Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'IMAX Movie of Body' Allows Stanford Geneticist To Stop Diabetes In Its Tracks

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the i-see-a-career-in-oatmeal-sales dept.

Medicine 137

sciencehabit writes "Michael Snyder has taken 'know thyself' to the next level. Over a 14-month period, the molecular geneticist analyzed his blood 20 different times to pluck out a wide variety of biochemical data depicting the status of his body's immune system, metabolism, and gene activity. In yesterday's issue of Cell (abstract), Snyder and a team of 40 other researchers present the results of this extraordinarily detailed look at his body, which they call an integrative personal omics profile (iPOP) because it combines cutting-edge scientific fields such as genomics (study of one's DNA), metabolomics (study of metabolism), and proteomics (study of proteins). Instead of seeing a snapshot of the body taken during the typical visit to a doctor's office, iPOP effectively offers an IMAX movie, which in Snyder's case had the added drama of charting his response to two viral infections and the emergence of type 2 diabetes."

cancel ×

137 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393137)

Neat :)

Eh, Type 2 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393149)

Let me know when they can stop, and reverse, Type 1.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (-1, Flamebait)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393307)

Yeah, curing Type 2 Diabetes pretty much amounts to "stop eating all those cheeseburgers". If only every serious disease were this easy to cure.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (3, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393341)

You know, Michael Snyder [stanford.edu] doesn't look like the extreme cheeseburger eating type. A Google search for him [stanford.edu] shows some full body shots. From the article, it sounds like they have evidence of a viral + genetic cause for type 2 diabetes.

Re:Yo Fat Mama! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393461)

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve you Macfags!

Re:Yo Fat Mama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393549)

As if Adam didn't get any action on the side to satisfy his fetish, it's not like they were even married.

Re:Yo Fat Mama! (0)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393817)

And who was mother to Cain and Able's children? This is what you want to stake your reputation on?

Re:Yo Fat Mama! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394253)

Let me short track this by saying it was all Hitler's fault.

Noah (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394821)

And who was mother to Cain and Able's children?

For the first 1650-odd years in the Bible's continuity, there weren't yet enough lethal equivalents [medilexicon.com] in the gene pool for inbreeding to be a problem. After this, there was a great population bottleneck as a side effect of a divine intervention to flood the Nephilim off the face of the planet, and human life span declined sharply.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (4, Informative)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393835)

Transplant patients routinely get Type 2 as a result of immunosupression. While it's primarily a lifestyle disease, it, like Type 1, can also be an immune disorder.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394021)

From reading into this a bit (hadn't known of it)... post transplanet diabetes doesn't seem to be immune as much as the medications used for immunosuppression screwing up the bodies tolerances/handling.

The immune system isn't causing it- the side effects of the meds are, basically.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393363)

Ahh... No. And take a look at this persons picture http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/assets/2012/03/16/sn-snyder.jpg [sciencemag.org] for proof.

Too bad that with all the resources available today we still can not cure the stupid commenter on Slashdot.

Stupid commenter (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393667)

That's an illness that once cured will be missed.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (-1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393665)

Actually, it's simpler than that - it's "stop eating the bun on all those cheeseburgers, put down the fries and don't drink sugary sodas".

Type 2 diabetes is caused by carbohydrate intake. Stop eating carbs, and the type 2 diabetes goes away.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (4, Informative)

qwak23 (1862090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394287)

I'm sorry but carbs in general are not the enemy people make them out to be, nor is eliminating them from your diet a cure for type 2. There also are multiple factors that are linked as possible causes of type 2. In terms of type 2 caused by obesity (I have a family member dealing with this right now), the main goal is to increase exercise, improve diet and reduce weight. This does not require the elimination of carbs as a whole from the diet. Reducing or elimination of foods high in sugar content (especially soda) can greatly help, but there is no need to eliminate carbs sourced from grain. Additionally, there is the whole concept of thermodynamics in which consuming less than you use regardless of source will cause weight loss. Drinking soda is a good way to push your intake above your expenditure without even realizing it.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394921)

Type 2 diabetes is caused by carbohydrate intake. Stop eating carbs, and the type 2 diabetes goes away.

It doesn't. It never goes away, once you have it.

