---

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease?

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease? -- Posted by *~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics on 11-03-03 11:40

"Carmen " WROTE:
> Hi WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics,
> ...you held up the following for inspection:
> > Blah, blah blah. Conspiracy stuff, blah blah blah.
>
> > Write your congressmen or legislators to pass laws forcing
> > research for INGAP.
> > The entire 3-page article is at:
> > http://www.diabetesworld.com/issue/9001,1,1003,1.html
>
> Please keep up. It *is* being worked on:
>
> http://www.mcgill.ca/releases/2002/april/diabetes/
>
> Carmen

I am not sure that it rates a Blah, blah blah,
as it speaks of extremely important research.
And, I did not use the word "conspiracy".
The notable point is that a company with money to spare,
namely Lilly, entered into a business arrangement for
INGAP research in 1997, which undoubtedly gave them insider
information about INGAP, after which they exited in 1999,
stating that it was not a desired business model for them.
I bet! Especially when they have
a billion dollars per year in sales from Humulin Insulins !

Now, Procter & Gamble has climbed on the bandwagon, some
4 years later. That is four years of under-funded, wasted time
for research. And who is P & G to mix in on this?
Let them stick to soap powder and cosmetics.
I realize that they also have a pharmaceutical division, but
by their own admission they are in it "to develop and commercialize
a novel way to treat diabetes mellitus."
If anyone would sell out to Lilly, in order to keep it off the market,
Procter & Gamble are just the ones who would.

The reference link that you gave at:
http://www.mcgill.ca/releases/2002/april/diabetes/
is from a McGill Press Release from April 18, 2002.
The link that I provided is current from Diabetes Interview magazine.
The sections quoted are from the article, not my words.

It is also notable that the McGill press release speaks mainly about
GMP and the Canadian research, leaving the Strelitz Diabetes Institutes
and Eastern Virginia Medical School with Dr. Aaron I. Vinik almost as
a footnote. I do not know the exact business reasons for this, but
sellout & back-stabbing seem to be written between the lines.

If you read another article about the Virginia Medical School,
it makes them sound as if they are the leading experts for INGAP.
That article is at: http://www.dif.org/News_Articles/NEWingap.shtml

As they do seem to have had success with mice and hamsters,
the next step is for humans. The news article says,
"Their search [for the genes] is now history! They successfully
identified the gene now known as "INGAP" and showed that
they were able cure diabetes in some animals by inducing
immature cells in the destroyed pancreas of diabetic animals
to make insulin."...
"Drs. Vinik and Rosenberg first discovered the chemical substance
Ilotropin that stimulates immature pancreatic cells to grow into
adult insulin-producing cells capable of curing diabetes."
That research was started thirteen years ago,
and concluded two years ago. They state that,
"This treatment appears to reverse diabetes."

So, does it have millions & millions poured into it for further research
from the government, or big companies like Lilly? Nope.
Instead a soap-powder & cosmetics company out of Cincinnati has paid
a mere $5 million upfront payment with $24 million to later be invested
in GMP. Do you know how much Squibb paid for the rights to take over
research and then sell Basulin Insulin? $20 million up-front payment
and $145 million in additional milestone payments for a total of
$165 million !!!
That is for an insulin still under development.

Meanwhile, the closest thing to a cure gets a lousy 5 million going
to a smaller research firm. Maybe conspiracy is the right word.

Afterall, there are a lot of taxes paid on over a billion dollars
in sales from insulin, not to mention jobs that would be lost with
a cure for diabetes. Is it in the government's interests to keep
insulin-dependent diabetics on insulin?

Also, why is this research only being done in the United States?

This is why I suggest writing to members of Parliament in other countries,
and Senators & Congressmen in the US for government funding to support
research in this area. There would most likely be support from any members
of Congress who have diabetes, to draft bills for such funding.
Don't just think about it.
Get out a piece of paper and send a letter, along with an Email.

The ADA estimates that the total direct expenses associated with
diabetes care each year in the U.S. is $44 billion.
That is a lot of money and jobs that would be lost with a cure.
The powers that be do not want a cure.
Even the ADA is not pouring money into INGAP research. Why not?
Diabetics need to speak up on this issue.

