
Adult-onset diabetes, obesity cured in lab mice, scientists report - not_that_noob
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141208144404.htm
======
debacle
The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here:

[http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-
diabete...](http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabetes-
peptide.shtml)

Is equally useless, nearly a copy/paste. The older report, here:

[http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-
wide/2013/10/...](http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-
wide/2013/10/dimarchi-obesity-study.shtml)

Makes it very clear that this is a _treatment_ for diabetes, not a cure.

~~~
tokenadult
Thank you for explaining the background to this eye-catching submission. Many,
many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press
releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all
recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News
Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. More serious
commentary in the edited group blog post "Related by coincidence only?
University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles"[2]
points to the same danger of taking press releases (and news aggregator
website articles based solely on press releases) too seriously.

The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more
research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further
useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed.
The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like
the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental
Design and Interpretation"[3] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google,
on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for
how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in
the story.

[1] "The Science News Cycle"
[http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174)

[2] "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press
releases versus journal articles"
[http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-
coi...](http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coincidence-
only-journal-press-releases-versus-journal-articles/)

[3] "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"
[http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html](http://norvig.com/experiment-
design.html)

P.S. The sparsity of details in the press release recycled by ScienceDaily
reminds me of the many past complaints from Hacker News participants about the
poor quality of ScienceDaily as a source. ScienceDaily is just a press release
recycling service, nothing more. I learned from other participants here on HN
that there are better sites to submit from.

Comments about ScienceDaily:

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206)

"Blogspam.

"Original article (to which ScienceDaily has added precisely nothing):

[http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-
dn...](http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dna-changes-
following-population-explosion-may-hold-common-disease-clues)

"Underlying paper in Science (paywalled):

[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1...](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1219240)

"Brief writeup from Nature discussing this paper and a couple of others on
similar topics:

[http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-
genetic-...](http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-
variants-1.10655)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603)

"Everything I've ever seen on HN -- I don't know about Reddit -- from
ScienceDaily has been a cut-and-paste copy of something else available from
nearer the original source. In some cases ScienceDaily's copy is distinctly
worse than the original because it lacks relevant links, enlightening
pictures, etc.

" . . . . if you find something there and feel like sharing it, it's pretty
much always best to take ten seconds to find the original source and submit
that instead of ScienceDaily."

~~~
ggrothendieck
This is a bit harsh on Science Daily. In fact, Science Daily is much better
than many other sites of its kind because it does consistently give its
sources and provides citations as it did here.

~~~
tokenadult
I wonder if earlier comments on news aggregation sites (like Hacker News, but
probably more influentially Reddit) may have changed the practices at some of
the press-release recycling services. Maybe they are getting better (although
I would still much better like submissions of actual independently reported
journalistic stories about science here) because people have been complaining.

~~~
ggrothendieck
Over the years that I have looked at Science Daily it has always provided
sources and citations. I don't think there has been any change.

------
pazimzadeh
Here is the paper in question (PDF):
[http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf](http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf)

~~~
jdnier
From the paper's abstract (published by Nature Medicine, 08 December 2014):

"These preclinical studies suggest that, so far, this unimolecular,
polypharmaceutical strategy has potential to be the most effective
pharmacological approach to reversing obesity and related metabolic
disorders."

------
Terr_
> essentially cured [...] fully potent [...] unprecedented [...] unparalleled

Is anybody else getting a strong "too good to be true" vibe from all these
unqualified superlatives?

"New single-cell molecules with triple-hormone action" sounds like somebody's
already planning the marketing campaign.

------
mchanson
It would be amazing if this works in humans without worse side effects than
just suffering type 2 diabetes.

~~~
cloverich
Some side effects of uncontrolled diabetes

\- Sufficiently poor circulation to extremeties that they may require
amputation \- Progressive loss of vision \- Kidney Failure \- Increased risk
of severe infection \- Heart Disease (and death from it)

------
exratione
Both obesity and type 2 diabetes are for the vast majority of sufferers
voluntary conditions. These people choose to suffer these conditions, and
further, every day make the choice again to continue to suffer these
conditions. Even very late in the process type 2 diabetes can be turned back
by aggressive use of low-calorie dieting [1]. Obesity can be reversed just by
the exercise of willpower in the very same way.

