Truly excellent responses to the potential for using Rosetta in diabetes research. AIDS gets a lot of attention, but to a large degree it is caused by lifestyle choices. Diabetes is a working person's disease which takes a heavier toll. My suggestion is just that you include diabetes under the "Disease Related Research" listing on the front page of Rosetta's home page. Thanks for your consideration.

---

...AIDS gets a lot of attention, but to a large degree it is caused by lifestyle choices...

Late onset diabetes (also called type 2) is also largely a result of lifestyle choices.

I write as a sufferer myself, and accept that I have reaped the effects of 40years of a several-chokky bar a day habit, unhealthy sugary meals, persistent over eating (excess weight increases the chances of getting type 2 diabetes).

Even now, 18months after diagnosis, and knowing that the best thing I can do to reduce the chances of complications, and to decrease the effects of complications if they do come, the best thing I can do is to get down to a sensible weight. And still I continue to make the choice too often to 'treat' myself to the one bar that won't do any harm on its own...

I know one thing: if I ever need drugs for my diabetes, I will have done it to myself by too many of the wrong lifestyle choices over too many years. And along with smokers, alcoholics, drug users, and others whose choices put themselves at risk, knowing the risks, knowing that I am on the brink of the risks becoming much greater, all this makes surprisingly little difference to my munchaholic lifestyle. In fact, thinking about the problems makes me reach for the chokky to cheer myself up...

In a world where starvation is still all too common Ive made myself ill through a lifetime of greed. That is about lifestyle, and about morality, and it was my choice.

As a type 2 diabetic I wouldn't dare claim the moral high ground from the HIV+ve folks. Like them, I am keen for the scientists to find ways to save me from the cosequences of my own prior choices and like most of them I accept that I made the choices that put me in need of that help.

Ed & Harriet: I am really happy that you want to promote work on diabetes and that you want Rosetta's angle to be better know. The only thing I'd prefer to dis-associate from is the distinction you make with AIDS research on the grounds of 'lifestyle choices'.

It may feel different for type 1 diabetics whose disease is thought to be infection-related rather than provoked by chronic sucrose use.

River~~

---

I certainly don't want to get in a war with AIDS funding, a legitimate activity. I also claim no high moral ground. I do, however, respectfully disagree that being overweight is in the same catagory as having multiple sex partners and using illegal drugs. I readily acknowledge that there are many innocent victims of AIDS. Being overweight is a factor, but not a cause, in diabetes. Stress is also a factor.
The thrust of my arguement is that diabetes is serious (Many who die from heart attacks have diabetes as a contributing factor.) and distributed computing can help.
Ed Griffith

---

I certainly don't want to get in a war with AIDS funding, a legitimate activity. I also claim no high moral ground.

good - we have that in common

I do, however, respectfully disagree that being overweight is in the same catagory as having multiple sex partners and using illegal drugs.

Here we do disagree. I'd say - with equal respect I hope - that being overweight, as I am, is a symptom of greed - recognised as one of the seven worst sins until the 20th century when suddenly it became respectable.

Greed for food causes many of our current world problems and greed for money even more. In terms of damage to others, greed is a more anti-social sin than lust. In terms of damage to ourselves, diabetes is one of the many ways that greed turns out to be self-harming.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post is that none of us find it easy to see the problems inherent in our own particular lifestyle. It is all too human to feel that the other lifestyles are worse than our own. Each of us feels the temptations of our own lifestyle to be 'natural' and of the other lifestyles to be wierd / offensive / sinful / unnatural etc.

I readily acknowledge that there are many innocent victims of AIDS.

and globally speaking these are the majority

Being overweight is a factor, but not a cause, in diabetes.

Obesity is, as you say, a risk factor not a direct cause of diabetes.

However: Repeated overdosing with sugar is a direct cause of type 2 diabetes and is the most probable cause in my own case.

My insulin receptors have become 'worn out' by repeated high insulin signals, caused by repeated sugar rushes, caused in turn by my own repeated choice to eat chocolate and drink sugary drinks in preference to more complex foods. Or so I am told by my diabetic professionals.

