What do you all think of this article?

This article with tags for the University of Florida, Glooko, Novartis (among others) showed up in my news feed this morning.

4 Ways Tech is Curing Type 1 Diabetes

It’s a good overview! I find the notion of someone hacking my D-data somewhat amusing as there’s no way it could possibly be intelligible to anyone. I remember when I met with the CGM nurse and saw the squiggly line and thought “what a freaking mess!” but the SalesNurse was like “wow, that’s really good”. A “civilian” would find it utterly unintelligible. I suppose an insurance nurse stooge could perhaps try to “bust” you but there’s so much data.

The volume of data only serves to prove how tough it is. And I sort of have easybetes. If anything, the depiction of data presents powerful arguments for more data and I am pretty sure that studies have shown that more data can help achieve better results. I’d really like to see a study done of folks who are exceeding the treatment guidelines relatively safely, running A1Cs in the 5s without too many problems, etc. I don’t think we can know for sure if there is any benefit to this but I kind of suspect there is. My own experience going from allovertheplace to smoother control started about 2008 (with slow but seemingly measurable improvement…) is a uselessly small sample size but I remember what I felt like then and I feel quite a bit better these days.

The AP is kind a bit of a conundrum for me. It seems they are not going to be “tuned” (?) to “normal” BG levels but “good” diabetes control of maybe 6.0 to 6.5 A1C? I know many D-Moms have maintained lower A1C successfully so perhaps if there’s a “maternity setting”, it would be useful for me but, even if it were less work, I’m not sure that I’d want to blow my A1C up 1-1.5%. I am also somewhat concerned that putting everything in the hands of the tool will erode senses and skills that I have honed through 31 years of hacking away at diabetes. It certainly hasn’t always been pretty but I seem to do ok at it. I think that if we can see some sort of feedback from an AP, it might be possible to maintain senses but maybe, maybe not. It’s a work in progress and I am looking forward to seeing it progress.

I find this article interesting but the title is misleading. Of the four things discussed none are a cure but rather are better ways of management.

1 Like

yes, the title is BS.

I responded to this article with this:

There’s big difference between treatments and a cure for diabetes. People with diabetes resent the casual use of the word “cure” because they have been taunted with these rosy promises before only to have their hopes dashed by reality.

Your article is a good one for general info on diabetes and emerging tech. Please refrain from using the word “cure” unless it pemanently eliminates the diabetes symptoms with no attention whatsoever required of the person. “Cure” and “reverse” are hype-words used by diabetes click bait charlatans.


I don’t mind referring to treatment as a cure, of sorts as the pathology of diabetes that’s not treated with insulin is grim. I am very skeptical of curists, e.g the JDCA, who have voiced objections to spending any diabetes resources on “treatment” or “support” vs. research for cures, none of which have exactly been successful yet. I like that some money is spent on both.

The movie “The Story of Insulin” is lengthy but is a very good representation of how insulin injections, primitive though they were compared to all the whistles and bells we have these days was, in fact, a cure. Elizabeth Hughes ate 400 calories/ day in between her dx in 1918 and getting insulin (I think she may have been patient #2?) in 1922 because insulin was on the horizon and, in fact, cured her and she lived to 1982.

1 Like

I used to have similar thoughts about AP because I do not see how it could possibly produce any better outcomes for me in terms of e.g. A1C or % in range. The level of time and effort I invest daily in my T1D management is really not so large, so with AP I would not expect much improvements in my quality of life either. After talking to some people working on AP, and spending a bit more time on forums such as this one, I’ve changed my mind: the goals of AP are not to help you or me or (relatively few) people who are already doing very well, but to bring very good control and excellent quality of life to a much wider group of people whose medical outcomes and day-to-day life are severely affected by T1D. AP can and will be able to accomplish that goal, which is definitely worth pursuing. Unfortunately, instead of taking quality of life into account, medical community and regulatory agencies are fixated solely on measurable outcomes such as A1C, which I think has been the main impeding factor in the development of AP technology.

1 Like

You nailed it! I’ve been around the block too many times to fall for that nonsense, and when I see articles linked on this site, I usually mention my displeasure. :slight_smile: I’m not upset with the poster of the link–just the linked article.

When I read about some of the performance of these artificial pancreas or AP systems, I realized that my current control, overall, exceeds their targets. I don’t mind that since I understand that you have walk before you run. I imagine I will interested in the 2nd or 3rd generation of the AP.

And I don’t think I’ll be ready to hand over complete automated control at first. I’ll want to stay in the loop until the system can gain my confidence. Even once I hand over control, I’ll probably still be a back seat driver!

How would you feel ceding control of your vehicle to a computer? :slight_smile: I think I’d reflexively push my foot on the floor to “brake” when watching the car approach things at a speed I’d not be comfortable with, but I like the idea of getting drunk, distracted, careless, inexperienced drivers off the road. A computer does a good job controlling an airliner…

The article is written by a person with a fresh perspective and with limited subject knowledge. Although a dumber down article was intended. Some people who don’t care for diabetes but are likely future diabetics, that is at high risk, are often convinced that a simple treatment is available for people who believe and pay for initiation. And many view technology as a mysterious force. So I think the article was entertainment. It was also educational. And the author avoided making false statements by making generalized statements like “in the conning years”