Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blatantninja t1_j6062q5 wrote

Reply to comment by sickciety in TIL, since the 1970s, precision fermentation has been used to produce the majority of the world's insulin. Before that, it came from slaughtered cows and pigs. by oodaalolly_joy

And companies could still produce the older insulin formulations

7

sickciety t1_j607t85 wrote

Not without gmo yeast .

They patented the process of making the yeast also

The only way I could see some company producing those older insulins is through a completely new process , say someone modified a fungus to produce that older type of insulin

They would not be able to produce even the Humalog because the drug itself is patented

−2

blatantninja t1_j608tyx wrote

You need GMO yeast for the method that Eli Lilly uses. The older processes, going all the way back to the 1926 discover, do not use GMO yeast. The problem is that these versions of insulin are not as effective as what Eli Lilly has developed.

9

sickciety t1_j609yok wrote

You do know how those older insulins were produced right ? Before the gmo yeast project the insulin was made from pork slaughterhouse waste .

Yes it can be done but not in large amounts

There was a female chemist who during ww2 in britain produced enough insulin this way for her and 2 other people in her town . They had to starve themselves of carbs and sugars so they could use less insulin.

By the end of the war she had slaughtered her families entire pig farm ( they were the largest pig farm in the uk at the time and they went bankrupt trying to keep their daughter alive . It was just enough insulin just for those 3 people even while rationing it just wouldn't be enough for a wider population

Here's a good source of info

https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/11/two-tons-of-pig-parts-making-insulin-in-the-1920s.html

2 tons of pig pancreas will produce 8 ozs of insulin .

4

blatantninja t1_j60aj13 wrote

Yes, it is derived from animals,that is correct. I'm sure this chemist wasn't exactly able to be efficient. I believe we still have plenty of slaughterhouse waste being produced everyday.

Prior to 1976 large amounts of insulin were produced in a manner to be efficient enough to be available to the general public

6

sickciety t1_j60d392 wrote

I dont think you realize how much the population of diabetics has increased . Nor how the Lilly corporation has gone to great lengths to protected their ip and profit margin

I can tell ill never change your mind . I listed sources , made my argument and have gotten bored of this conversation.

You may not realize how bad of an issue it is until your an old man and have to pay 200$ for 1oz of insulin that lasts about 2 weeks if kept cold . We are all so ignorant of things until they affect us or the ones we love. I have a 10yo who was diagnosed t1 at 18 months old .

It doesn't take much research to realize the insulin industry was turned into a monopoly by Lilly .

2

blatantninja t1_j60eiph wrote

I'm Pre-diabetic. My father is diabetic. My grandmother was diabetic. I am VERY familiar with diabetes.

Yes the industry had been turned into a monoply withe their GMO yeast and processes. No one is stopping anyone from making the older versions though. Would it be enough for the whole population? No. Any increase in supply and alternatives would help the overall price situation though. Its basic economics.

1

sickciety t1_j60h56y wrote

Maybe you should do it. Since it's so easy and your the first one to see a viable option to increase supply with waste products . Its not like there arent actual chemist, biologists and genetic engineers who also want to increase supply and provide a viable cheaper option who are actively sued or stopped from doing so . But we dont live in a free market . If it were a free market we would have 1$ insulin like india . You don't have to explain economics to me , im a libertarian and quite well understand we dont live in a perfect capitalist society . But I think human health and life are more important than Lilly's profit margin .

Honestly were just arguing over something neither of us could actually help to solve the issue.

My issue is with the patenting of life and the overpriced medication that is a lifeline for diabetics . When your life depends on a medication they can charge whatever they want and you will pay it . Thats not economics , thats not fair market pricing .... thats just sick!

2

blatantninja t1_j60z94s wrote

Of course neither of us are going to do it. Neither of us have the capital or expertise. That's irrelevant to the point of their existing other avenues.

> If it were a free market we would have 1$ insulin like india .

No we wouldn't. Insulin is cheaper (but it isn't $1) in India for several reasons, one of which is that the government purchases large amounts of it at bulk prices and gives it away for free. That's not even close to a free market.

>You don't have to explain economics to me , im a libertarian and quite well understand we dont live in a perfect capitalist society . But I think human health and life are more important than Lilly's profit margin .

Those two statements are a huge contradiction. No real libertarian would say that. A libertarian would say "let the market decide" and leave it at that.

Ultimately, your problem is that our healthcare system, top to bottom, is messed up, but a free market won't solve that.

1

sickciety t1_j61b5ll wrote

I disagree with you . But that's completely fine

Its been interesting debating back and forth with ya . Have a great night

1