Today's big biotech win is that we might be on the verge of a cure for type-1 diabetesđź§µ
Twelve diabetics were injected with stem cell-derived pancreatic islets.
They started producing insulin again.
One year in, 10/12 participants no longer needed to inject insulin.
In that chart, you can see the response to a meal.
At baseline, blood sugar levels go dangerously high (right) because participants don't produce insulin at all (proxied by C-peptide levels, left).
But notice the blood sugar and C-peptide levels after treatment:
With treatment, the patients kept getting better and better.
Their pancreatic function improved over time, and they became more and more able to handle food, and to do so without the need to inject insulin.
In a little over a month after treatment, the A1C levels of the sample shifted towards the maximum recommended level, and shortly thereafter, they dropped down to prediabetic levels.
They weren't amazing by any means, but this is an incredible improvement for type-1 sufferers.
More importantly, it became clear that the treatment allowed people to maintain their blood glucose at levels that were pretty much acceptable, most of the time.
That is why becoming insulin-independent after this nearly one-shot therapy was possible for most of them.
Now, you might've noticed that in those last two graphs, there's a section saying "Participant died".
Two patients did die, but not due to this therapy.
The first broke trial protocol due to a serious injury and died from meningitis. The second was due to pre-existing dementia.
Those deaths are tragic, but they do not speak against the success of this therapy.
And this therapy seems to be miraculous.
A single infusion and three days of immunosuppression resulted in everyone being cured of the need for insulin. Type-1 diabetes was beaten.
The next steps for this therapy are simple.
Firstly, ramp it up. I think the government should throw money at this.
Secondly, the government has the ability to do some deregulation to make this very cheap. I'm not providing details here right now. This is in the HHS' hands.
If done right, perhaps we'll be able to eliminate type-1 diabetes in our lifetimes, and fewer and fewer people will have to suffer with a lifetime of management of a terrible, and once-deadly chronic disease.
Some of you who are familiar with medicine no doubt do, but if you don't, no worries: This is James Lind, the man most often credited with finding the cure for scurvy.
Scurvy is one of humanity's great historical killers.
It's a gruesome condition that culminates in your life's wounds reappearing on your flesh. If you want a picture, go look it up.
You never hear about it today though, because it's so easy to cure.
This research directly militates against modern blood libel.
If people knew, for example, that Black and White men earned the same amounts on average at the same IQs, they would likely be a lot less convinced by basically-false discrimination narratives blaming Whites.
Add in that the intelligence differences cannot be explained by discrimination—because there *is* measurement invariance—and these sorts of findings are incredibly damning for discrimination-based narratives of racial inequality.
So, said findings must be condemned, proscribed.
The above chart is from the NLSY '79, but it replicates in plenty of other datasets, because it is broadly true.
For example, here are three independent replications:
A lot of the major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed by White elites who were upset at the violence generated by the Great Migration and the riots.
Because of his association with this violence, most people at the time came to dislike MLK.
It's only *after* his death, and with his public beatification that he's come to enjoy a good reputation.
This comic from 1967 is a much better summation of how the public viewed him than what people are generally taught today.
And yes, he was viewed better by Blacks than by Whites.
But remember, at the time, Whites were almost nine-tenths of the population.
Near his death, Whites were maybe one-quarter favorable to MLK, and most of that favorability was weak.
The researcher who put together these numbers was investigated and almost charged with a crime for bringing these numbers to light when she hadn't received permission.
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.
One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.
If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap!
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.
Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.
The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons.