non-islet) cells in your body.

Ideally it would be better to locate the faulty gene on the human genome which codes for insulin regulation, isolated it, and replace it with a working gene. this sounds crazy, but this is the direction i think genetic science is heading in.

Gekko71 wrote: Thank you so much for posting that link Wheeze87! My youngest child has a genetic disorder which will present him with multiple health problems as he ages. Being told by a world expert that we could potentially have a map of his genome within five years is an incredibly heartening piece of news! Laughing Smile Laughing

Its extremely exciting. Of course having the genome mapped is simply the first step, the hardest part is isolating the genes which produce disorders... and then finding a cure/treatment. but we have the ablity to do this, its just a matter of lowering the cost.

I'm hoping to enter this field of work if i graduate, it really gets my juices going! I've have close friends who are battling with genetic disorders, and knowing that soon we may have technology to combat this, is very heartwarming, so i share you view on this!

Gekko71 wrote:Wouldn't it be more straight forward to repair the pancreas - or to block the particular genes that cause it to malfunction? Seems better to me to treat the cause of the disease instead of the symptoms.

Yes, it would but there are two things that get in the way...

• The medical profession (throughout the world) tends to treat the symptoms instead of the cause ... this greatly slows down learning the better methods to cure.
• We do not yet know how to repair the pancreas (AFAIK)... and sometimes it is also brought about by signals from the brain and/or a certain gland at the brain (I forget the name of the gland)

Overcome those two hurdles, then (at last) we'd find the cure.

And following that…It seems to me that the medical community is far more interested in making money than curing things…Example:

I have a cataract, a problem of the proteins clumping together in the lens, seems like a simple problem to solve right? Simple enzymes to un clump the proteins? Basic chemistry? Well it is far more profitable to simply charge people a huge amount of money to get a 10 minute operation then “curing” the problem. Especially seeing how most people with cataracts have government (taxpayer) provided health insurance.

Curing the problem = A one time cost.
Treating the symptoms = Lifetime expense.

Yea call me a cynic, but that’s how I see it.

Spidey wrote:I have a cataract, a problem of the proteins clumping together in the lens,

There's a big difference between 'clumping together' of proteins and denaturation of proteins. And, unlike most proteins, the proteins in lenses can't be reversed (or, at least with our current understanding of healthcare).

Actually, wait; what are enzymes supposed to do anyway?

Well then it's a good thing for me that all health care is paid for by the government in Canada.

TIGERassault wrote:Actually, wait; what are enzymes supposed to do anyway?

Wait, I phrased that wrong. I meant 'how are enzymes supposed to solve the problem of cataracts anyway?'

Forget it Tiger...I was just whining.

Spidey wrote:Forget it Tiger...I was just whining.

Well, there's no point whining over stuff that's not real, and you can't prove the medical community is trying to screw you over unless you have some real examples that they are, and you can't prove that your example of how they prefer surgery over an easy solution to cataracts is real if you can't prove that the easy solution is real in the first place... *phew*

In other words, I'm genuinely interested in what you thought was an easy solution to cataracts. That, and I like summing up sequences of small events into one long sentence while over-using words such as 'prove' and 'real'.

type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune condition, like AIDS. The body attacks the cells that traditionally make insulin. So i suggested enabling other non-targeted cells to make insulin instead. It would bypass the autoimmune problem.

I hear a lot the theory that it's in the best interests of drug and medical supply companies to NOT cure diabetes (particularly type 2). Because maintenence of the disease is very lucrative, with all the testing equipment etc, it's like a cash cow.
There are a variety of examples of medical companies not being interested in medicines that they can't make much money from (eg: Lithium, St Johns Wort, Cannabis).


I don't consider this to be a problem with doctors - but a problem with capitalism. It's the profit seeking companies who do it, not your local GP.
Luckily it's generally universities that do the initial research - not corporations. So the research generally gets done - the main stall is when the university trys to sell CURES to an uninterersted drug company who would rather protect their much more lucrative TREATMENTS.