- advertisement -

Is a "closed-loop" CGM and Pump a Cure?

Discussion in 'Stickies' started by Sarah Maddie's Mom, Jan 6, 2010.

?

Is a "closed-loop" system a cure?

Poll closed May 6, 2010.
  1. Yes

    4 vote(s)
    1.7%
  2. No

    224 vote(s)
    96.1%
  3. I don't know

    5 vote(s)
    2.1%
  1. Jacob'sDad

    Jacob'sDad Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,803
    All right, that's it, I've had it! Artificial pancreas my ass! What, do they think, we're that stupid? This just gets the hopes up of those who don't know any better and are really expecting a device that completely takes over the role of the pancreas. I don't like being lied to and I don't like playing games with words. Just tell us what this thing is you are working on and stop calling it what it is not.
     
  2. Toni

    Toni Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,882
    For them to be able to lable this item as an "Artificial Pancreas" I would expect it would have to work as well as, and with as little input, as you would have to use for a Pacemaker. I know you have to monitor Pacemakers as well, but minimal.
     
  3. Snowbound

    Snowbound Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    869
    What I'd like to see is an internal blood glucose monitor (like a pacemaker) that measures the blood rather than the interstatial fluid.
     
  4. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    Me too. But how then, would those poor corporations sell us strips that cost them a penny each to make for $2? How would say sell us sensors that cost hundreds per month? Think of those poor billionaire executives, Snowbound. Have you no heart? :p
     
  5. Jordansmom

    Jordansmom Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,172
    The other huge problem I have with a closed loop system is the limitations of current insulin and timing. Auto shut off during the night could provide a lot of false security. I try to use temp basals to ward off hypoglycemia I can see coming on our cgms. But that's in the 70-80 range. And that 70-80 is always confirmed by a fingerstick. With the lag she's just as likely to be 60. And sometimes shutting off insulin will have the time to stop a very slowly drifting number. But a really low number or even a moderate drop requires fast acting carbs. The article I read said the pump would shut off at 40. How many parents here would be happy to be sleeping away while their child sat in the 30-40 range waiting for the lack of insulin to bring their child back up? "give parents back the night" my a$$. And if the number isn't 40 what is it? When is "safe" to turn off basal and wait out the action of insulin to bring up a hypoglycemic event?
     
  6. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    I think we all agree that this device will not be a cure. But I am surprised at the intensity of the negative comments on this thread. No need to respond why you are so against this device, that is very clear. It is just interesting that people feel so strongly against a new technology before it is even developed, before the capabilities of the final product is even known. Again, no need to respond, I understand the arguments against its development.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  7. Ellen

    Ellen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    8,240
    I fully support technology and the right of every private or publicly held company to invest in R&D in order to profit in our capitalist society.

    I question non-profit's investment of $8 million considering the dearth of funds for cure-focused research.

    I want non-profit to invest in something that can restore euglycemia without making us dependent on exogenous insulin, pumps, sensors, consumables....

    I appreciate JDRF's transparency so those who want the charity to invest in technology can continue to support it with gusto, and those who don't view this as a potential cure and want to fund cure-focused research can choose the direction of their charitable efforts with knowledge.
     
  8. Snowbound

    Snowbound Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    869
    Hey, tell them that I would be willing to continue to pay a monthly fee for this. :cwds:
     
  9. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    Have you thought about what your quality of life would be like if those companies did not exist? Not just diabetes related, but for other things, like any medication you take, other medical treatments you may rely on.
     
  10. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313

    I think this quote illustrates why a lot of why we are questioning the JDRF's role in diverting funds to a commerical blood sugar management product, rather than in pursuit of a cure:
    "You're looking at a multibillion-dollar-a-year product," Brozak predicted, unless some "landscape-changing development" such as an insulin pill comes along."
    From: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/13/business/AP-US-JJ-Artificial-Pancreas-Test.html
     
  11. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    You don't seem to be reading what we're saying, Christopher. We've all said how much we appreciate the technology and drugs that are available and are in development. And I haven't seen one person say they don't support the AP R&D. In fact, many have said they look forward to improved pump/CGM systems in the future. And no one has said that these corporations shouldn't be profitable.

    All we have said is that it is a serious conflict of interest to have corporate executives from the pharma industry running our private foundation and using hard-earned donations from families in a pipeline to their own companies, which makes them personally richer. And it's even worse when the mission of JDRF is to find a cure for our kids, when they're using donations to produce more expensive products. Whether or not you agree is one thing, but don't misinterpret and twist what we're saying.
     
  12. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    I agree. We could rent it for the $200+/month we pay for strips and the $300/month or so we pay for sensors. They could have a code that they could use to deactivate it if we don't pay up! Then, maybe they'll fund some technology like that. :rolleyes:
     
  13. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    Hmmm... and it's a .com, not a .org. ;)

    .com = commercial website
    .org = non-profit organization
     
  14. sarahspins

    sarahspins Approved members

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,205
    That's not entirely accurate.. not all .org sites are non-profit. You can go register one today for anything you like....
     
  15. Darryl

    Darryl Approved members

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,313
    Sure, but both the .org and .com were available, so why pick the .com?
     
  16. sarahspins

    sarahspins Approved members

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,205
    Only JDRF can answer that..I'm not suggesting you're wrong on the .com, only that not all .orgs are non-profits.
     
  17. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    On the contrary, I am seeing exactly what you are saying. My comment was not about the AP, it was in response to your comment above. And I also was not twisting anything. I was simply asking a question.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  18. buggle

    buggle Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,267
    It's a joke. And yes, I think the corporations gouge us on pharmaceutical prices. That's pretty much accepted.

    I was really responding to this, when you said we were against it. What we're against is the hype of spinning into something it isn't, like... a cure. And using donations to pay for the R&D of giant multi-national corporations and make the exceptionally rich executives from those companies that serve at JDRF even richer -- that is the definition of conflict of interest.

     
  19. Mikker

    Mikker Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    794
    Well put Rella and Darryl! My sentiments exactly on all accounts. I couldn't have said it better myself, so I haven't chimed in, but am following the thread and support your positions.
     
  20. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    OK, well if you were responding to my other comment then it would have created less confusion if you would have quoted the correct one to begin with. But now I understand. And if you think pharmaceutical companies "gouge' people on prices then in my opinion you don't completely understand the business.

    If you would like to continue that discussion, please feel free to PM me, as I don't think it would benefit this thread to go back and forth about it, although some people might enjoy the drama...:cwds:
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice