Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
Groundbreaking Stem Cell Therapy Reverses Type 1 Diabetes
(upbeat music) - Welcome to "Listen To," this is Ted. The news was published on Saturday, September 28th. Today we're joined by Eric and Kate to discuss a groundbreaking medical procedure that may have reversed Type 1 diabetes in a patient. Let's start with the basics. Eric, can you explain what Type 1 diabetes is and why this news is significant? Sure thing, Ted, Type 1 diabetes is like your body's own personal mutiny. Basically, your immune system goes rogue and starts attacking the cells in your pancreas that produce insulin. It's as if your body's defense system can't tell friend from foe anymore. Now, why is this news such a big deal? Well, imagine if we could wave a magic wand and make the body stop fighting itself. That's essentially what this breakthrough is hinting at, a potential cure, not just another way to manage the condition. We're talking about possibly ending the need for constant blood sugar monitoring and insulin injections. It's like finding a way to rewrite the body's operating system. - While it's exciting, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. One case doesn't mean it'll work for everyone. We need a couple of breaks on it. - Hold on, Kate, I understand your caution, but we can't ignore the potential here. This isn't just a fluke. It's the result of years of rigorous research. We're talking about a fundamental shift in how we approach autoimmune diseases. - I get it, Eric, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Sure, it's promising, but we need more data. One success doesn't equal a cure all. We've seen promising treatments fall flat before. Remember the hype around eyelet cell transplants in the early 2000s? Those didn't pan out as expensive. - You both raise interesting points. Kate, can you break down the procedure for us? What exactly did the researchers do? - All right, picture this. They basically turned back time on some of the patient's cells. They took regular adult cells and hit the rewind button, turning them into stem cells. You know, those blank slate cells that can become anything. Then they gave these cells new marching orders, telling them to become insulin producing eyelet cells. It's like they're playing cellular dress up. They grew about 1.5 million of these designer cells. That's more than the population of Hawaii. And then planted them in the patient's abdomen. It's kind of like planting a new insulin factory right in the body. - That's over simplifying it. The process is incredibly complex and required years of research to perfect. We're talking about reprogramming human cells here. - But that's not the point, is it? - The bottom line is that it worked. The woman stopped needing insulin injections in just three months. That's what matters to patients. Not the nitty gritty details of the level. - I understand you're trying to make it accessible, Kate, but we can't gloss over the scientific marvel here. This isn't just flipping a switch. The chemical process to reprogram cells is incredibly intricate. It's like teaching an old dog, not just new tricks, but how to be a completely different animal. We're fundamentally altering cellular identity here. That's not something to be taken lightly or oversimplified. - You both make valid points. Let's discuss the implications. Eric, what could this mean for diabetes treatment? - Ted, this could be absolutely revolutionary. We're talking about a potential paradigm shift in diabetes care. Imagine millions of diabetics waking up one day and not having to worry about insulin injections, constant blood sugar monitoring, or the long-term complications of diabetes. The economic impact alone would be staggering. We're talking billions saved in healthcare costs, but more importantly, think about the quality of life improvements. No more fear of going into diabetic shock, no more strict dietary restrictions. It's like giving people their freedom back. - That's a big if. We need to see more successful cases and long-term follow-ups before making such grand claims. What about potential side effects or the possibility of the treatment failing over time? - Kate, of course we need more research, but we can't ignore the potential here. This could be the beginning of the end for type one diabetes. As we know it, we're on the cusp. Let's not forget the ethical concerns of stem cell research. This isn't a simple solution. There are complex moral and societal implications we need to consider. And what about accessibility? Will this only be available to the wealthy? We can't call it a cure if it's not available to everyone. - Now let's put this in historical context. Can you think of a similar medical breakthrough from the past? - Absolutely, Ted. This breakthrough reminds me of the discovery of insulin itself back in 1921 by banning and best. Now that was a game changer for diabetes treatment if there ever was one. Before insulin, a diabetes diagnosis was pretty much a death sentence. Kids would waste away while their parents watched helplessly. The discovery of insulin turned diabetes from a death sentence into a manageable condition overnight. It was like finding water in a desert. Suddenly, there was hope where there was none before. - That's hardly comparable. Insulin discovery saved lives immediately. This procedure is still experimental. We're talking about a single case here, not a readily available treatment. - You're missing the point, Kate. Both represent paradigm shifts in diabetes treatment. Before insulin, diabetes was a death sentence. This could be the next leap forward. We're talking about potentially curing the disease, not just managing it. - But insulin was quickly mass produced and distributed. This procedure is far more complex and individualized. We can't just roll it out to millions of people overnight. And what about the cost? Insulin saved lives because it was made affordable. This treatment could be out of reach-- - Interesting comparison. Kate, can you think of a more recent medical breakthrough that might be similar? - Sure, Ted. A more recent and perhaps more apt comparison would be the development of CAR-T cell therapy for cancer in the 2010s. It's a bit of a mouthful, but hear me out. Like this diabetes treatment, CAR-T therapy uses a patient's own cells, reprogramming them to fight disease. In this case, it's training T-cells to become cancer-fighting ninjas. It's been a game changer for certain types of blood cancers, especially in patients who've run out of other options. And get this. In some cases, it's led to complete remission in patients who were considered