It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
“Diabetes in humans is complex and we are losing the war with this complexity. Much of drug development in Type II Diabetes, T2D, is in limbo, due to the inability to predict clinical benefit or risk from targeted interventions,” commented Dr. Hellerstein, “The future of T2D medicines development will belong to those who understand the pathogenesis of this disease in its various forms in human populations, not necessarily to those with the best targets and chemistry.”
Diabetes is an increasingly challenging global healthcare problem and in the United States affects over one quarter of Americans over the age of 65. Diabetes is a major cause of heart disease and stroke, and is now also the leading cause of kidney failure, non-traumatic lower-limb amputations, and new cases of blindness among adults in the United States.
...to de-risk Type II Diabetes drug development, “The patient and the biology of disease must be brought front and center. Information will be the key, based on tools for characterizing patient subsets and for predicting clinical response. Drug development in T2D must become more like the practice of medicine by effective physicians: selecting the right patient for a treatment, following clinical response early and longitudinally; anticipating and monitoring for adverse events with informative tools. Only then can the present stasis be overcome.”
The tools for personalized medicine are hitting the mainstream market, including tissue microarrays, commercial tests for DNA analysis and pharmacogenetics. www.abovetopsecret.com... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Drug companies have long resisted the move to personalized medicine, fearing that individualized care would destroy the blockbuster drug market. As pharmacogenetics prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary, the FDA is backing efforts by the National Institutes of Health to promote the paradigm shift. Personalized medicine focuses on disease prevention, rather than treating symptoms.
Three Definitions of Epigenetics
1. Transmission of information through meiosis or mitosis that is not based on DNA sequence
2. A mechanism for stable maintenance of gene expression states that involves physically “marking” the DNA or its associated proteins
3. Mitotically or meiotically heritable changes in gene expression that are not coded in the DNA itself
...criteria for modern, effective treatments of Type II Diabetes:
Personalized Medicine
Translational medicine
Toxicity prediction and monitoring: This may be the most important need. Many of the most powerful therapeutic classes for Type II Diabetes are...
...critical challenges facing drug discovery:
Focus on causes rather than symptoms: Generating pivotal knowledge for developing blockbuster drugs, by targeting underlying biochemical causes
Systems biology approach: Insight into intact living systems, rather than simplified models, ensures that drug effects are understood in their intended biological context
Reduce late-stage attrition: Early, decision-relevant metrics of drug activity separate winners from losers and reduce later failures to improve the NPV of R&D spend
Powerful assays of disease state: Custom-developed assays create companion diagnostic tests for personalized medicine
A recent episode of 60 Minutes revealed how Dr. Anil Potti, a cancer researcher at Duke University, was found to have manipulated research data to support his hypothesis, which led to over 100 terminally ill cancer patients participating in a fraudulent cancer trial
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by marg6043
S& You know I agree with much of what you say. But the facts remain:
1. Our food, air and water are full of poisons that are making us all sick.
2. The best medicines we've got are good food with plenty of phytonutrients, clean air and water, and exercise - but sometimes they are not enough to counteract all the poisons - many people who've never smoked or drunk alcohol, who've always lived responsibly and healthfully still get cancer and other diseases.
3. All the ancient healing traditions correctly treat every patient individually, and focus on bringing the patient back into harmony with the environment. Which raises some interesting questions:
* What might this mean if the environment has poisons we cannot remove? ...Should we try to harmonize with the poisoned environment, or do our best to escape it?
* Are "sick" people actually adapting while "healthy" people are just unexposed? Will as-yet unexposed individuals die if they're challenged by exposure to normal environmental poisons?
* Are we best off letting our bodies go through "disease" processes that might lead to mutation and adaptation?
...Hunger is reduced dramatically within this paradigm, while average nutrition generally suffers. This is an unfortunate circumstance, but we shouldn't ignore the bottom line:
We can keep more people alive, but many are less healthy than they would be if the food was of a higher quality. At this point, we can't have the best of both worlds: enough food and healthy food. We've sacrificed quality for quantity to some extent, and many people are alive because of it.
Toxic substances abound in the modern world, but the modern world also facilitates a large population and high life expectancies.
For example, air pollution associated with industrialization exposes the population to carcinogenic toxins.
On the other hand, industrialization is associated with dramatic improvements in food production, average quality of life, economic prosperity,
and a modern medical establishment in which basic medicines can be produced in great quantities and medical technologies improve disease outcomes.
We've eradicated Polio in the US, and we couldn't have developed the vaccines or produced them in the necessary quantities without a large industrial infrastructure.
It's that same infrastructure which is responsible for many environmental toxins.
We need blockbuster drugs that can be produced on a large scale because the scale of the problems are large.
We need lots of antibiotics,
Vaccines depend on mass treatments.
We simply don't have the resources to tailor highly individual treatments for every individual. Many disease can be treated effectively on a large scale with generic/one size fits all drugs. Until we make significant technological improvements facilitating individualized medicine, we need to take what we can get in many cases.
I think the answer is not to wait to evolve resistances to environmental toxins. That would require countless generations. A resistance would have to spontaneously arise in an individual; it would have to increase that individual's rate of reproduction relative to the normal population; then it would be a matter of eons before the normal population was replaced with the descendants of the resistant individual.
Medical intervention and reduction in environmental risk factors are preferable approaches. The entire point of medicine is that we don't have to wait for everyone who is susceptible to a disease to die, leaving only a resistant population - we can intervene and treat the sick and reduce the impact of diseases. It doesn't make sense not to try to cure disease when we might be able to.