It is a fascinating statement on the human condition that research for medical
methods of treatment that do not require a patient to try to alter their
lifestyle or calorie intake receives so very much funding in comparison to,
say, meaningful research into aging, or any one of hundreds of medical
conditions in which the patient has absolutely no choice in the matter.

[1]:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909)

~~~
xacto75
Stop. Please. Obesity and diabetes are not the eighth and ninth deadly sins.
Nobody wakes up in the morning as you so assert and chooses to gain weight,
become insulin resistant, or have their pancreas fail.

Further, your uninformed opinion excludes people like myself who are _thin_
but diabetic (type 2). It also excludes people who have LADA 1.5.

I guess because anyone who has diabetes is morally bankrupt they shouldn't
expect any help. Is that right?

~~~
bequanna
If I recall correctly 80-90% of people with T2 diabetes are obese. I'm not
saying this was the case with your illness, but lifestyle choices are
overwhelmingly the cause of both of these problems.

There are giant social costs stemming from obesity and T2 diabetes.

The above facts cause frustration for those of us not facing these issues.

For example, if my health insurance rate was based on my specific level of
risk, I would likely pay 10% of my current premium. Yet, someone 150lbs
heavier than me, same age, sex, etc. is much more likely to have health
problems yet pays the same premium.

In other words, there is the perception that those who chose to create these
problems aren't bearing the cost themselves, all of us are being forced to
foot the bill.

~~~
chrisbennet
Assuming you are voluntarily healthy, you'll be happy to learn that smokers
and obese people are footing the bill for _you_. [1] Because healthy people
live longer, they consume more health care dollars. Time to find something
else to hate on..

(1)[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-
obese.1.97488...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-
obese.1.9748884.html)

~~~
seekingtruth
The Harvard School of Public Health demurs:
[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-
source/obesit...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-
source/obesity-consequences/economic/)

And the argument that the longer lifespans of healthy people means they will
consume more healthcare dollars sounds quite specious on the face of it. After
all, healthy people do not have chronic conditions whereas the obese & smokers
can spend 20-40 years being treated for hypertension, diabetes, heart failure,
arthritis, emphysema, COPD, etc. How could people living, on average, an extra
four to seven years without such chronic care possibly wind up costing more?
As it turns out, the study you reference was not based on data from actual
patient outcomes but is a mathematical model:
[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050029)

David Strip calls into question the validity of the model thusly:

 _" Much in line with the response by Mittendorf, the validity of the results
lies very strongly on key assumptions that are not demonstrated. The analysis
assumes that the cost of an incidence of the 22 key diseases is independent of
the risk factors being tested. Likewise, remaining health care costs, which
account for 85% of health-care spending in the Netherlands , are assumed to be
uncorrelated to risk factors. Given that this latter class of spending dwarfs
the former, the importance of demonstrating the lack of correlation is
particularly important. The incidence of numerous co-morbidities with obesity
argues, in fact, that one might reasonably expect to find that the annual
health costs are higher in the obese and that the cost of treatment in the
last months preceding death may be quite different from the non-obese._

Kim McPherson, emeritus professor of public health at Oxford, wrote in
response to the van Baal study here:
[http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fj...](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050037)

 _In a sense, Van Baal and colleagues ' study is a useful antidote to current
concerns. But let us be clear: it does not attenuate them. Obese people cost
less because individuals die younger and hence with less chronic morbidity
associated with old age. This is a useful thing to know, but how might it
affect public health strategies for obesity? In particular, does it mean that
concerns about increasing population obesity are misplaced, as least as far as
health-service costs are concerned?

Sadly not. Examine an obese population and a lean population of the same age
and sex distribution, and the former will incur far greater health-care costs
throughout the life course. Much more diabetes, and more cardiovascular
disease and cancer will occur amongst the obese—even amongst the older obese
[3]. Compare health-care costs now with those thirty years ago, and—holding
everything but obesity constant—the current population costs much more to the
health sector than it did then [4]. Moreover, quite apart from health-care
costs, the other costs to society from obesity are also greater because of
absences from work due to illness and employment difficulties; these costs
amount to considerably more than health-care costs [5]. It is not clear that
these extra costs are intrinsically related to health-care costs, but they are
currently estimated to be around four times as great in obese than in lean
people [5]._

~~~
chrisbennet
Thank you for sharing that.