And the "stop eating carbs" is nonsense. It is not carbohydrates per se, it is carbohydrates in very easily digestable form that transform into blood sugar very quickly and require massive amounts of insulin that are the problem. Sugar obviously, but also the fluffed up wheat "bread" that they are selling (in the USA they have a product called "Wonderbread" which manages to get 100 out of 100 points on the carb evilness scale).

And diet coke doesn't help. It doesn't contain sugar, but it contains stuff that makes the body _believe_ there is sugar. So you get the same insulin rush, except that when the body finally figures out there wasn't any actual sugar, it then _wants_ sugar.

Type 2 diabetes _never_ goes away. Stopping unhealthy food stops the illness from getting worse. It also helps reducing the damage (the actual damage is done by unprocessed blood sugar. Less sugar intake = less unprocessed blood sugar = less damage). Losing weight is good because excessive wait makes it harder for the body to process blood sugar.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393773)

Cheeseburgers and Twinkies don't cause Type 2 Diabetes, they only reveal it. The tendency to lose regulation of insulin on diet is the illness, and it's congenital.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394109)

right.. and they developed insulin resistance because of the cheeseburgers and twinkies. stop trying to hide the ball.

Make it my fault (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394289)

Then chow down on your Mac & Cheese with bacon. That will fix everything.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (4, Insightful)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394355)

Causality is tricky, but not without answers. If avoiding cheeseburgers and twinkies causes you *not* to get T2D even if you are predisposed, I would say that both are causal factors and are right to blame. However, the *type* of environmental factor also plays in. If you feed a cat paracetamol, it will die. Does this simply "reveal" a underlying condition? Is the cat sick to start with? Feeding the cat the substance is what killed it, but the reason it died from it is biological and exposure to a substance it would not encounter in nature. If you happened uppon a cat that survived, THAT would be the oddity.

If you are born with relevant genes, you are, and need to look out. You carry one of many polymophisms in the gene pool, but you are not sick or nessearily abnormal. It just means that under a heavy diet with little exercise - an unnatural lifestyle - you might get sick faster than others. It's *multifactoral*, like most conditions we can get. If you are not very good at skydiving, you should not skydive even if everyone you know does. Cheeseburgers and sedentary lifestyle need to take the blame more than genetics.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (-1, Redundant)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394401)

Congratulations. You've said in 500 words what I said in 26 words. Are you proud of that?

Re:Eh, Type 2 (3, Interesting)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395043)

Sorry if I offended you somehow or made my post seem redundant, that was never my intention /: I was trying to add to the discussion by saying that I think the overeating and lack of physical activity is more fair to see as the primary causes of type 2 diabetes rather than genetics, and that by blaming the genes we're ignoring the point [nih.gov] that our bodies might not be build for our current way of life (: I would rather say that modern life has revealed that some people are not as well adapted as others to that lifestyle.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (3, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395889)

1. I'm a type 2 Diabetic.
2. I stand 6'1", and currently weigh 211 lbs. I have a 32" waist and can (and regularly do) bench press 295. I run 9 miles a week.
3. Despite this, I still use pills to control my condition. I still have to have quarterly exams. including several hundred dollars in tests each time.
4. I have better than average response to the meds, see fewer side effects than the average user, and unlike many diabetics, can get by on just a couple of generic drugs that don't cost me much. I have not had to change up to any of the more espensive drugs since I started. Less than a third of the type 2 diabetics under treatment can make that claim. .

So on behalf of all the type 2's who have cut their weight, exercised, and stopped eating sugary foods but still have a serious medical condition, I'd like to offer a hearty "Fuck you, you ignorant idiot!" (I don't usually stoop to such language, but it's obvious that nothing less could possible get through to somebody like you). Really, you are spitting in the faces of thens or hundreds of thousands of people you never met, who have successfully fought a battle I doubt seriously you could win, and you are revealing you are unfamiliar with both the facts about a serious disease and fundamental human decency. I'm torn between being furious with you and pitying you.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393319)

Hey, serious question, but what exactly would it take to put an end to Type 1? What are the steps needed to do so? How does the illness actually work? Ignorant would be polite, in my case, I know nothing of such diseases. And, I am curious. Maybe I can F/OSS one out in a program. =)

Re:Eh, Type 2 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393365)

Type 1 is an autoimmune disease (or at least that's the most widely held belief) where the body's immune system attacks and destroys the insulin producing cells of the pancreas. As a result, the body stops production of insulin and without the administration of external insulin (primarily via injection), you die (quickly).

