And it will be provided for free to anyone who needs it, right? Right?
Only outside USA.
Hey, don’t forget Yemen, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, and Sudan!
A fine group to belong to, we can all agree.
Banned for national security
Free + $46,000 in Ch-China tariffs.
You have to agree to pay a 2000$/year subscription for Life™ after taking this medicine.
So, taxes?
Besides taxes
Certainly not in the US of A… but the rest of the world may have a chance if this actually pans out
Yes included with an unicorn
‘Further studies are needed for validation.’ Understatement of the year
I’m hopeful but wary. Medical science keeps being the one thing left in this world that consistently makes me happy to be alive in modern times. This would be a great breakthrough.
Type 2, since the article doesn’t say.
It’s actually for both types according to the articles in Nature
Yeah but the person “cured” had type 2.
There might be applications for type 1, but that’s speculation.
The articles suggest that it may be beneficial for Type 1, but that’s unconfirmed. The nature of early-stage clinical trials is that people don’t really know how things will work. That’s the point of the trials.
Important to know. Reading on how it works on the article, I wonder if it could be used for type 1, likely in combination with some kind of drug therapy to prevent the body from just killing the new islet cells.
Isn’t type 2 the one that effects massively more people?
Iirc type 2 is acquired diabetes, type 1 is the one you get from birth, so yes.
A lot of people actually don’t get diabetes type 1 when they are born but later in life
It’s adult onset diabetes, just means it didn’t appear during childhood. A lot of people think type 2 is “fat American diet” diabetes but for many of us it’s a genetic condition and typically manifests in the mid 30s regardless of diet. You don’t necessarily become insulin dependent immediately but it’s likely you will progress there
deleted by creator
New trade restrictions coming soon on Chinese pharmaceuticals.
True. How could it be a free market if corporations are not allowed to form a cartel and agree on a price for a product that is literally vital for many people?
Curing diabetes is not in the shareholders’ best interests.
I mean it is… They could literally have a cure that they can sell to millions of people around the world, as well as millions more who will contract diabetes in the future.
I don’t understand this conspiracy and companies don’t want cures. I can understand scepticism around pharmaceutical companies for all the awful shit they’ve done, but it doesn’t mean that scientists and researchers will never be able to produce cures.
I don’t exactly subscribe to the conspiracy but I can understand it as it’s related to “planned obsolescence.” Companies don’t want to sell you a quality product that will last “forever” they want to sell you something that’s just good enough to work for a bit, but will absolutely break or be replaced very soon so you become a repeat customer as opposed to a one time customer.
The same logic applies here with the medication, why would they sell something once even if there were new future customers, if they could instead have everyone on a “subscription” of sorts?
The conspiracy exists because we see it play out in every other facet of our society/economy. Everything is becoming a subscription, you don’t own anything, every product a corporation makes is almost complete garbage, etc… I’m not sure I believe it 100% but I wouldn’t in the slightest bit be surprised to find out that actually was the case.
There is no grand secret conspiracy. Why? The more people involved in a conspiracy, the more likely it will leak out. A conspiracy between two people may never get it, a conspiracy between a hundred people will have someone slip up in a few years at most, but an international conspiracy involving millions of people with disparate interests wouldn’t stay secret for a second.
What we’re seeing isn’t a conspiracy as such. It’s a conversation happening in the open about “business models” and “revenue streams”. It’s also based on customer expectations. There are definitely markets out there for the repairable, buy it for life goods, but there’s just not nearly as big as the customer who upgrades their phone every two years. But obviously that’s going to be different for diabetes. Reliably being able to repair pancreatic cells would be huge. If the companies selling insulin tried to internally stifle research to avoid cannibalizing their insulin business, other companies have an enormous incentive to take a crack at it.
Yeah and there are other parts of the world where researchers search for stuff like this too. If it works it will being fame and money to the inventors and then the drug exists and can ve sold.
Pharma investors have a solid position and are already racking big profits from the continuous model of insulin treatments. A cure would be a detriment to their profits, so it’s not something they’re interested in funding.
No investor nowadays thinks a one-time-payment product is worthwhile. We’re already way past that.
