Hm, 5 year old journal, with the editor board, funding and half of the authors all from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but significant hospital contribution. I remain skeptical of the headline but hopeful of the science.
Well if it’s real, it will be a no brainer Nobel prize, so it certainly won’t be the last we hear of it in that case.
strong competition with the teeth regrowing guy
but i think diabetes is more important than missing teeth lol
I mean even though the CAS is a state organization of China, they do still put out real science. they have real researchers working with and for them. I’m honestly more concerned about what they don’t put out than what they do.
For sure, I just get antsy when peer review doesn’t come from from external sources
As you should. I think thats an important part of the process.
‘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.
presses X to Doubt
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 the piece of 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?
Liberal = laissez faire
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.
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.
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?
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.
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, to my city
Maybe you should try putting a stick in your ass
.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.
Adam Smith had a completely different definition of “free markets” than Neoliberals did.
👏 👏 👏
Just as a heads up, this source has failed fact checks.
Imagine using dailymail as a reason for why news are factual.
Citing MBFC without a supporting claim that discredits the article is lazy and does not benefit the discussion. Comment removed.
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
Destroy corporate healthcare by curing diabetes.
idk sounds a bit sus
What sounds sus about it?
As a lay-person, it seems kind of light on details and a bit fanciful. The article states they created pancreatic islet seed cells, but fails to link how exactly this cures diabetes. (I’m assuming these cells create the insulin.)
Another point is this seems to fly in t he face of what we’ve been told for decades, that diabetes can now be cured and not just managed. (I personally don’t have a problem with this, everything is impossible until it becomes possible.)
The biggest issue I see is that this cured one person. Diabetes is a fairly common condition, they shouldn’t have had a problem getting more participants in a study.
I believe that it states somewhere that it was a case study or a proof of concept. Which is a common approach to interventions (medical or otherwise) that are difficult, expensive, and time consuming. If you can find a way to get it to work then maybe it’s worth expanding and finding more efficient/effective ways of implementing the intervention.
- the scientists not mentioned
- it not being talked about how it works at all
- it being limited to one person only
- it comming out of china
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-024-00662-3
I think sinophobia may have gotten the best of you. The study is published in Nature, definitely not a Chinese journal (if this is important to you). Which means the scientists, and institutions are readily accessible, and you can read the paper describing how it works.
Not OP but thanks for sharing a good link.
Technically it is not a cure for type 2. But a repair to further damage caused by a life of type 2.
The type 2 diabetic is still insulin resistant after this treatment. It is just some of the harm that resistance dose to their islet cells. Makeing them partly mimic type 1 diabetes with reduced insulin production. Can be rebuilt with stem cells.
The patient will still need to eat and manage carbs as a well treated type 2 must. To avoid having issues.
CHYNAHH!
Weird how the MBFC comments are being deleted
haha but wait, I thought they wanted Americans to die…
Type I diabetes has absolutely nothing to do with weight, it’s a disorder of the pancreas that’s mostly genetic. The rates of all forms of diabetes taken together in China and the US are almost the same. I’m sorry if this science flew over your head yo
Its worse the that. Many think now it is reversed. As T2 is a resistance to insulin. And without insulin you cannot gain energy from your diet. It is now commonly accepted that those prown to t2 diabetes are often forced to eat due to the body gaining less energy from food.
So being genetically prown to to can lead to weight gain prior to diagnosis. Rather then weight gain leading to to t2d.
There are way more Chineese than Americans.
EDIT: dunno why, but because Beehaw, I can’t actually see the comment below. So I’ll answer here…
Beehaw defederated from a lot of the bigger instances because someone hurt their feelings or whatever. So now you miss out on the majority of lemmy content including comments. I would suggest creating an account with a different instance so that you can experience the entirety of the community.
Beehaw has defederated from instances they felt were not meeting a minimum standard of moderation and healthy, good faith discussion. Beehaw’s whole shtick is to maintain a platform where its users can be(e) kind and expect others to behave similarly.
It is genuinely baffling to me how people can see beehaw curating their instance this way and go “feewings” and “beehaw bad”.
If people want to be part of a limited community that’s fine and well. The issue I have is that a lot of people joining lemmy don’t know what beehaw is about and join it just because it’s a name they’ve maybe heard of. Then they’re completely unimpressed by lemmy, not knowing they’re only part of a fraction of the federation. Next thing they’re back on reddit or whereever.
Also, as someone with access to the majority of lemmy instances, I’ve only ran into maybe a handful of assholes on here. I’m really not sure what beehaw is trying to shelter it’s users from. It’s easy enough to block someone on the rare occasion.
Its incredibly difficult to join beehaw without knowing what its about. When you apply to join they explain what it is and ensure that you’re actually, like, on board with the mission. I can understand the sentiment of users finding themselves underwhelmed and leaving if they don’t understand why.
As someone with accounts on other instances, I’ve definitely encountered far more bigotry and bad faith arguments off-beehaw than on-beehaw. For some people, which would appear to include you, encountering the asshole and blocking and moving on is sufficient, and that’s fine and awesome for them. But for others who may be part of marginalised communities or particularly vulnerable, the bubble of safety and curation that beehaw offers is so tremendously valuable.
Ok, sounds like they’ve made it a lot more clear since the reddit exodos which is the last time I’ve had any interaction with beehaw. That’s good then.
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.
You have to agree to pay a 2000$/year subscription for Life™ after taking this medicine.
So, taxes?
Certainly not in the US of A… but the rest of the world may have a chance if this actually pans out
Banned for national security
Free + $46,000 in Ch-China tariffs.
In China, possibly. In the US, not before there is a revolution. In France, not after years in Parliament and seeing 3 to 5 physicians
In Cuba, yes. Capitalist country? Maybe no
Most capitalist countries still have universal heath care…
Are you including the periphery in that statement?
The what?
The periphery. Basic term if you’ve read anything serious on capitalism and how it functions in the world.
Right. So what does it mean?
Countries within the capitalist system which are underdeveloped through violence and coercion in order to be able to extract a higher surplus value extraction to constant capital ratio for capitalists is the gist of it.
Please let me know if there are any terms or concepts I should break down further. (Earnest)
What are the odds we’ll get this in America in the next 20 years? Or that insurance will cover it? I mean we live in for-profit medical hell. They actually have weight loss drugs that like 7/10ths of Americans need, but a month’s worth cost over $1,000 out of pocket. Insulin is already stupidly overpriced and there’s no financial incentive to cure it, so why would they? The insurance and pharma companies aren’t in the business of helping people. If they were there be non-proffits (for a start). Instead they get as much federal subsidy money as possible and then still charge $1,000 a month that insurance might cover if you’re lucky or rich enough to even have any that’s worth a damn.
So yeah, cool story, but here in America this won’t make any difference. Maybe in 50 years it’ll be affordable, we’ll see.
yeahhhh we’ll see about that
I do hope that the science is true, but the website doesn’t seem to be credible when it comes to news reporting https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/
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
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.
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
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.