To reverse the disease, two things are required. One, the body must be trained to not attack the the insulin producing cells. They've experimented with this for quite a while with anti-rejection drugs and similar things, and have had some moderate success. Once this is done, though, it's necessary to get the body to begin producing insulin again. There's some research that indicates the body may be capable of doing this spontaneously once step one is complete (at least in mice). Otherwise, an external source (transplant from a donor or cloning or stem cells or...) of these insulin producing cells will have to be added to the body.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (2)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393943)

Apparently for type 2 diabetics the pancreas may be producing enough insulin but the cells throughout the body do not except that insulin very well. It may be an auto immune disorder similar to arthritis where the body either resists or fails to recognise its own insulin. That may be why starvation offers some relief. When the body is really hungry the uptake of insulin may increase.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393997)

do not except that insulin very well

"accept"

Re:Eh, Type 2 (2)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394395)

Diabetics with type 2 first goes through a fase where insulin fails to control blood glucose levels (if you have allot of glucose in your blood, this is sensed by you pacreas and it secretes insulin - a stubstance that signal to the other cells of your body to start absorbing the glucose, and thus reduce how much is circulating). After enough time in this state, your pacreas gives up and stops producing insulin, much like in type 1. So it has two stages.

Autoimunity might be a hypothesis (does type 2 diabetes respond to immunosupressants? Do you have states where antibodies conversly increase uptake of glucose from the blood w/o insulin?), but I think the prevailing idea is that fat accumulation in muscle cells interferes with a signaling pathway that originates in cell membrane fats (the IP3/DAG pathway), making it less efficient. Think of it like wire that is loose and only occationally gets contact. The signal is supposed to convey the fact that insulin is present from the surface of the cell into the cell, where glucose transporter (GLUT4) is to be mobilized to the surface of the cell and start taking insulin out of ciculation and into the cell for storeage and burning. If the signaling pathway thus breaks, this manifests as less effect by insulin, and the body compencates with increased levels over time, and eventually burnout of the pacreas.

If accumulating fats are to blame, it might also explain why a negative energy balance (starvation) would help. Fat is the main energy store of the body, and it might get burned off, restoring normal insulin sensitivity.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394531)

I dont think that is correct, I hevent seen any diabetic to get normal by loosing weight, and most of them end up their lives much thinner than they were when diagnosed, even if they were already slim

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

Knutsi (959723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394799)

I think you have it for life if you have aquired it, but for type 2 diabetes, loosing weight (and exercising) is the primary treatment, and according to the widely used Norwegian Electronic Doctor's Manual (NEL) almost all cases can be prevented by preventing obesity (: They reference an article here [nih.gov] , amongst others, for this claim. The goals of therapy is stated to be to reduce the condition to a non-symptomatic one if possible, and this is what weight loss and exercise seems to achieve (but medicines might also help, and acute cases needs medical intervention).

Regarding weight loss as treatment, I'm not sure if this resource is available for free everywhere, but it's also clearly stated here [bmj.com] and here [annals.org] . Wikipedia also references an article [wiley.com] on this.

That's of course not to mention all those other things that a healthy diet and working out does for your body. Seems like an attractive package for just about everyone (:

Dr. Fuhrman on curing most Type II diabetes (2)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394929)

See also Dr. Fuhrman: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx [drfuhrman.com]
"The vast majority of my patients, who adopt my nutritional and exercise recommendation for diabetes, become thin and nonâ"diabetic. They are able to gradually discontinue their insulin and eventually other medications. They simply get well. I work with people who have diabetes who want to live a long and healthy life and enjoy the achievement and confidence that they have control this disease. The membership services offered here on this website, and the information in my book, Eat For Health, can get you started on this road to wellness. My hope is that the information below about diabetes will enable you to feel more confident that you or someone you care about can be motivated and work with me to recover their health."

Re:Dr. Fuhrman on curing most Type II diabetes (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395467)

I dont want to be pesimistic about this, but that sounds exactly like the next miracle product ad on TV.

