Best response so far lol.
They all sound the same to me. But for me, a cure would mean that I had no mechanical encumbrances, could eat or not, whatever, whenever and however much I wanted without abnormal BG swings, and never had to pay attention at all ever again. Just like I used to be BD (before diabetes). To me, an artificial pancreas does not fit that definition, because it’s mechanical, has to be refilled periodically with insulin and probably glucagon, and BGs still have to be monitored, at least occasionally. You would still have to think about it.
And I don’t think it’s reasonable to target a date for a cure, because the basic science isn’t all in, and nothing can account for serendipity. Could be the cure is in the works right now, who knows? It still has to wend its way through regulation and politics and expert arguments etc. I don’t expect to live to see it.
Hi Mike,
I don’t mean to butt in, but I also wanted to offer my perspective on the JDCA’s mission (as I am also involved in the organization and believe strongly in its purpose)
We are a young organization and it’s normal that people have many questions surrounding us, but our #1 mission and the reason why we exist is to help in the search for a cure. We are not involved in medical research, and we recognize that foundations such as the JDRF, DRIF, ADA, Joslin are the ones with the resources, the opportunity and the talent to make some very exciting steps forward towards a cure. However, we also know that there are many people who do not feel comfortable with donating money if they are not sure where exactly it is going, or if the research it is going into is not really focused towards a cure. That is why we want the donors to unite and speak up, so that the charity organizations realize they need to be more transparent and more focused on cure research (our reports indicate that money donated towards a cure often gets heavily spread apart). We believe that if we see such a change, even more people will donate money and keep the momentum for a cure going. So although we believe it is very important for the foundations to change the way they operate, our goal is to help them and the hard-working scientists in the research labs by getting as many people as possible from the diabetes community on board.
Let me know if you want to talk more about the JDCA - if not here, then elsewhere - I’d love to answer any questions or comments about the work we do.
Thank you for your clarification, Stoyan. I’m going to state your mission in another way, and you can tell me if I’m on target or not.
By making it transparent where an organization’s donation receipts are going, whether to a cure, to improved devices and treatments, to prevention efforts, advocacy, etc. you are trying to help donors allocate their resources to those areas which are most important to them.
If that’s what you are trying to do, I applaud you. With knowledge, people can make their own decisions. And each person’s priorities will be different. At your age, a cure is still a real possibility; at my age, it is not. I need advocacy in getting Medicare (which I am not yet on, but close) to provide for my treatment needs appropriately, which they currently do not. I am much more likely to donate to an organization promoting advocacy for adults than to one focusing solely on children and a cure. It’s not that I don’t care about the children, but there is only so much I can donate.
Maybe you and the folks at your organization had not thought about it in those terms, but I encourage you to consider your mission as offering people a choice, and not specifically orient toward a cure.
Hmmmm, I think the spin-off is interesting. Maybe it should have gone into a new discussion. It surely shows that a lot of people are thinking a lot of different things! 
Stoyan - sent you a reply
I agree with the question about whether the conclusion really required study. However, when you ask "Why was this funded?", you might consider that while the study results were published in the American Diabetes Association's journal "Diabetes Care", a closer look indicates that neither the ADA, the JDRF, the Diabetes Research Institute Foundation or even Joslin (in spite of the fact that the Reuters article quotes someone from Joslin who did not had any involvement with this study and is not listed among the researchers who conducted this); it was conducted by the university known as Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, and we can only speculate on whether they received third-party funding for this research, but there are NO disclosures (although the ADA's journals have a horrific record of conflicts-of-interest enforcement). For more details, you might consider visiting the scientific/medical journal source for this at http://bit.ly/n6O6Zd.
Not sure I can add anything else about how lame this article is, except…
Reminds me a little of the shrimp on a treadmill studythat our tax dollars funded. Wonder how this was funded, and why it was funded.
They said the shrimp was sick, and they might have been studying metabolism in illness. And that really does fall under the rubric of basic science. And it’s not nearly so weird as jello wrestling at the South Pole, for which I can’t think of a reason, even in my wildest, most manic moments!
