As for Diabetes Forecast, I canceled my subscription recently and I can’t tell you how happy I am. I realized that this magazine had very little of use to me. Then with the recent speech by Richard Kahn I decided that there is NO WAY I’ll be supporting the ADA in the future. They seem to have completely lost touch with the real needs of those of us with Type 1 diabetes. I’m really not sure how well they serve folks with Type 2, especially with covers like the one you show.

I hope more voice like Mr. Grove’s start coming up to lobby for more dollars in the US to go to R&D and not as much pushing drugs.

As for the cover, whether it is a low-carb cake or not, it really sends the wrong message. I agree that ADA shouldn’t be presenting things this way.

At least in the case of the cake, a lot of people already know on the most basic level that diabetes + sugar = bad. My local pharmacy ran an ad last week telling customers that pharmacists can help if “you would like to know more about preventing diabetes”. No distinction made between Type I and Type II. I think that kind of error is far more harmful.

It really should come as no surprise that a lot of the better R&D being performed in the diabetes area starts with either independent researchers in University labs or small privately owned companies outside big pharma. These are driven people trying to bring their one focused idea to the forefront who will initially work for substantially lower financial compensation [relative to big pharma] for the chance to make a difference in the treatment of the disease.

While a extremely high percentage of this work never pans out to reach the market, those few entities with a “survivor” mentality who are able to financially stick it out long enough and work just smart enough to make key discoveries before going broke end up adding substantially to new technology.

Obvious examples in diabetes treatment include the development of the insulin pump [primarily through Minimed], the implantable glucose sensor [primarily through Therasense and Dexcom by way of UT-Austin and UW-Madison], and Byetta [through Amylin by way of UW-Madison]. The nonlinear developement paths for these examples would never have been permitted in companies where every decison is microscopically monitored internally and then reported on and voted on by the stock owning public. While big pharma is still exceptional at marketing and sales, few companies now have the financial reserves to risk backing too many examples of risky new technology which management will be held responsible for on a quarterly basis if it fails to flow profits to the bottom line.

mcityrk

Grove has just discovered what any diabetic should already know: what incentive is there for a pharma company to research a genuine cure and kill this incredible cash cow? The billions that they rake in now come from drugs that treat symptoms or allow diabetics to “cope” – no way does pharma industry want to put an end to chronic disease.

The FDA merely reflects the interest of the pharma companies who have incumbent drugs – the less competitors enter the market, the more money there is to be had for current drug producers.

Follow the money, Mr. Grove.