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease? -- Posted by mike gray, CID on 11-03-03 13:34

*~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics wrote:

> The ADA estimates that the total direct expenses associated with
> diabetes care each year in the U.S. is $44 billion.
> That is a lot of money and jobs that would be lost with a cure.
> The powers that be do not want a cure.
> Even the ADA is not pouring money into INGAP research. Why not?
> Diabetics need to speak up on this issue.

Then, by your argument, even more money would be pouring into the
current state of the disease and there would be even less incentive to
find a cure. Do you think those research institutes want to end all
their research grants and fire all those researchers?

Private enterprise, by your argument, has the greatest incentive: if a
cure gave a company a mere 20% of the diabetes market, they'd be bigger
than Lilly overnight.

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease? -- Posted by *~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics on 11-04-03 05:43

"mike gray, CID" WROTE:
> *~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics wrote:
>
> > The ADA estimates that the total direct expenses associated with
> > diabetes care each year in the U.S. is $44 billion.
> > That is a lot of money and jobs that would be lost with a cure.
> > The powers that be do not want a cure.
> > Even the ADA is not pouring money into INGAP research. Why not?
> > Diabetics need to speak up on this issue.
>
> Then, by your argument, even more money would be pouring into the
> current state of the disease and there would be even less incentive to
> find a cure. Do you think those research institutes want to end all
> their research grants and fire all those researchers?
>
> Private enterprise, by your argument, has the greatest incentive: if a
> cure gave a company a mere 20% of the diabetes market, they'd be bigger
> than Lilly overnight.

Your conclusions are way off base.
The facts are that only a relatively small amount of money
is being put into the closest thing we have to a cure.
This is not a hypothesis for a cure. It has already taken place
among animals. There remains research to be done for humans.

Although I would be quite happy and set for life if I won a lottery of
5 million dollars, that amount is very small for research, especially
when compared to other research items.
As I stated, Squibb is putting in a total of $165 million for
further research and development of Basulin insulin. That includes
a $20 million dollar upfront payment for the rights to it.
I am not picking on Squibb. They were pushed out of the insulin business
years ago, but apparently they realized their mistake.

The question which comes to the forefront, is why is only $5 million
being put into research for a possible viable cure, with another
$24 million to go to GMP Research for other projects that
Procter & Gamble will get a cut out of?
And of course, why GMP research, instead of a bigger company?
Or, why not more money to them?

Government supported research projects would not be in the same
position as private enterprise with regard to being concerned about
future projects.

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease? -- Posted by mike gray, CID on 11-04-03 06:16

*~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics wrote:

> Your conclusions are way off base.

Your arguments are way off base.

> The facts are that only a relatively small amount of money
> is being put into the closest thing we have to a cure.
> This is not a hypothesis for a cure. It has already taken place
> among animals. There remains research to be done for humans.
>
> Although I would be quite happy and set for life if I won a lottery of
> 5 million dollars, that amount is very small for research, especially
> when compared to other research items.
> As I stated, Squibb is putting in a total of $165 million for
> further research and development of Basulin insulin. That includes
> a $20 million dollar upfront payment for the rights to it.
> I am not picking on Squibb. They were pushed out of the insulin business
> years ago, but apparently they realized their mistake.
>
> The question which comes to the forefront, is why is only $5 million
> being put into research for a possible viable cure, with another
> $24 million to go to GMP Research for other projects that
> Procter & Gamble will get a cut out of?
> And of course, why GMP research, instead of a bigger company?
> Or, why not more money to them?

In the private sector, the potential is reflected in the investment. If
no one is willing to ante up more than $5m, that's all it's worth.

> Government supported research projects would not be in the same
> position as private enterprise with regard to being concerned about
> future projects.

In the public sector, the investment has no relation to potential. Tax
money is a lot easier to come by than investment capital, and trading
votes for hope is the name of the game. We all fully expect our tax
money to be pissed down a rat hole. We expect our investments to be
managed wisely.