This isn’t to mention that if you were an investor who decided you wanted to go ahainst that, that the other mega corporations (with more funds than most of those 5% individuals) wouldn’t engage in anti competitive practices to shut you down. Many companies had good products but still ultimately failed. I mean hell, the boeing events have shown us the lengths a corporation is willing to go to protect its profits, and that’s just what we heard of.
Unfortunately capitalism does not allow innovation to flourish like many of us were taught to believe.
Does this logic apply in China?
big if true
Remember, it was the Chinese labs that also reproduced the room temperature super conductor experiment a few years ago and also found their own material…and then it all turns out to be complete bullshit.
One patient doesn’t mean anything. It’s great if it’s real (having worked directly with China for engineering, I have zero faith this is even a real thing) but there is a lot of reason to doubt at this point.
Removed by mod
Citing MBFC without a supporting claim that discredits the article is lazy and does not benefit the discussion. Comment removed.
Removed by mod
Imagine using dailymail as a reason for why news are factual.
presses X to Doubt
Destroy corporate healthcare by curing diabetes.
If this were true, I wouldn’t be finding out about it on Lemmy
Lemmy is a news aggregator. Why wouldn’t you find out about an early-stage clinical trial on Lemmy?
Any such treatment, even if it works, would take decades to pass through the various approval stages before being released to the public.
The headline isn’t ’early stage clinical trial starts the multi-decade process of developing a cure for diabetes’… the headline reads ‘diabetes has been cured’
Alls I’m saying is that if the headline as written were true, we would be hearing it from all news sources at once, not just some single post on a somewhat obscure news aggregator.
To be fair, not much of a demand for such a permanent cure in leading profit driven health care systems where diabetes medicine is gold. How about MSN? https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/world-s-first-diabetes-cure-with-cell-therapy-achieved-in-china/ar-BB1n7cNA
Though one does well to be skeptical yet.
Right? Media and science do not play well together. I can’t count the times I’ve seen amazing new discoveries or cures heralded by the media that never come to fruition because they were only ever just theoretical to begin with or they were never replicated by any other researcher.
Maybe you should be reading Cell Discovery, then
How would reading Cell Discovery increase my chances of hearing about a cure to one of the world’s most pervasive afflictions on some obscure Lemmy post, and more puzzling, how would reading Cell Discovery make it more likely that some wild medical claim with far reaching implications would both be true and also absent from every other news source? What kind of magic does this Cell Discovery have?
That study, which is admittedly a bit above my pay grade, says that more study is needed. It doesn’t say that diabetes has been cured, which is the headline that media outlets have chosen.
My only point was that if diabetes was actually cured, everyone would know about it, not just you and me.
If this were true you wouldn’t hear from this at all.
A permanent cure isn’t something that is wanted by pharma companies. It’s better for them to have something that keeps patients alive and that they need regularly and that is expensive but cheap enough for them to get.
But why wouldn’t a rival company just start up and sell the cures? Not all pharma companies sell insulin.
The bar to entry in the pharma market is extremely high. You need a lot of capital to enter it, which quickly disqualifies 95% of the population.
Now of course, people without money can still get funding from investors. But those investors are already racking big profits from the continuous model of insulin treatments. A cure would be a detriment to their profits, so it’s not something they’re interested in funding. Not all pharma is insulin, but it’s one of the bigger pharma industries.
This isn’t to mention that if you were one of the 5% and managed to have the resources to find and produce a cure, that the other mega corporations (with more funds than most of those 5% individuals) wouldn’t engage in anti competitive practices to shut you down. Many companies had good products but still ultimately failed.
Unfortunately capitalism does not allow innovation to flourish like many of us were taught to believe.
Because then the rival company would also go out of business. The pharma industry is not about absolute cure but about continuously selling things - like all industries do. Medicine that cures you entirely and is not needed afterwards forever again is nothing the pharma industry wants.
Exactly, that’s why we’ll never have a vaccine for something like polio, it’s too profitable to make and sell iron lungs.
You joke, but that’s actually a really interesting story. Jonas Salk, the developer of the first polio vaccine was adamantly against even patenting it and claimed that it ‘belonged to the people’. There is some potential controversy there, but we mostly just think he was a pretty great dude. Dude’s a fucking hero regardless.
I get the analogy you’re trying to make, but maybe want to switch to something else.
I get the analogy you’re trying to make, but maybe want to switch to something else.
Like any other vaccine?
