One in three die from it, about 800k are affected in the US, be careful as some numbers are way off. Type 1 causes imminent life challenges or death instantly within days if failed to be treated. Type 2 is a longer agonizing death. This is eligible for Orphan status and will be PR'd soon. I expect to see this within days, I also expect Novartis, as discussed before to be the key player. This will be fast tracked in an immense way, 50-100b market in US alone, add in Type 2 Diabetes and over 300b marketplace. The human Islet cells stop working, yes, cell death. MANF has massive potential in a non-invasive way. This is huge, make no mistake, whether you're here for science or money in your investment, this will be the single largest announcement you have seen yet. Mark my words. There are no effective treatments at this time, even the artificial Pancreas is suspect, stopping the attack on cells is the way and MANF addresses this need in a massive way. Read up on the subject aside from MANF, Type 1 alone has Novartis waiting to strike for several reasons. Yes, Lilly produces Human Insulin, they hold the marketplace on Diabetes treatment, Novartis wants to take a stab at this. MANF could be fast tracked and brought to market for this the fastest, hands down.
Great informative thread, enjoy reading every single post :) this will changed quickly when AMBS hits gold. This board will be swarming with pumpers, dumpers and all the sorts. cheers, butch.
OK guys. I have to butt in here. Sorry to rain on your parade. I am a long too (a newer long, but MANF can be a big time cytoprective agent). I don't see the FDA allowing an indication MANF for type II diabetes. There is no reason. I also don't see an indication to treat type I diabetes. Once you lose your beta cells, you are not going to bring them back unless you do an islet cell transplant.
Here is the diabetes related indications I think it will be useful:
Prevention of type I diabetes in children who are at risk (first degree relative of a patient with diabetes) to prevent the initial loss of beta cells.
NBS is going to try Athelos (ex vivo expanded regulatory T cells) for this indication, and it is completely valid for orphan status as their is no drug on the market for this indication. It will be an extremely large market.
Posgost67, the rain on the parade is that Islet cell transplants do not work quite so well. There is an unmet need in treating Type 1 through a subset population, it frankly doesn't matter what Gerald see's if a larger pharma can see the potential in stopping cell death with a platform. He just needs the platform and others can take it where needed. We can discuss either way, and I respect your posts by the way, but there's enough in the direction of my studies and tens of reputable ones to defeat the thought that cell function cannot be repaired. They are short term with transplants, root cause science indicates that we must stop the attack on the cells, killing the cells is paramount, so let's put new ones in and watch them die again due to an auto-immune disorder with HLA DR4-DQ8 and or DR3-DQ2? How do you keep replacing the very target being attacked and expect this to be sustainable? How about we check out Dr. Andrew Stewart who found IN HUMANS, the proteins cdk-6 and cyclin D1 caused beta cells to regenerate? How about Dr. Faustman, U Mass using BCG to regenerate Islets by stopping the attack on the cells just like we stopped TB? Cost as summarized this year, 245b to the US government annually. Do we really think their isn't a market here to gain heavy handed approval to address the root cause with an effective and affordable treatment? Look at the Generex and Amarantus agreement in '11, not Oral-lyn, but Type 1, then look at Novartis. I never see anyone discuss this, there's a long-standing reputation with MANF and diabetes. Theorize, chat it out, everyone is encourage to look deep, but look where unexpected and most consistent, the root cause. Every good drug needs a platform, HSP with an adjuvant, MANF with a BCG, etc. Way too many years of my life have been developing cures, not Band-Aids. There's a serious difference in practical medicine and research, just my opinion, of course.
If it works well for that indication, then I can see an attempt at a trial in mid-late stage type II diabetes, for prevention of further loss of beta cells. I don't foresee the FDA approving it for a type II indication (because it is so multifactorial) prior to getting positive results for prevention of type I diabetes.
Interesting....I listened to the presentation last night (which I thought was very encouraging). I do recall though that Gerald specifically mentioned Diabetes under "non-orphan" designation.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Agreed as per helpful research post. Only way I could see it is if it were a subtype of Type 1 Diabetes. Which would be cool because if it works for that subtype because it works for all T1 there will be good synergies and the tech for all T1 will be moving ahead too.
watsonhelper: Gerald has told us publicly that more orphan announcements would be forthcoming. That "diabetes" would be one of them is something we've all suspected. You, however, seem to be saying something more specific (or are you?): that Novartis will "be the key player." I noticed you didn't say "partner." That Novartis may have talked to Gerald and expressed future interest isn't really earth shattering news. Gerald has talked with many people and has countless possibilities. Now, if you are saying that along with MANF receiving orphan status for diabetes...it is also going to be "partnering" with Novartis, who will be paying us up front money for this partnership...THAT WOULD BE NEWS!! But you didn't say that. You chose to hide in ambiguity. Your above statement falls short of actually revealing anything we didn't already know. Do you have information about a Novartis partnership or not? If not, then why are you pretending to? And don't give us the "I have to be careful about what I say or people will recognize who I am." (Your prominent standing in the Scientific community) That's a con. You've gone this far talking about Novartis, why don't you put a stake in the ground and actually say what you mean?
What part of in my opinion do you not get, what part of my specificity do you not get when I use exact science, or exact terms, or how about exact information on my opinions at least with links they didn't remove yet, or do you cherry-pick a post and tear it apart. Did I say months, did I say weeks, did I say days, that's right, it's in my posts, but you're too busy spell-checking people. If I'm just stating the obvious, why do you state the obvious about my posts in return. May I recommend ignoring me if you don't like what I say? May I also note that I'm pleased my posts catch your attention and that you intend to prove my accuracy as fraud since I am not the CEO, since I am not doing PRs and since I repeatedly claim exactly what my intention is and the warning with reading MB posts?