There may not have been research out there about this issue, It is common sense and we all see the stupidity of the research. Until a study has been done the results peer reviewed and published researchers cannot use this little piece of info. for further research.
Think of academia as a set of blocks. Individually the blocks are usually small and in some cases really look dumb. Each block builds a wall of knowledge.
This sounds like a dissertation. I don’t know of course but if it was, the research is free. Graduate students do stuff like this because those blocks are often the so mundane no one wants to do them.
Rick Phillips
It’s not a dissertation since the authors of the study already have MDs, indicated in the abstract linked on page 2 of the thread. How can you say the research is “stupid” Rick? While “common sense” told medieval people that the planets and sun revolved around the earth, we know through science that that was not, in fact, the case. I think that a conclusion about media exposure and diabetes control of kids makes sense. While i am not as smart as you obviously are, I have said repeatedly blathering on Tu that in my totally unscientific 1 person study, having hobbies has helped my diabetes control, even when the “hobbies” (rock and roll…) were quite unhealthy in other ways.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/12/dc11-0838
This thread has wandered off into interesting directions, but I wanted to remind everyone of what the article said. Which is, that higher A1cs were NOT correlated with exercise habits, mealtime diet or anything they were specifically testing for, except screen time. Their only hypothesis was that kids who watched more TV may have been snacking more. Which kind of makes sense if the snacks were junk food and not being covered adequately with insulin. And they suggested that regular mealtimes without snacking might help these kids. And it was a one-point in time examination.
There is not enough real info in the study to do anything except provide a pointer to future studies, say, a 3-month study which controlled for snacking vs. mealtime eating only. It DOES make sense to me to try to find ways to control kids’ A1cs. because children are notoriously difficult to control anyway (in more ways than one, LOL!).
So no, I don’t think this study was a common-sense thing at all – it DOES contribute to knowledge in a small way. And the study on jello-wrestling at the South Pole beats this one for a Golden Fleece award, any day!
LOVE the Golden Fleece awards 
Yeah Natalie - I sort of had to skip over a few pages to get back to the main jist of this thread. I know for myself, I’m a pretty lazy cow as far as activity goes. So, to myself - I think my A1C of 6% reflects that I’m using my insulin correctly for what my needs are. When I am more active - of course - I lower by basal insulin - but again - this is very rare for me. Since being on the insulin pump I have way less insulin reactions then I did when on MDI - I’m more stable now. As a child, I was just on one shot a day - and we were more active in those days (watching TV was a luxury in my house with only limited channels). in away I’m glad I grew up in the 60-70’s - ehgads - I sound like an old fart don’t I? Well, I am when you think about it - i thought the old folks who were in my hospital room back in the 60’s were old - but guess what - they were my age now . What a laugh!
I just got a 5.8, which is NOT spectacular for me, since I’m a low glycator, but good enough. I’m also having fewer lows than I did on shots, because I usually take my pump’s word for it, when it says I have insulin on board, rather than overcorrecting. But I’ve been having rather more lows than usual, lately – either time to tweak basals, or maybe insulin:carb ratios.
And sorry to chuckle at your old-fart self-description – I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, and I can remember the first time I ever saw a TV, when my family was on a visit to relatives in California. I was about 5, and there was a tiny, round-screen in a big box, and there were people MOVING in it!! Couldn’t believe my eyes! We didn’t have a TV for several years after that – and then it was a black and white one. I remember being very small and listening to the radio – there were shows like Fibber McGee and Molly, and Amos ‘n’ Andy that the young’uns now have probably never heard of.
Remember “The Wonderful World of Colour”? lol
Mine was square too Anyone remember Rinky Dink? Kukla, Fran & Ollie? Anna I think I’m an older fart than you LOL
LOL!! Remember the hare and the tortoise! Who won the race???
Maxine’s cartoon message was delivered to our inbox yesterday …I forwarded immediately