My guess would be that type two is slowered down a lot by a good regimen (we have know this for long time anyway), but I found it hard to believe that we have a cure and only a handful of doctos in the world know about it, my biased opinion about biology and medecine research does not help a lot, I gotta say :)

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393953)

Evolution will take care of this. Step 1: stop applying external insulin to patients. Step 2: run a few generations.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394903)

Except many people are able to reproduce prior to the disease's onset (even though it is often referred to as juvenile diabetes), and up until 100 years or so ago, there wasn't a treatment, so it had plenty of time to work its way out of the population.

Another aspect to the disease is the lack of a specific cause. It's believed to be partly genetic, and partly environment based, but no one really knows for certain. Even in identical twins, the chances of one developing it after the other has are only 50%.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395341)

No, because they will have time to have kids before they die, therefore it will not be evolved out of the population.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393367)

Hey, serious question, but what exactly would it take to put an end to Type 1? What are the steps needed to do so? How does the illness actually work? Ignorant would be polite, in my case, I know nothing of such diseases. And, I am curious. Maybe I can F/OSS one out in a program. =)

Wikipedia, for some basic knowledge before asking for others to do your "research" for you, would also be polite.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394053)

Some people genuinely enjoy explaining things, and if you don't want to answer it costs you nothing. Calm down.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394309)

some people genuinely like to post stuff the OP posts :).

Re:Eh, Type 2 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393641)

Type 1 is autoimmune diabetes, Type 2 is "everything else". That can be reduced insulin sensitivity, not producing enough insulin to support your body mass (which is why we equate fat=diabetic), and gestational diabetes where an increase in hormones prevents insulin from entering cells. The sources of the diseases are vastly different, but both result in increased blood sugar.

The test to determine if you are type 1 or type 2 specifically looks for the immune system antibody (Islet of Langerhan antibody) in your blood stream. The part that is unknown is what 'triggers' a T1 diabetic to start producing this antibody. This most frequently happens when people are young, which gave it the name 'Juvenile Diabetes', but it's largely inaccurate. I was diagnosed at 27.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

ivi (126837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393875)

Keep a finger on the pulse of "eyelet transplantation" (ie, from a healthy donor, into a Type 1 Diabetes sufferer) and the techniques that follow on its heals. (A while ago, ET required suppressing the person's immune system, but - after all these years of research - there must be some improved treatments; we no longer follow the trail.)

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393901)

They ALREADY DID/DO/CAN. You have to give up sugar and eat the so called "caveman" diet and exercise. No veggies cooked over 190 degrees; no meat; no processed sugar. Check out the movie Forks over Knives. (If that's the wrong name, sorry.) There is a clinic in Arizona that cures diabetes. One of the guys in the movie (the 25 yr old black dude) was cured. When he got home they realized that he was Type 1.

The movie is called Simply Raw. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=documentary+cure+diabetes+watch+online

Re:Eh, Type 2 (1)

Pogdranaut (1103447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394035)

No meat ? So called "caveman" diet indeed.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39395607)

It's more likely he was misdiagnosed. Some people with type 2 are mistakenly misdiagnosed as type 1 due to severe insulin resistance, and only testing for insulin production itself will be able to tell the difference. The standard tests for diabetes don't do that, but look at glucose levels and ketone production.

If your body isn't producing any insulin, though, it doesn't matter what you give up, you will die. If a type 1 diabetic fasts (drinking only water) and doesn't take insulin, they will be dead within days.

Re:Eh, Type 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393999)

look into glutathione, its a major antioxidant and the body recycles other antioxidants with it, it also binds and chelates heavy metals and toxins in the brain and nervous system.

as far as the pancreas goes im interested in how it interacts with the rest of the endocrine system, how it is regulated and how to induce GAD activity or levels. there must be quite a bit known about what factors contribute to a healthy and sustained GAD response through out your life. as i see it high glutamic acid /gaba ratio corresponds with blocked uptake of cysteine in the pituitary gland. this may also reduce methionine levels and generally inhibit proteolysis and ribosome activity.

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393169)

...integrative personal omics profile (iPOP) because it combines cutting-edge scientific fields such as genomics (study of one's DNA), metabolomics (study of metabolism), and proteomics (study of proteins)

What's next, an analysis of one's feces--iPOOP?

Let's associate something unnecessary..... (0)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393173)

How about IMAX?

Re:Let's associate something unnecessary..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393205)

How about bittorrent?