terminal. That's the kind of impact we're hoping to see with this diabetes treatment. - That's a fair comparison, but CAR-T therapy is still limited in its applications. This diabetes treatment could potentially help millions more. We're talking about one of the most common-- - CAR-T therapy has saved countless lives already. This diabetes treatment hasn't even been tested on a large scale yet. We can't compare a proven treatment to something that's still in its infancy. And let's not forget the side effects of CAR-T therapy. It's not-- - I understand your caution, Kate, but we shouldn't dismiss this treatment just because it's new. - Yes, CAR-T therapy has proven itself, but it started with just a few patients too. The potential here is enormous. We're not just talking about treating a disease. We're talking about potentially curing one of the most widespread chronic conditions in the world. That's worth getting excited about, don't you think? - Both examples show how cellular reprogramming is changing medicine. What challenges do you foresee in scaling up this diabetes treatment? - Great question, Ted. The main challenges we're looking at here are cost and accessibility. This isn't like producing a pill that can be mass manufactured. We're talking about a highly personalized treatment that requires specialized facilities and trained personnel. It's like trying to build a five-star restaurant in every town. It's not just about the ingredients, but the chefs, the equipment, the whole setup. We'll need to invest heavily in infrastructure and training. And let's not forget the regulatory hurdles. Getting approval for such a complex treatment across different countries won't be a walk in the park. - Not to mention the long-term effects we don't know about yet. We could be opening a Pandora's box of health issues. What if these reprogrammed cells start misbehaving years down the line? - Kate, while your concerns are valid, we can't let fear of the unknown paralyzed progress. Every medical advancement comes with risks, but that's why we have rigorous testing and long-term follow-ups. We're not flying blind here. The potential benefits far outweigh the theoretical risks. Millions of dynamics are... - But that's exactly my point, Eric. We need to be cautious. We can't rush this out just because there's a demand. Remember thalidomide? It was rushed to market and caused terrible birth defects. We have a responsibility to ensure this treatment is safe in the long-term before we start off... - Let's look to the future. How do you see this technology developing over the next decade? - I'm glad you asked, Ted. I believe we're on the cusp of a medical revolution here. Within the next 10 years, I predict this could become a standard treatment option for type 1 diabetes, at least in developed countries. Think about how far we've come with other biotechnologies in just a decade. Remember the first iPhone came out in 2007, and now we all have supercomputers in our pockets. I think we'll see a similar rapid advancement here. We might even see outpatient procedures, making it as routine as laser eye surgery is today. - That's overly optimistic. I think we'll still be in clinical trials in 10 years. The regulatory hurdles alone will take years to overcome. We're talking about fundamentally altering human cells here. The FDA and other... - You're underestimating the power of market demand, Kate. With millions of diabetics eager for a cure, there will be enormous pressure to fast-track this treatment. We've seen how quickly things can move when there's a pressing need. Just look at the COVID-19 vaccine development. - Fast-tracking could be dangerous. We need time to study long-term effects and perfect the procedure. We can't gamble with people's lives just because there's a demand. And what about the ethical implications? We need time to have those discussions as a society. This isn't just a medical issue, it's a social and natural one. - Interesting perspectives. Now let's consider potential roadblocks. What could prevent this treatment from becoming widely available? - The elephant in the room here is definitely cost-ted. Initially, this is gonna be an expensive procedure. We're talking about a highly personalized treatment that requires specialized facilities and skilled personnel. It's not like producing a generic drug that can be mass manufactured. We'll need to find ways to make it more affordable and accessible. Think about how expensive the first mobile phones were. Only the rich could afford them, but over time, costs came down and now almost everyone has one. We need to work towards a similar trajectory for this treatment. - Cost is just one issue. What about ethical concerns? Some people are uncomfortable with stem cell research and genetic manipulation. We can't ignore the fact that this treatment involves fundamentally altering human cells. There are religious and-- - Those ethical concerns are largely based on outdated information, Kate. - This procedure uses the patient's own adult cells, not embryonic stem cells. We're not creating or destroying embryos here. We're simply reprogramming the patient's own cells. - It's still a form of genetic manipulation, Eric. We need to have serious ethical discussions before rolling this out widely. What about the long-term implications? Could this technology be misused? We need to consider all angles, not just-- - I understand your concerns, Kate, but let's put this in perspective. - The ethics of denying a potential cure to millions of suffering people are far more questionable, in my opinion. We're talking about a treatment that could dramatically improve quality of life, reduce healthcare costs, and potentially save lives. Yes, we need to have ethical discussions, but we can't let theoretical concerns overshadow the very real and immediate benefits this treatment could bring. - It's not a cure yet, Eric. That's the point you keep missing. We need to be cautious and thorough in our approach. Yes, the potential benefits are huge, but so are the risks if we get this wrong. We're not just talking about a new drug here. We're talking about fundamentally altering how the human body functions. That's not something to be taken lightly or rushed into without thorough consideration of all possible outcomes. - Thank you both for this enlightening discussion. It's clear that this breakthrough in diabetes treatment holds immense potential, but also raises important questions about safety, ethics, and accessibility. As research progresses, we'll undoubtedly see more debate on these crucial issues. That's all for today on Listen To. Stay tuned for more cutting edge science news.