Yeah, legitimately could choose just about anything else besides polio and it would have landed pretty well.
I don’t really see how that goes against it. If anything it shows that some people will totally disregard profit in favor of bettering humanity. See also: the patent for insulin.
We have a vaccine. Not a cure.
Pharma wants that sweet IaaS platform. Insulin-as-a-service.
Eli Lilly and Company wants to know your location.
Removed by mod
theres a lot of other places reporting on this, and a scientific paper in nature. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-02/breakthrough-in-diabetes-treatment-research/103278156
It’s sad to see USA so shackled by pure capitalism that it starts to lose its scientific edge left and right while drooling libs jerk off to the big pharma freedom of unrestrained gains. Still believing they have a chance for a piece from the cake if only they squeeze their cheeks a little harder.
I am super confused by your take here. Liberals who, and let’s be clear, regularly push for better if not universal health care (and are the only major party to do so) jerk off big Pharma to you? How exactly do you get to that conclusion?
Liberals means different things around the world. Here it means free markets circlejerkers, Adam smith cultists, invisible hand of the market preachers while at the same time anti lgbt for some reason. Pro freedom but anti freedom. Full of paradoxes. Neonazi too and even conservative despite based around free market peddling.
After all we live in a post truth word where even people who agree with each other cannot communicate anymore due to shifting meaning of the words thanks to the politicians and media.
How can we even converse if the words itself are stolen, changed and used for war? Do we need to use mathematics instead of language if the latter is disfigured beyond recognition? Changed into a tool of some demagogue?
Adam Smith had a completely different definition of “free markets” than Neoliberals did.
You just said that liberals are hardcore capitalists despite the fact that liberals are the ones pushing for a hybrid socialist democracy where key industries are socialized so that rampant corruption, which is an effect of the invisible hand, can be avoided. You go on to say that liberal means conservative.
Phrases like ‘we are living in a post truth world’ are a self fulfilling prophecy for those who use that phrase… for the rest of us you just sound like a far-right provocateur.
It appears you are either very confused or you are a dishonest interlocutor and are completely full of shit.
.world user try not to be confused about the word ‘liberal’ challenge (impossible)
This is a really insightful argument you have proposed. am going to have to give it a lot of thought because it’s so sophisticated and well thought out/communicated. You should be proud of yourself.
“Liberal” isn’t only a word used for modern US/Canadian progressives. “Liberal” is used to mean someone who believes in “free-market” capitalism, free trade, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalizationism, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. It’s pretty much synonymous with right-wing “libertarian” ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and it’s still used this way in the US – mainly in economic, philisophical, or “fundamental rights” contexts though.
Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least. The American ideology is often considered “social liberalism” or even “modern American liberalism”, which still holds beliefs of individualism and capitalism, but differs from liberalism in that it pushes for a regulated mixed economy, as well as the government contributing to fulfilling social needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. It also is defined by focusing on social justice/civil rights, as opposed to traditional liberalism (which is opposed to social justice and civil rights, believing people in a “free market” will decide to do the right thing). It ranges from being a centrist ideology to being a left-leaning right-wing ideology, so when the only opposition is basically dormant fascism, it is the “left” ideology. In a full political view though, it isn’t leftism.
The American misappropriation of the term came from a time when the word “progressive” was starting to be seen as “radical” (and therefore negative). Progressives started using “liberal” instead, and it became a way to say “I only want some government intervention in the economy and social issues, but not a radical amount”. When New Deal politicians like FDR popularized it, it kind of became cemented in American political discourse as meaning that.
Modern American liberalism is democratic socialism and that’s what it has meant since FDR…
"In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited governmentand laissez-faire economic policies."Consequently, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism are key components of modern American conservatism and movement conservatism, and became the basis for the emerging school of modern American libertarian thought.
This doesn’t mean that liberalism = conservatism.
Surely you must notice that “Modern American Liberalism” and “Liberalism” are two separate terms? “Liberal” can mean MANY things other than American liberalism. It even specifies in the article you’re quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term “liberal” is in reference to social liberalism, even in America it’s still used in the common/typical/“original” sense frequently (just not by uninformed voters).