Re:Let's associate something unnecessary..... (1)

EchoRomeo (2582713) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393313)

How about bitcoin?

Re:Let's associate something unnecessary..... (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393503)

I'll take a Beowulf cluster of those please. But in Soviet Russia...

1 iPOP
2 IMAX
3 ???
4 Profit!!!

Misleading (4, Interesting)

bgetter (2597851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393183)

Really neat stuff until the part where the massive testing had nothing to do with his diabetes control. Oh, and I am sure the idea of more testing in a medical-cost-cutting world is going to go over really well.

Re:Misleading (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393193)

More testing is going to go over really well with medical insurers, because they can find more excuses to deny your coverage.

Re:Misleading (5, Insightful)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393293)

Except starting in 2014, if all goes well, it will be illegal for them to deny you coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There will also be no annual cap on your doctor visits, etc because they can no longer cap that, either.

AKA HMOs can't say, "Oh, you're only allowed 3 office visits per quarter, and if you go above such and such amount, we cut off you off for the rest of the year."

Re:Misleading (4, Informative)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393425)

It goes further than that, medical insurers will be required to spend 85% of revenues collected as premiums on the care of insured members [insuranceheadlines.com] . With a potential profit margin narrowed to 15% of revenue minus operating costs the US medical insurance industry will likely no longer be the darling of the investment community.

Re:Misleading (2)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394495)

But if you cap profit margins as a fixed % how will they increase net profits?

Simple.

Charge more for the same service (or lack thereof).
It's basic math...15% of 20 billion is *DOUBLE* 15% of 10 billion.

They'll have to pass along more to doctors but they'll still get to tell Wall Street their profits went up (yet again).

Re:Misleading (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393441)

There's also nothing to prevent them from simply charging you more than you can afford for said coverage, either.

"Our rates just went up to $1500/month with a doubled deductible. It's three times that for a family of 4. So sorry you can't stay with us."

Re:Misleading (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393749)

There's also nothing to prevent them from simply charging you more than you can afford for said coverage, either.

Right. My family doesn't have health insurance because of a pre-existing condition law. I had a package all set to go that I could afford with a rider for two conditions (each controlled by a $4 generic) but then they realized I was in NH so they couldn't do the rider and would have to charge me $550/mo more for the full coverage.

There's no magic $6600 in my budget, so we're uninsured. Senator Shaheen can kiss my uninsured ass.

Re:Misleading (1)

RealUlli (1365) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394061)

There's no magic $6600 in my budget, so we're uninsured. Senator Shaheen can kiss my uninsured ass.

Watch out, you might catch someting!

SCNR...

Re:Misleading (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394415)

Oh yeah, I live in Canada. Not too far from where you are.

There's no such thing as uninsured here.

AND, my small business pays less per employee on the extra taxes than on the premiums we might pay in the USA.

I'ts really not bad. Your situation is unfortunate. The half-ass patches they're trying to put into the US system are messed up, I agree.

Re:Misleading (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394893)

AND, my small business pays less per employee on the extra taxes than on the premiums we might pay in the USA.

Thus a lot of drugs simply are never released in Canada, or released much later in Canada than in the United States, because the lower expected prices for prescriptions in Canada mean that drug companies can't make iMoney on Canadian customers. I remember Strattera (atomoxetine, an antidepressant for treating ADHD) being one of them.

Re:Misleading (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395563)

There's no such thing as uninsured here. AND, my small business pays less per employee on the extra taxes than on the premiums we might pay in the USA.

Canada's unique ratio of oil revenues to population makes the books balance nicely.

But, I don't need my government to work out an arrangement for me - I need them to stop unconstitutionally interfering in the right of private contract and I'll be all set.

Re:Misleading (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393811)

If that were allowed, every sick person in history would've immediately had a monthly bill larger than their care costs... at which point it's not insurance anymore, it's just bills for your care plus extra useless bills when you're well. But that's not how it works, they can't arbitrarily personalize your price.

Re:Misleading (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395353)

Just as there's nothing stopping a person from saying "screw insurance" and simply paying for their health care.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393493)

That's like saying you have to sell home insurance at a fixed rate even to people who's home is all ready on fire. And it makes people who take care of themselves underwrite those who don't. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, not the land of guaranteed (mediocre) results. And it will be again after we vote this idiot out in 8 months.

