I guess I’ll weigh in from two perspectives: I am a university-based scientific researcher (although I do not do clinical studies in humans); and I am a diabetic, diagnosed a couple of years ago.
As a scientist, the BCG human trials are in the very early stages, and the trials have been conducted in only a very small cohort. The results from Faustman’s lab are very interesting from a scientific standpoint, but seem to be incredibly preliminary in order to be producing the amount of hype that is surrounding this discussion. I hope that this line of research is continued, but I’d caution people to not get too excited about research that is in the early stages (no matter that these experiments have been taking place over many years now). There is a lot of work to be done before these trails can be shown to have clinical relevance for a significant portion of Type 1 diabetics.
An experiment that has statistically significant results is not the same thing as a set of trials that has clinically significant results. These trials need to be repeated at much larger scales, in different laboratories, by different scientists, and those results must be justified with a clear explanation of an underlying mechanism.
So, as a scientist, I genuinely get annoyed by people letting the word “cure” creep into the discussion of these results. For any number of reasons, talking about a “cure” is incredibly premature in this case. One of the biggest reasons, as others (notably Seydlitz) above have pointed out, is that the Type 1s who showed improvement were still using insulin to treat their diabetes. Using the language from the study, a “transient and small restoration of insulin production” is not a cure. The BCG vaccine might very well be an effective therapeutic agent, or it is possible that it could be shown down the road to be a cure, in part or whole. But the evidence so far doesn’t show that.
If, a decade from now, we are talking about a 20% reduction in A1c in studies of 1,000+ Type 1 diabetics, then we’ll have evidence of a new therapeutic tool. If, a decade or more from now, some of those 1,000 people have been cured of Type 1 (as in, they no longer need exogenous insulin to achieve normal range blood sugars throughout an extended period of time), then we’ll really have something to talk about. And I’m sure all of us will rush to be vaccinated according to the new miracle protocol. Until that time, talking about a “cure” is irresponsible and misleading.
Now, as a diabetic and Tudiabetes member. I find it disconcerting that a new forum member with a financial investment in the therapy being discussed is promoting the therapy on these forums. I’m not saying it isn’t right, or is against the rules. I honestly don’t know whether it is or is not against the rules.
I spend enough of my time being marketed to, billed, and seen as a freaking cash cow by the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries to be well and truly sick of it. I don’t know why the JDRF is at odds with Faustman and her work, but I don’t like this forum being used to push research that is financially motivated.
If one of the scientists from Faustaman’s lab wants to talk about the trials here, I’d very much welcome that. But if @DrBB is right that the OP is a private investor in the research, I feel that this is not an appropriate forum.
edit: IT appears OP does not have a financial stake in this research. For future cases like this, it would be very helpful if posts were exceedingly clear about their relationship to the lab or research. We’ve been burned here in the past, and it makes me (and some others, I suspect), a bit jumpy…