And AFAIK nobody said anything about liberalism (and American liberalism) and conservativism being equivalent either. “Conservative” is a significantly more broad term than “liberal” and it’s impossible to definitively equate or oppose them, but generally conservativism is opposite to progressivism – seeing how liberalism is usually socially progressive, it isn’t generally a perfect match. But there does exist “conservative liberalism”, which is socially conservative and economically liberal – in theory what American conservatives are supposed to be, but in reality they’re a bit more… fascist.
Relatively though, American liberals are significantly more conservative than, say, socialists and most leftist ideologies. They still hold many very (especially fiscally) conservative beliefs. There are plenty of American liberals that are in the pockets of big pharma.
Also calling modern American liberalism “socialism”, even “democratic socialism”, is laughable. Socialism requires abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the workers/public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful democratic reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries, which is very much NOT socialist. It is quite literally, regulated capitalism. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted. You can’t just take any welfare state (or attempt at one) and call it socialism.
For the most part, “lib” is synonymous with “so-called market capitalist and liberty advocate”, i.e. almost all Americans in politics. A non-American using it to describe American politicians bought out by big pharma makes perfect sense, as most of them also claim to like the free market and (negative) freedom and stuff.
Lmao sounds like you got some stick up your ass. Go get some qualified help with pulling it out
Careful, your ad hominem is showing
Damn I am trying to stay classy today despite all odds. I may need to kill someone (in a game) before the day comes to an end to release that steam from hormone inbalances
Fuck it I am going out to the city
Maybe you should try putting a stick in your ass
Liberal = laissez faire
Liberals don’t do that, progressives do. Liberals say that universal health care is too complicated and nuanced so we better just stick with the system we have because that’s generating profits so it must be working.
They might mean neo libs.
It’s fucking annoying when capitalists keep coming up with capitalist positions and naming them so that they sound like they are something else. Like neo liberalism or libertarianism, which are pretty close to the same thing (all about a deregulated, private, free market), only libertarians like to emphasize how they are ok with sex and drugs.
Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).
Neo liberals want governments and collective public elements to stay out of their affairs and let them manage their own interests.
Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).
If the overarching “freedoms of individuals” is the freedom to exploit the labor of individuals then yes, that’s the core of liberalism.
If by “collective public elements” you meant collectivizing the means of production, then no, that’s socialism/anarchism/other.
That’s the core of neo liberalism. Liberalism has a “my rights end where yours begin” component but neo liberalism drops that and expects the free market to solve such conflicts.
And by “collective public elements”, I meant public organizations like the postal service, police departments, etc. The government itself is supposed to be one of those. Liberalism is neutral on what is and isn’t collectivized. Neo liberalism likes privatization but appreciates that some functions are better handled by the public, like law enforcement and road maintenance. Libertarianism believes it should all be private.
In the last comment I said neo liberalism and libertarianism are pretty much the same, but it’s more accurate to say libertarianism is an extreme version of neo liberalism.
Liberalism has a “my rights end where yours begin”
No, it’s always been the defense of exploitation when it comes into conflict with any other supposed right.
Here’s one of my favorite books, it goes through the history and evolution of Liberalism: http://acdc2007.free.fr/losurdo2011.pdf
It’s special because most liberal thought is taught as something that was born, fully formed, from the minds of men in the 1700s, and exists entirely divorced from context and material conditions.
👏 👏 👏
idk sounds a bit sus
Oh crap! If this is true then avoid spending a ton of money in insulin supplies each year could give an actual reason to politicians for reducing the healthcare state budget, which they normally do at every occasion just without a proper explanation… I don’t know if my mind is ready for rationality in politics /s
Why is everyone online so incredulous of this breakthrough? Is it just Sinophobia or are there reasons to doubt Chinese medical findings?
There’s reason to doubt all sensationalist medical headlines
But this is 1 patient, no long term effects studied (just doesn’t need insulin injections), and hasn’t been validated
Nothing to do with China
Because in the past we’ve seen a number of similar headlines that never became reality, so people are naturally skeptical.
Their Covid vaxx was trash. My aunt’s friend was a UAE resident, and got sinovac Covid shot. He later caught and died from covid, so that’s my anecdotal reason not to trust it, but if it is true, this would be a great thing.
you’re an idiot if you’re basing assumption that on your dead aunt.
You’re an idiot if you can’t read a whole 2 sentences and grasp any sort of reading comprehension.