Re:Misleading (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393635)

So you're some fit 6'2" tall stud who runs 2 miles daily, and then you collapse.

You wake up and find yourself in the hospital with a malignant growth in your brain. Or perhaps your equally healthy daughter had a freak aneurysm, or possibly pathogenic meningitis contracted from the filthy dorm she moved into* . Shit happens. That overweight inner-city welfare queen who miraculously never caught anything worse than a cold now has to underwrite your genetic weakness or stroke of bad luck.

Aw, shit, I've been trolled again. But that doesn't make my post any less true.

* True story

Re:Misleading (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393921)

Those stories are a great reason to buy insurance. It's a shitty way to explain why "Insurance company, here's $10, now give me a $million 'cuz my house is already on fire" is a good way to manage risk.

Re:Misleading (2, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394083)

It's a good way for people to manage risk. It's a terrible way for a company trying to make the largest possible profit to manage risk. You know what? Some of my best friends are people. None of them are companies. Fuck companies, if they make a 0.01% profit, it's more than they "deserve". If those individuals that are part of the company want to make more money than any fifty people need for an entire lifetime, they're free to pursue some area of business where my friends don't die so they can have a yacht. The medical insurance industry turning off predators and attracting more altruistic people would be a fantastic thing.

Re:Misleading (2)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393273)

The interesting thing about Type 2 diabetes (the type you acquire) is that often simply but getting exercise as as great an effect on control as taking insulin injections. of course dietary changes are significant too (less sugar, in all its guises eg bread etc). Getting off the couch (and out of the basement) a lot more can actually do something for you!

Unfortunately the same doesn't help with Type 1 diabetes (the type you are born with) :( Hopefully one day someone will find a fix for that.

Re:Misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393617)

Sorry, but I just want to add in here that your distinctions between Type 2 and Type 1 are incorrect. Both involve some degree of genetic factors. The difference is that Type 2 individuals still make insulin but are RESISTANT to the insulin their body produces. Type 1's no longer make insulin, or make very little of it.

I was not born with Type 1, and at the age of 26 years old was diagnosed with it. There are many schools of thought on why this can happen in adults; one possibility is a virus that triggers an autoimmune response and your body begins to attack your pancreas.

Re:Misleading (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395031)

I would hope so. Type 2 diabetes is not treated with insulin.

And no you aren't born with type 1 diabetes either. It's an auto-immune disease.

Re:Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39395517)

Type 2 diabetes is not treated with insulin.

What are you talking about? If a patient has Type 2 diabetes and they can't control their blood sugar with diet and exercise, they're often prescribed insulin.

Re:Misleading (1)

glorybe (946151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393957)

Really the only thing that health care workers really do is run tests, prescribe meds or cut away at something. And those tests cost a king's ransom. On top of all that we have doctors that prescribe tests simply to protect themselves from legal problems. For example a $2,000 cat scan may be ordered simply to be able to make the claim that all proper diligence has been applied to the patient.

Re:Misleading (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394001)

the problem isn't that they are doing a $2000 CAT scan, the problem is that a bog-standard scan and three minute examination of the results costs $2000.

I had a very simple chest X-ray. This technology and much of the medical training for common conditions is unchanged for at least 50, and probably 80 years. I was charged $600 which my insurance's awesome discount helpfully lowered to $450. This was an as an outpatient.

Re:Misleading (2)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394519)

If you think the technology for chest xrays has been the same for 50-80 years you are so wrong.

Terrible Headline (5, Insightful)

Lord of the Fries (132154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393247)

Slashdot headlines are getting pathetically lame. This kind of twisted deceptive word play is what I expect when I stand in line at the grocery store. Would it have been stooping so low to integrity to post

'IMAX Movie of Body' Allows Stanford Geneticist To See Type 2 Diabetes Progress Like Never Before

?

Re:Terrible Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393495)

Slashdot headlines are getting pathetically lame. This kind of twisted deceptive word play is what I expect when I stand in line at the grocery store. Would it have been stooping so low to integrity to post

'IMAX Movie of Body' Allows Stanford Geneticist To See Type 2 Diabetes Progress Like Never Before

?

I hear what you're sayin' ... but...

Your own damn fault for the blind belief that is taking them at face value.

Re:Terrible Headline (2)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393595)

Type 2 Diabetes CAUGHT CHEATING.