Equally, it is clear that multiple sex partners or sharing needles is not a cause of AIDS, they are risk factors - each time someone does one of those things they take a risk of catching the virus. The virus is the cause, not the lifestyle. The lifestyle is a risk factor. They don't know the virus is there, only that it might be.

In contrast I did know the sugar was there, and I've been told since I learned talk that sugar is bad for me.

The thrust of my arguement is that diabetes is serious (Many who die from heart attacks have diabetes as a contributing factor.) and distributed computing can help.

Absolutely so.

Here, at the core of your postings, we are strongly in agreement again.

Many thanks for your respectful reply and for your efforts on behalf of diabetics. I do feel slightly churlish complaining when you are working so hard for us - and only commented because you used one argument that I really do not want made on my behalf.

I would ask that you continue that main thrust of your efforts and leave out the incidental references to issues around AIDS.

River~~
Type 2 diabetic

As the Father, Brother and Son of Type 1 diabetes sufferers all of whom are /were not overweight I hope Rosetta can be of help. As you can see it maybe that there is some genetic risk of the disease besides the dietary contribution.

I am in agreement with River~~ as far as HIV is concerned.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

As the Father, Brother and Son of Type 1 diabetes sufferers all of whom are /were not overweight I hope Rosetta can be of help. As you can see it maybe that there is some genetic risk of the disease besides the dietary contribution.

I am in agreement with River~~ as far as HIV is concerned.

When I came down with diabetes in '76, I was lent a book that discussed diabetes that had been given to my dad. It discussed ancient topics like how the Greeks diagnosed diabetes. (Bees being attracted to bowls of your urine.) It mentioned that scientists had caused diabetes in adult mice, and when breeding with these diabetic mice that by the 7th generation, the mice were being born as diabetics. The damage to the first generation was passed on genetically.
Even in Larry Niven's Ringworld (first published around 1966 if I remember correctly) he mentions the birthright lotteries and those with genetic diseases like diabetes were excluded.
So there hasn't been a question about Type 1 diabetes being linked to a genetic trait for longer than I've been around. And I fit in the stated mice generation pattern.. Grandpa came down with diabetes at 28; dad at 18 (discovered during the draft), and myself around 11.

---

It may feel different for type 1 diabetics whose disease is thought to be infection-related rather than provoked by chronic sucrose use.

I have had type 1 since 1988 and I was 11 when I was diagnosed with it. I have always been underweight and no one in my family has had it - not that we know of. So in that respect it feels unfair. I agree with the original poster.

It may feel different for type 1 diabetics whose disease is thought to be infection-related rather than provoked by chronic sucrose use.

I have had type 1 since 1988 and I was 11 when I was diagnosed with it. I have always been underweight and no one in my family has had it - not that we know of. So in that respect it feels unfair. I agree with the original poster.

Absolutely so - I hope I made it clear in my obhection that I was referring to type 2 *only*

Type 2 diabeticvs do not deserve to be dumped on. Not all type 2 diabetics are overweight and many people who are very overweight do not develop diabetes. I am sorry you feel guilty about having type 2 diabetes, but the fact is the stress of trying to work and raise a family appears to be a factor in many of the diabetics I know. That seems very benign compared to having multiple sex partners or sharing needles for injecting illegal drugs. Despite this, AIDS appears to get more publicity. Please stop dumping on type 2 diabetics. Your experience may be more unique than you believe and counseling may help.
Again, the thrust of my suggestion was to say an improved Rosetta may eventually help diabetics. Let us not do a flame war please. If you want to discuss how the victims of some diseases are better or worse than others then please start your own thread.
Ed Griffith

---

Type 2 diabeticvs do not deserve to be dumped on.

agree totally. My intention is not to dump on my fellow diabetics, nor to dump on myself for that matter.

Thank you for this feedback, as clearly if I gave you that impression I'll have given the same impression to others as well. I will try to be clearer about what I mean in future.

Not all type 2 diabetics are overweight and many people who are very overweight do not develop diabetes.

