archive-org.com » ORG » I » ISLET.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Re: LCT results
    guess is going to remain somewhat of a long shot Also the fact there are side effects from the transplant is another negative thing Not because of these results per say but in general I am about to give up on a hope for any kind of cure in my lifetime which is OK but the symptoms I experience from the sugar levels are gonna kill me sooner or later

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55738.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Re: LCT results
    regress of detail very loosely organized under principles of genetics selection and the homeostasis required for survival of organic entities but with much less structure compared to the content The usual approach to this problem is to simplify things by abandoning at the outset any attempt to provide cures and instead just to focus on suppressing the undesired symptoms of what cannot be cured But when you start to look for cures you expose all the weaknesses of the science With respect to the results just reported LCT s strategy of switching from selling their product as an alternative to exogenous insulin therapy to one for hypoglycemia unawareness appears promising The reduction in hypoglycemia events also has value But the study size and design leave something to be desired First it is extremely small and not much can be reliably inferred from the results in just eight patients in an open label study Second while the reductions in insulin dose and HbA1c look good not enough variables were controlled to ensure that these were genuine rather than factitious effects Unless the patients diet exercise and blood sugar testing are held constant before and after the experiment there is no baseline

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55741.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Re: LCT results
    experts can be wrong sometimes authority has been generally discredited as a basis for believing statements P R Blondlot a famous French physicist of the early 20th century thought he had discovered a special type of electro magnetic energy which he called N Rays but he was proved completely mistaken In contrast Julius Mayer an obscure German physician of the mid 19th century was the first to formulate the principle

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55745.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Re: LCT results
    I HAVE been judging you by the merits of your arguments and conclusions and I have found them lacking Your choice of pseudonym and self comparison to Julius von Mayer reflects the kind of hubris often found in those who seek an audience not for a helpful exchange of ideas but simply as a soapbox Now why do you insist on anonymity Julius von Mayer never insisted on anonymity He

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55746.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Re: LCT results
    my comment did I compare myself either to Blondlot an authoritative idiot or Mayer an unrecognized genius Rather I just gave them as examples of how people s identity as authorities or amateurs says nothing about whether what they are saying is true or not It is clear from the context and the formulation that I referred to them in order to support my argument that specifying personal identities on a message board is not necessarily useful The name Celsus hardly claims any special status in medicine but rather anonymity since there have been numerous historical figures called Celsus Even the Celsus known to medicine is largely unknown as a person Since there are laws against saying anything that could be construed as medical advice either generally by a layperson or specifically by a physician who has not examined the person he or she is addressing anonymity in a context like this is always prudent Anonymity is the usual practice in internet forums and it helps focus discussion on what is said not who is speaking Also many prominent scientists contribute anonymously to scienceforums net for example because they are just speaking spontaneously and don t want to injure their

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55747.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Re: LCT results
    results posted by Celsus These are reasonable requests Celsus Identify your connection to Type 1 I am a parent of a child with type 1 I come to this board for insights on cutting edge research that hopefully leads to a better treatment or more Your comments on the board while appearing knowledge based are consistently negative or dismissive of the ideas concepts presented Why is this so Frank Cz

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55751.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Re: LCT results
    age 7 now 18 And yes my name is Allen Remain Celsus for all I care but from what experience with diabetes do you speak Are you a Type 1 A researcher in the field Concerned family member Or just bored and enjoy playing on forums What is your relationship with this disease We all know on this forum the relationship each other has with this disease and are able

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55749.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Re: LCT results
    to reveal their identities is unfair and forcing all people to abandon their anonymity focuses attention on who is speaking rather than on what is being said and so diverts attention from the essential issues If people generally describe their identity given that there is no way of checking whether that is accurate some people could claim false authority On the other hand requiring forum participants to specify their exact identity could create difficulties for the academic reputation of some people posting raise concerns about giving medical advice improperly or needlessly embarrass people talking about their personal medical problems The best solution not only to concentrate attention on the content of messages and to avoid false self characterizations but also to avoid possible legal consequences of giving medical advice improperly seems to be to maintain the policy of the forum up to now which is to permit posters to remain anonymous if they wish Getting back to interesting questions relevant to the forum topic seems more useful than worrying about identities As to the nom de plume since proper names designate but do not describe no one is reasonably mislead as to the reputation of someone by his or her

    Original URL path: http://islet.org/forum/messages/55753.htm (2016-04-29)
    Open archived version from archive



  •