Perhaps if BCG is successful in temporarily halting the autoimmune
attack, then millions of the research money raised would start
funnelling into the search for the second compound? Hopefully the
fundraising machines will jump on board at that point.

Regardless, even if it did take that long for a permanent solution,
this would still be 10 - 15 years that my son will not have to take
insulin, count carbs, wear sensors and insulin pumps, carry glucagon,
meters, strips, poker and glucose tabs, go to the nurse as often,
etc. etc. etc.

Becky, Mom to Mason, 7

--- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, "stilltypeone"
<stilltypeone@...> wrote:
>
> From Lynne Murphy at MGH:
>
> "Keep checking our website www.faustmanlab.org for updated
> information. We will also be informing all individuals in our
> database when the clinical trial is about to start. I think we are
> planning for early 2008."
>
> I believe this is for the BCG arm of the trial only. They have yet
> to identify the second agent, to make this "cure" permanent.
>
> Possibly another 10 to 15 years to identify the second agent?
>
>
> --- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, "imcimc1"
> <curtieimc@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Go the below website and lok on the right hand side
> under "Contact" and
> > it will give you information on who to contact about the trials.
> >
> > http://www.faustmanlab.org <http://www.faustmanlab.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, "mjspicer51"
> > <mjspicer51@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am new to this group. I have been waiting for 20+ years to
see
> a
> > > cure or a real hope of a cure...What is happening seems to be
> faster
> > > than the ADA who seems satisfied with the band aid of using
> insulin
> > > instead of finding a real cure. How do I get my name on the list
> > > for the trials? I have two grandsons who I hope never have to
> deal
> > > with this desease personally. Thank you, would love to hear from
> > > anyone on this situation --- In
> > > nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, "imcimc1" curtieimc@
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They have to automate the process. They cannot monitor even a
> > > small
> > > > group of people effectively day after day during the trial
> without
> > > > automation. I would rather see this automation process get off
> > > the
> > > > ground now instead of after phase 1 of the trial is finished.
> At
> > > > least the are working with some kind of vision and greater
> plan in
> > > > mind. My fingers are crossed with this one.
> > > >
> > > > --- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, "stilltypeone"
> > > > <stilltypeone@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sue, thanks for the info. I am still baffled that they
chose
> to
> > > > > spend time and money on the automation process, when it may
> be a
> > > > > moot point.
> > > > > If they can count T cells from hundreds of mice, can they
> not do
> > > > the
> > > > > same for such a small sample of humans?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, Sue root
> > > > > <susan_root@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The procedure to separate and count the targeted T cells
> from
> > > > > whole blood samples in humans takes 1 ½ days by hand. Seeing
> > > that
> > > > > they plan to ultimately take blood samples every other day
> from
> > > the
> > > > > patients to monitor the effect, and they will plan to have
40
> > > > > patients in the trial with controls, the automation will
make
> > > this
> > > > > possible in a timely manner by decreasing the procedure to
> only
> > > > > about 6 hrs. More importantly, standardizing dosing in mice
> is
> > > much
> > > > > less of an issue compared to humans, even if we're talking
40
> > > people
> > > > > > Even though the NOD mouse is the best known animal model
> for
> > > type
> > > > > I diabetes, when dosing in mice, one doesn't have to deal
> with
> > > > > variables such as body weight. The groups of mice are born
at
> > > the
> > > > > same time, are the same size, and develop diabetes roughly
> the
> > > same
> > > > > time. Therefore, being able to standardize the dosing of
BCG
> in
> > > a
> > > > > group of humans with such variables, will be a key factor
for
> > > > > success.
> > > > > > What we do know is that the NOD mice have the same 2
> defects
> > > > > found in humans with type I diabetes and the treatment that
> Dr.
> > > > > Faustman used targets and eliminates these defects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > stilltypeone <stilltypeone@> wrote:
> > > > > > Patsy, I think you are misunderstanding what I am
> > > > > inferring.
> > > > > > The point I am making is why spend so much time and money
> on a
> > > > > > automation process that, in the end may end up as useless.
> > > Kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > like the "cart before the horse". Why not do the initial
> trial
> > > by
> > > > > > hand, as the mouse trials were done. If sucessful, then
> move
> > > on
> > > > to
> > > > > > scale this up to a larger group trial.
> > > > > > I would not expect death from BCG injections, as it is
> used in
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > quantities for bladder cancer.
> > > > > > The begining trial as I understand it will be 40
> individuals.
> > > I
> > > > > > consider that "small". I realize that is a relative term.
> > > > > > If asking questions is "grumbling" then I am guilty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In nathanfaustmantrials@yahoogroups.com, Patsy Van
> Huyck
> > > > > > <patsy@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The answer in short is because if a mouse dies, nobody
> > > cares.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > think if the "small human trial" was a failure either
> due to
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > > complications or due to the lack of results. Do you
think
> > > that
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > would just get to try again with another dose? The
assay
> is
> > > > very
> > > > > > > important so that the trial can be successful, and we
can
> > > then
> > > > > > move to
> > > > > > > the next stage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We all want the cure to have been in 2002, but dealing
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > FDA is
> > > > > > > tediously slow. Grumbling isn't going to get the
research
> > > done
> > > > > > any more
> > > > > > > quickly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Patsy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: NEJM Correspondence
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nathanfaustmantrials/message/245;_ylc=
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
X3oDMTJxMmg3MXB1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE2NDEyMTQ1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwN
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
TA2MTY2MgRtc2dJZAMyNDUEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE3MDU4NDUyMQ
> > > > > > -->
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Posted by: "stilltypeone" stilltypeone@
> > > > > > > > <mailto:stilltypeone@?Subject=%20Re%3A%20NEJM%
> > > > > > 20Correspondence>
> > > > > > > > stilltypeone <http://profiles.yahoo.com/stilltypeone>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sat Feb 3, 2007 6:57 pm (PST)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sue, can we agree that these trials will not proceed
> until
> > > > > > > > the "automated assay" is completed?
> > > > > > > > Did Faustman have this automated assay during the
mouse
> > > > trials?
> > > > > > > > I am guessing the answer is no.
> > > > > > > > So, why the need for automation for a small human
> trial?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>