Please read my posts again Ed - I have said clearly that overweight is *not* the causitive factor, (though we both agree it is a risk factor).

A major causitive factor in type 2 diabetes seems to be overdosing on sugar. This causes overweight in some, causes diabetes in some, and there is some overlap. Both weight problems and diabetes also have other, distinct, casues so the correlation is not total.

What is almost total is that without eating free sugar, diabetes 2 seems not to happen or seems not to develop to the point where it matters.

It is a fact that the disease is uncommon in coutries which are too poor to flood their markets with sweets and sweet drinks, and common in countries where such things are in plentiful supply. This alone is good evidence for a lifestyle correlation.

I am sorry you feel guilty about having type 2 diabetes,

I don't! I am sorry I gave that impression. I thank you sincerely for your concern.

THere is a *big* difference between guilt and responsibility. I don't feel guilty at all. I do take full responsibility for causing my disease, and by taking that responsibility find the ability to do differently in the future.

Guilt disempowers, makes someone wait to be rescued by someone else, makes them a victim. Responsibility empowers, makes the person able to respond for themselves to better their position, makes them able to respond - response-ability as Fritz Perls punned.

The most important part of my cure, psychologically speaking, is for me to take responsibility for both my medication (if I come to the point where I need any) and for my diet (whether or not I also need medication). Far from making me feel guilty, taking control has the opposite effect: it liberates me from dependance on the medics to find me a cure and -- at least partially -- puts the avoidance of further symptoms firmly within my power.

but the fact is the stress of trying to work and raise a family appears to be a factor in many of the diabetics I know....

How on Earth do you square that with the fact that type 2 is so very much lower in coutries where lack of food is a problem?

Are you *really* suggesting that the stress of keeping a family to the US/UK lifestyle is higher than the stress involved in fearing that ones children will *literally* starve and continuing to fear that for years on end? And seeing it happen as a commonplace in your immediate village, rather than a shocking rarity as a child death is in the West?

The very fact that both diabetes and heart disease occur more frequently in rich countires makes them both liable to be described as 'lifestyle' diseases.

You are right - stress exacerbates the risk of diabetes (and heart disease) - but the primary factor in both cases is the Western life. If it were not so, these diseases would be worse in the developing workd than they are in the West.

Our lifestyle avoids cholera, TB, and polio but puts us at risk of diabetes, heart disease, and many other wealth-related disorders.

I am trying to avoid making any moral point here at all - and I am glad you said in an earlier posting you are not either.

It is not a question of guilt, but of causation. A high-sugar lifestyle statistically causes diabetes - and anyone with a lifestyle that is high in sugar can choose to contiune to take the risk or to start to opt out of the risk. Whichever choice they make they should not feel guilty but equally, for whichever choice they make they should claim, take, and accept full responsibility for the effects.

At different times I make both choices. When I choose to eat a sugary desert, I am choosing my short term pleasure over my long term health. I take responsibility for that, and accept that that is a choice I can only afford to make a limited number of times. At present I still take that choice too often, and therefore accept responsibility for weaning myself further off the sugars.

When I choose to avoid the sugary desert, I enjoy the feeling of self-love that is implied by forgoing an immediate fleeting pleasure due to my being worth looking after in the long term. That feeling of self love is as far from guilt as it is possible to get.

In contrast - if I told myself "I can eat this Mars Bars because at least I am not a needle user, or a serial sexaholic", then I'd be in denial. And the easiest way to go into denial about my own behaviour is to point at other peoples faults.

And now, Ed, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Having read this posting, does it still seem to you that I am dumping on type 2 diabetics? If so please tell me how, as that really is not my intent.

And secondly, you raised the issue of those with multiple sex partners or who share needles for illicit drug use - do you think they deserve to be dumped on? Your first post gave me that impression, hence my reaction. If not, then I certainly owe you an apology, but then I also still don't really understand what point you were trying to make by drawing the distinction: please tell me more...

And to avoid any doubts, I think we already agree that both diseases deserve research funding as do all the other diseases caused by lifestyle choices.