Low-calorie diet cures diabetes in 8 weeks
ANI Jun 24, 2011, 01.23pm IST
Tags:diabetes
(Low-calorie diet cures diabetes in 8 weeks (Thinkstock photos/Getty Images))A successful trial has led scientists to believe that a 2-month low-calorie diet could free nearly 2.5 million Britons of the 'type two' diabetes.
The diabetics, by consuming just 600 calories a day for eight-weeks, (the same amount many people would eat at lunch alone), were able to throw away their tablets.
Even after 18 months, some of them are still free of the disease, which is linked to obesity and usually attacks in middle age, reports the Daily Mail .
Researchers from the Newcastle University have described the results as remarkable, proving that the condition need not be a life sentence.
Originally posted by soficrow
Business certainly sacrifices quality for quantity, as you say - but "feeding the masses" is NOT the motive. Industrialized food production methods are designed to increase profits, not "feed more people."
Green Revolution refers to a series of research, development, and technology transfer initiatives, occurring between the 1940s and the late 1970s, that increased agriculture production around the world, beginning most markedly in the late 1960s.
The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution" credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers.
Improving seeds through experimentation is what people have been up to
since the beginning of agriculture, but the term "Green Revolution" was
coined in the 1960s to highlight a particularly striking breakthrough. In
test plots in northwest Mexico, improved varieties of wheat dramatically
increased yields. Much of the reason why these "modern varieties"
produced more than traditional varieties was that they were more
responsive to controlled irrigation and to petrochemical fertilizers,
allowing for much more efficient conversion of industrial inputs into
food.
Essentially, the food industry involves the commercial movement of food from field to fork. The modern food industry is the result of technological and cultural changes that have occurred over the last 150 years. Traditionally, over thousands of years, food production was centered around two activities:
Labor-intensive agricultural activities, the farming of grain, produce and livestock.
Personal food preparation, where individuals and families acquire raw and minimally processed ingredients, and prepare them for their own consumption.
A significant percentage of the population was directly involved in farming, and in the process, many people actually fed themselves, from field to table. By contrast, the modern food industry relies far more on technology, particularly on mechanization and biochemistry, than on human and animal labor. In this way, food is raised, manipulated, preserved and moved around, resulting in a food industry that is to a great degree global in nature, with food and related resources travelling great distances. For example, farm machinery and parts from Europe and agrichemicals from the US may routinely travel to farms in South America, where farm products are raised and shipped to North America for fresh market consumption, or for use in processed foods which may then travel to further points around the world. The point at which foods are gathered and prepared has also become fragmented: much of what we eat has already been assembled for consumption.
This modern food system relies heavily on technology, transportation, management and logistics for physical fulfillment, and on marketing and government regulation for maintaining an efficient consumer market. An incredibly wide range of businesses and individuals are employed by and profit from all aspects of this huge and complex system. A tremendous amount of governmental regulation and administration is also involved in this continual flow of materials, food products, and related information.
Originally posted by soficrow
Another myth - children born today are the first generation expected to die before their parents.
Old science restricted its considerations to carcinogens, teratogens, mutagens and the like. New science looks at epigenetic changes, and endocrine and metabolic disruption - for example. The health impacts are MUCH larger than cancer - arguably the end stage following a life time of progressive debilitation and disability.
I take it the press about the global financial crisis and the 1% (versus the 99%) slipped your notice?
Most pre-industrial economies had standards of living not much above subsistence, among that the majority of the population were focused on producing their means of survival. For example, in medieval Europe, as much as 80% of the labour force was employed in subsistence agriculture.
Some pre-industrial economies, such as classical Athens, had trade and commerce as significant factors, so native Greeks could enjoy wealth far beyond a sustenance standard of living through the use of slavery. Famines were frequent in most pre-industrial societies, although some, such as the Netherlands and England of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Italian city states of the fifteenth century, the medieval Islamic Caliphate, and the ancient Greek and Roman civilisations were able to escape the famine cycle through increasing trade and commercialisation of the agricultural sector. It is estimated that during the seventeenth century Netherlands imported nearly 70% of its grain supply and in the fifth century BC Athens imported three quarters of its total food supply.
ndustrialisation through innovation in manufacturing processes first started with the Industrial Revolution in the north-west and Midlands of England in the eighteenth century.It spread to Europe and North America in the nineteenth century.
and a modern medical establishment in which basic medicines can be produced in great quantities and medical technologies improve disease outcomes.
Erm - not sure where you get your information but I'd say your position is almost indefensible.
At what cost? Not just in terms of environment, but in the creation of new diseases?
Originally posted by soficrow
They don't work - and they create more problems than they address. ...Just because the debilitating and disabling effects of the resultant chronic diseases are delayed, does not mean they're not real.
Don't tell me you missed the news about antibiotic resistance too?!
Don't get me started on vaccines.
The system doesn't work. Time to rethink.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but environmental factors (including medication exposures) create epigenetic change in humans and other complex organisms. The evidence suggests these changes become permanent if they're beneficial, after about 3 or 4 generations. Moreover, beneficial genetic changes tend to be transmitted horizontally like disease, at least in yeast - so why not in humans?
Besides, we're all connected - and share information. Even genetic information. From Aeons:
"Viruses are carrying RNA transfers between linked species for communication about environmental changes, and audit controls.
Bacteria and fungus are performing a similar function with genetic exchange."
Medical intervention only makes sense if we know what we're really dealing with - and it doesn't make sense to create diseases.
It emphatically does not make any sense to design a strategy that dismisses nature's responses, and ignores the impacts of evolution on our and other species.