We ran this article based on a guest column in the Boston Globe. Its talks about the biggest roadblocks to finding a cure. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. Here's the article: Why is Finding a Cure for Diabetes so Difficult?
OTHER RECENT HEADLINES FROM DIABETES NEWS HOUND
Researchers Developing ‘Tattoo’ to Monitor Blood Sugar
Bret Michaels On The Road Again
I really believe that there is too much money in the diabetes support industry for one of them to find a cure.
I like the idea of a cure, but I really don’t like the article’s solutions: lowering standards does not seem like the way to go.
From what I have read over the last 6 - 9 months the short answer is, “It’s complicated!”
It appears that for either D-type, the research has led to the general consensus that there is NOT a single silver bullet waiting to be found by more research, or less regulation. From an investment standpoint, it then stands to reason that developing each part of a multi-dimensional “cure/treatment” is going to be both expensive and a higher risk proposition. Weighing against that is the increasing numbers of diabetics so the potential market increases with every passing moment.
Other stories I have read are indicating that the pipeline for all types of new drugs is “drying up” as most of the traditional chemical methods of developing drugs for everything from headaches to cancer have been explored. New ways of developing drugs and/or genetic therapy need to be developed and until that happens, lower P/E ratios for drug companies is likely to continue.
The opinions of those who claim, “I really believe that there is too much money in the diabetes support industry for one of them to find a cure”, are not supported by reality even though it can briefly relieve frustrations to shout that out.
Governments everywhere owe it to their constituents to constantly review their procedures for allowing new drugs to be developed as quickly and economically as possible, while simultaneously protecting the public from ineffective or dangerous drugs (does that sound like I work for the FDA? Sorry, I don’t).
The guest column in the Boston Globe seems to be a bit simplistic and certainly speaks to the choir of those in the bio-tech industry that the writer seems to be part of.
Like I said, “It’s complicated!”
Fair Winds,
Mike
Thank you for your balanced opinion. I also don’t buy into the “too much money to be made” thought process. If this were the case, TB and Polio cures alone put many facilities and manufacturers out of business. How many TB hospitals were shut down, or iron lung manufacturers are there left, or the companies that made the leg braces polio victims often wore? To be sure the medical industry was making a fortune keeping these paitents alive. The fact is, medical and drug companies also research cures and there is money to be made (and fame) for coming up with the cures. Once a cure is found they move onto other projects and diseases.
Note that unlike other curable diseases which are actually pathogenic, Diabetes and other genetic diseases have alluded modern science. We’ve only just in recent history unlocked the human genome, let alone discover the which gene (or genes) is responsible for Diabetes.
Short answer, It’s complicated . . .
The fundamental science needed to progress is lacking this has a zero discount cash flow and needs tonnes of money, so bad news. One or 2 aircraft carriers less?
It seems that as of late there has been a lot of articles about the difficulty in finding cures and how money is spent for research. The time is coming to re-evaluate the standard model of research funding if we want to see progress. What about a functional cure that would bridge the gap until a true cure is found? Scott King of the Solving Diabetes Project has an article responding to the recent Newsweek article regarding problems with medical research and finding cures. It is called, “The Cure is Five Years Away (and always will be)”.