River~~

We could argue until kingdom come, but your posts are inappropriate. (And yes, I do think you are dumping on type 2 diabetics.) Please go to another thread to argue about how evil type 2 diabetics are and why they deserve less funding. Once again, my thread was to suggest that Rosetta has the potential to help diabetics. All the posts except yours have been responsive to that. Please go elsewhere to post your views. You are free to start your own thread, but I resent that you have hijacked my topic. I will no longer subscribe to this topic.

---

Hi folks,

I have moved this discussion from the science board thread since it seems to be more about opinions. Please continue to discuss. Science exists in the context of society, and research directions are shaped (not to mention funded!) by society, so for the layperson to understand the research is important (and will continue to be discussed in the old thread) and to prioritize where their tax dollars (and in this case cpu cycles too) go is also important and should be discussed here.

Thanks,
Vanita.

---

Please go to another thread to argue about how evil type 2 diabetics are and why they deserve less funding.

I have already made my position clear, and you are representing it grossly and unfairly. Let me say quite clearly:

My view is that everyone, regardless of lifestyle, deserves research on 'their' diseases to be funded.

I really hope that is clear now. Please do not misrepresent me again.

I am certainly arguing that diabetes type 2 is as much a lifestyle disease as are (my example) heart disease and (your example) AIDS.

The reason I am making this point is not to dump on diabetics but -in contrast- to ask you to stop dumping on HIV+ people.

The reason I spoke up about diabetes is to point out that a any argument based on lifestyles is a very dangerous one to make in the case of type 2 diabetes, it leads to conclusions that neither you nor I would like. I was not advancing that argument myself, but pointing out that it is a logical consequence of the distinction you want to make.

Now, about your dumping on HIV+ people: I asked you clearly if I was mistaken in reading that into your first post; if I am mistaken I will of course apologise. But I notice that you don't want to answer and unless/until you do I feel entitled to draw my own conclusions about your motives. I will ask you again:

You raised the point abut differing lifestyles mattering. Exactly what point are you trying to make by a 'lifestyles' distinction?

River~~

I've had the "lifestyle" card played on me as a type 1 diabetic. I've received frozen bottles of regular insulin (there was an ice cube inside the bottle) - which I'd opened within an hour of picking it up from the pharmacy - and had been recently dropped off by their carrier. (ups/fedex/etc) That explained the fact that I'd have bottles of insulin that required I'd take 20-50% more insulin for the same general activity and meals; and then go into insulin shock when switching to a good bottle of insulin. When bringing this up to the pharmacist, I was informed that if the insulin was bad that others would complain. (You're told to take more insulin if you're running high when you ask a doctor.) I was further informed that my changing insulin requirements for the preceeding few months of of winter was because I drank alcohol. (eating much less; cutting out all snacks - even the supposedly required late night snack - and waking up with high blood sugars implied something different to me.. :)
I seem to be the only person in the world who has delayed reactions from alcohol - since the Grant's Weis ale consumed in August was causing blood sugar problems in February. He offended me to the point that I switched to the other pharmacy in town - and we proved that the insulin is not being handled properly during shipping.

Lilly and the makers of Novalin still haven't done anything to demonstrate that a bottle of insulin hasn't been frozen or overheated; they don't test opened bottles of insulin, and they weren't interested in the rest of the batch of 8 bottles that included a temperature damaged bottle.

The "lifestyle" argument was used against those infected with Aids a lot when the highest concentration of those infected were homosexual and/or needle using drug abusers. Now babies and the general hetro population are at risk; as are/have been hemophiliacs (ex-girlfriend's ex-brother contracted Aids through a tainted transfusion), medical workers who weren't careful enough with syringes, and a friend mentioned the flu shots he'd been given ended up being a scam and the syringes had been reused - one of the folks given the fake flu shot whose syringe was reused was HIV positive.

At least with those Type 2 diabetics with an unhealthy lifestyle, switching to more exercise, a balanced healthy diet, and reaching the "recommended" weight has the possibility of freeing them from diabetic symptoms. A neat option..

---