- Stanford Geneticist calls off engagement
- Secretly recorded "IMAX" tape released
- "Not on my watch, you don't!"


Really, though I think the headline would be a bit more eye catching since two viral infections were going on if instead it read "Type 2 Diabetes CAUGHT SAMPLING THE BUFFET".

Stop with the IMAX (3)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393737)

'IMAX Movie of Body' Allows Stanford Geneticist To See Type 2 Diabetes Progress Like Never Before

Stop with the IMAX. It's a stupid analogy (I know, not yours) and this is a tech site. Perhaps:

"Comprehensive time-series body data analysis sheds new light on Type 2 Diabetes Progression."

Next thing you know, they'll be changing the Big & Tall Section at the department store to the IMAX Clothing section. I wonder if attendance is down at real IMAX theatres since the brand's destruction.

Like "The Register" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393781)

Slashdot is sliding down the slippery slope of salaciousness that "The Register" regurgitates repeatedly! http://www.theregister.co.uk/

I, personally, like my headlines cut, dry, and factual. Reading "The Register" gives me a headache.

Re:Terrible Headline (1)

ticktickboom (1054594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394659)

have you noticed the change in their news letter? the totally different urls, and it comes in late afternoon instead of earlier in the morning, making it imposable for me to read. someone bought em, or convinced em that acting like a buncha bafoons is a good thing

iThings, iPuke! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393249)

iPOP? IMAX?! iCan't believe that someone iPosted this iCrap! The iAcronym seems a bit iForced for iPOP.

headline is wrong, posting is big lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393327)

The guy tested his blood and found he was predisposed to diabetes. He changed his diet and hopes he can control diabetes. He did not stop diabetes. Soulskill needs reading classes.

Elsevier boycott (4, Informative)

Strange Attractor (18957) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393397)

Cell is published by Elsevier which has been in the news recently because of a boycott. A search provides http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/02/academics-boycott-publisher-elsevier I support the boycott.

The Boycott Works...Elsevier is Hurting (4, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393853)

I work in the publishing industry for a small publisher.

I was at a convention several weeks ago and spoke with some people who worked for a subsidiary of Elsevier. As an aside, just like in other industries, the publishing industry conglomerates are GIANT. Beyond the science and medical journals that were involved in starting the boycott, Elsevier owns LexisNexis (synonymous with law databases and also a book publisher), Harcourt (fiction), Butterworth, and many more. They have gobbled up literally dozens of formerly independent publishers, and in general data and knowledge companies in all fields.

Anyway, the employees of this particular subsidiary said Elsevier was SEVERELY hurting because of the boycott. I was shocked... I had assumed the boycott would have minimal impact. These particular employees (again, not of Elsevier directly) were glad as they were fully aware of how expensive Elsevier journals are and how ridiculous Elsevier's links in to government are. One of them said basically that Elsevier had spent millions of dollars over the past 15 years to get exclusive rights to public domain research (link [propublica.org] ). Once they got it, the situation blew up and Elsevier backed off--waiting no doubt for people to forget.

This also goes to show how many of the individuals in a corporation can believe the "right" thing but that horrible leadership at the top is all that matters.

It's corporations like Elsevier that give ALL companies a bad name. I support the boycott.

A little late on this article... (0, Offtopic)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393429)

I posted this for submission yesterday and it was declined. Its already old news by now.

And yes, I know this comment will be subsequently down moderated for saying this. So be it.

Re:A little late on this article... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393567)

And yes, I know this comment will be subsequently down moderated for saying this. So be it.

Not really.

Whenever people on slashdot say their comment will be modded down for being unpopular opinion, it usually ends up being modded up due to the kneejerk reaction of people to not seem biased.

I know I'll be modded down for saying this, but it has to be said.

Enjoy your catch-22.

Re:A little late on this article... (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393685)

Mod parent up.

Re:A little late on this article... (0)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393705)

You're a butthurt fag, aren't you? You're so hurt, I want to suck your cock and make it better.

Oh, yes, gay sex. stinky pubes and hairy anuses chock full of bacteria. We're both filthy, filthy Mac users! We're so filthy that we use white computers. Filthy, filthy gay sex.

Re:A little late on this article... (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393859)

Crappy quality, but hey, it works [youtube.com] . Reminds me of the GP.

