Elsewhere

I am not – note, not – stating that this contention is true. It is however a point that I insist we want to explore:

If BCG Cures Diabetes Then Does No BCG Cause Diabetes?

We have, as we know, an epidemic of diabetes these days. Swathes of the population are blowing up like balloons, limbs falling off gangrenous and eyeballs failing as the modern diet and obesity kill us all. Thus sugar taxes, no advertising of junk food and, in one recent argument, no free trade with the Americans.

Hmm, well, that is interesting. Because there’s a recent finding that the BCG vaccine, the one against tuberculosis, is a reasonable enough cure for Type 1 diabetes, and might well be useful against Type 2 as well. Which does lead to a very interesting speculation. We stopped giving the BCG routinely in 2005. The rise in diabetes is recent. Are these two connected?

8 comments on “Elsewhere

  1. Glad to see that you are transferring a few of Contins bits over here Tim. Keep up the good work.

    Does anyone know how to get a shot of this BCG? In this semi-tyrannical shithole where the last effective heat cream for aches and pains is now on prescription?

  2. No, because the diabetes epidemic started long before bcg went out of fashion.

  3. ‘Epidemic’ is political speech.

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken

  4. I think the growth in diabetes is more down to the medical profession’s erroneous desire to reduce the nation’s saturated fat intake, the calorific value being replaced by carbohydrates of one form or another. This commenced in the 70s, so anyone who was born post 1970 would have grown up in an era of ‘low fat’ products, most of which are stuffed with sugar instead to make them taste OK, plus would have happily eaten hi carb diets, as thats what was ‘good for them’. This will all eventually have an impact on people’s health as they reach middle age, late 30s, early 40s.

  5. It’s very hard to know what’s happening with T2 diabetes because they’ve changed the definition threshold at least once. Such threshold changes are always, by the First Law of Fascist Fuckers, in the direction of making things look worse.

  6. Interesting article.
    Logically the absence of BCG does not cause diabetes or everyone in the pre-BCG would have had diabetes: more the absence of BCG perrmits diabetes to occur in a minority of people for whom the side-effect of BCG would have acted as a preventative.
    That doesn’t seem enough justification for universal vaccination, but it is for a large-scale trial of BCG on diabetics which could find out which categories of diabetic will/will not be helped and identify any bad side-effects.

  7. I had the BCG at school.

    I have diabetes, but I do not have TB.

    Swings and roundabouts….

    ( actually a bit molesworthian, as he sa “on the whole i think measles is better than mumps.” )

  8. @ bnlio
    So BCG did what it said on the tin but didn’t wave a magic wand …
    Still worth finding out if it will help some diabetics

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.