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease? -- Posted by Herman Rubin on 11-04-03 12:00

In article <1e34062c.0311040543.3481a100@posting.google.com>,
*~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics wrote:
>"mike gray, CID" WROTE:
>> *~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics wrote:

>> > The ADA estimates that the total direct expenses associated with
>> > diabetes care each year in the U.S. is $44 billion.
>> > That is a lot of money and jobs that would be lost with a cure.
>> > The powers that be do not want a cure.
>> > Even the ADA is not pouring money into INGAP research. Why not?
>> > Diabetics need to speak up on this issue.

<> Then, by your argument, even more money would be pouring into the
<> current state of the disease and there would be even less incentive to
<> find a cure. Do you think those research institutes want to end all
<> their research grants and fire all those researchers?

<> Private enterprise, by your argument, has the greatest incentive: if a
<> cure gave a company a mere 20% of the diabetes market, they'd be bigger
<> than Lilly overnight.

>Your conclusions are way off base.
>The facts are that only a relatively small amount of money
>is being put into the closest thing we have to a cure.
>This is not a hypothesis for a cure. It has already taken place
>among animals. There remains research to be done for humans.

>Although I would be quite happy and set for life if I won a lottery of
>5 million dollars, that amount is very small for research, especially
>when compared to other research items.
>As I stated, Squibb is putting in a total of $165 million for
>further research and development of Basulin insulin. That includes
>a $20 million dollar upfront payment for the rights to it.
>I am not picking on Squibb. They were pushed out of the insulin business
>years ago, but apparently they realized their mistake.

>The question which comes to the forefront, is why is only $5 million
>being put into research for a possible viable cure, with another
>$24 million to go to GMP Research for other projects that
>Procter & Gamble will get a cut out of?
>And of course, why GMP research, instead of a bigger company?
>Or, why not more money to them?

>Government supported research projects would not be in the same
>position as private enterprise with regard to being concerned about
>future projects.

Government supported research is essentially what the
bureaucrats think will pay off, with a little sop to those
whose reputation is so high that they cannot cut them off.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Re: Would You Cure a Profitable Disease? -- Posted by *~*WiseWords - WiseWords4Diabetics on 11-04-03 14:16

> hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) WROTE:
> Government supported research is essentially what the
> bureaucrats think will pay off, with a little sop to those
> whose reputation is so high that they cannot cut them off.

So, then, do you think it is right that only 5-mil is now going into
INGAP research when $165 million is going into the development of a
new and unessential insulin?

And while Lilly makes over a billion per year from Humulin insulin,
they make several billion more from the sale of all of their diabetes
products. But a viable cure is not part of their best business plans.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »

Related Discussion:

Food, Culture, and Diabetes in the United States (1 posts)
by Gumbo - Last post on: 11-19-04 05:19
Food, Culture, and Diabetes in the United States Originally Published:20041001. What do people in the United States eat? Is it meat and potatoes? Things have changed in the United States as the population has grown to include many different ethnic and cultural groups, and this has result... (Read More)

Does diabetes dissolve the brain ? (6 posts)
by Harlan Osier - Last post on: 07-19-04 09:24
Because I fear that my brain is becoming a liquid now... ... (Read More)

Vitamin supplements don't prevent heart disease, researchers say (1 posts)
by Gumbo - Last post on: 11-14-04 19:48
Vitamin supplements don't prevent heart disease, researchers say BY LAURA BEIL The Dallas Morning News DALLAS - (KRT) - You need to eat your vitamins, not take them. Heart specialists said Monday that supplements of antioxidants such as C and E do not protect against cardiovascular di... (Read More)

Statins and glucose levels. (1 posts)
by EZGoinDm - Last post on: 08-23-03 00:17
I was diagnosed with T2 as a result of bloodwork to rule out appendicitis showing a BG of 248. I was put on metformin and levels have dropped to the 95-115 range. 3 days ago, I was given a prescription for lovastatin and something weird, at least to ME it's weird, being new at this, seems to b... (Read More)

Top Discussions From Our Archives

[Fwd: * * * FS: WAHL WARM LOTION MASSAGER * * *]

Diabetes Hikes Risk Of Liver, Pancreatic Cancers

Spectacular Healer

Live a better and sefer life!!

RESEARCH SHOWS NON-WHITES ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP DIABETES

Other Discussion Categories

Diabetes Symptoms

Home | Discussion Archives |