Unrelated, but you may also enjoy this clip [youtube.com] . It's one of my all time favorites.

Re:A little late on this article... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393739)

I posted this for submission yesterday and it was declined. Its already old news by now.

Who cares if this news is a day old? It's no less relevant.

The tragedy is that your summary couldn't have been worse than this one!

what? (1, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393437)

So they took 20 blood tests over a 14month period and this is a big deal?

One of the next big things? (3, Informative)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393471)

Constant monitoring could be the next big thing in medicine.

We currently diagnose based on discrete measurements compared with cutoffs - "averages" and numbers which are rounded to easily-remembered values. For example, Type-II diabetes is indicated when glucose is over 200mg/dl 2 hours after an oral glucose test. ...that seems like an awfully contrived number, simply because it's so easy to remember.

Instead of single point cutoff measurements, maybe we could get better diagnoses if we could see the change in values over time. Perhaps a more accurate diagnosis of diabetes would come from characterizing the slope of several months worth of glucose measurements.

With the rise of cheap microprocessors, I think there's a lot of opportunity for medical monitoring. Something like a wristwatch which records 10 types of measurements every hour. Of course I don't know how this could be done - perhaps spectroscopic measurements of reflected light through the skin, or terahertz wave reflections.

I've often wondered if it's possible to make a USB peripheral that records to a TI Chronos wristwatch [electronicsweekly.com] for later display.

I bet there's lots of interesting features there just waiting to be discovered.

Re:One of the next big things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394487)

There are injectable RFID chips that can measure temperature that are often used for race horses.

Re:One of the next big things? (1)

stevelinton (4044) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395021)

Absolutely right I think. A first step is the difference between being in hospital, where the first thing any doctor does is look at the chart at the end of the bed for the history of your temperature, BP, etc. and going into a GP surgery and having a single measurement. We already have wearable 24 hour BP and ECG monitors. Looking ahead 5-10 years, I can imagine anyone who is ill (or pregnant or old) wearing a wristwatch and maybe a few stick-on or swallowed or injected wireless sensors that records their vitals every few minutes. Looking ahead 20-30 years, imagine microscopic sensors in every vital organ, powered by blood sugar and logging and reporting every significant hormone and mineral level, organ by organ to the processors in your personal area network. Going out 50-100 years, you could imagine a monitor nanobot in every cell: tracking hormones, gene expression levels, firing rates if the cell is a neuron, etc., reproducing when the cell reproduces. Start adding control functions, or distributed memory and computing (all vaporized except two teaspoons of the left foot -- not to worry that has a full brain backup in it just a couple of seconds old...) and we're definitely getting post-human.

Re:One of the next big things? (1)

doesnothingwell (945891) | more than 2 years ago | (#39395451)

a lot of opportunity for medical monitoring

Continuous blood sugar monitoring would require a supply of reagent to react with glucose and need constant refills. There are no currently known properties of dissolved blood sugar you can measure without a direct chemical reaction.

If you want near continous measurements you can get software and data cables but they never come free or included, and lately they only send data to a website and not your own computer. Gotta love the business approach to healthcare.

You left out "and promptly patented." After 10yrs of diabetes and only 4yrs of insurance I can say costs for monitoring have only increased. I had a cheap monitor with a $0.50 per jab consumable but it was sourced overseas and discontunied locally. Now I can pay over twice as much or file the obigitory begging forms to the mfg's of said devices. If I had government insurance they would send two free devices, and bill the government for the higher priced consumables.

In America you can find better healthcare but you can't pay more.

Not much critics in the article (2)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39393639)

Interesting news article, but when I read at the end that he is creating his own startup (and the disclosure of the author), I get funny feelings about the research and read back in the article: no critics. There must be some critical information in the scientific publication, but this article reads like a readers digest. Such articles make people probably pull their wallets quicker I guess... [/rantmodeoff]

curing diabetics will also eliminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39393935)

curing diabetics will also eliminate a whole lot of related ailments.

I think a big percentage of hospital visit can be avoided.

iPOP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39394283)

Apple patent suite in 3 . 2. 1....

r/science = science.slashdot (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39394725)

The only difference are comments which I will never get to because the subject is so made up.

"Apple tree's fruit allows Cambridge physicist to discover the law of gravity"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>