I literally worked in a research lab working on islet cell therapies for diabetes in the US. This has actually been done many times before with cells from cadavers. It has been successful, although most the of the time the person reverts back after a few years
The issues we were trying to solve in the lab were
Finding a good place to transplant where the cells will last: Implanting in the hepatic region (liver), which is the most common place to implant, is toxic to the cells over time hence only lasting 3-5 years. The cells need a really good blood supply and the volume you're transplanting can't be easily transplanted in the pancreas or kidney capsules (where many successful studies were performed in mice and rats)
Being able to consistently make a high volume of stem cells that are fully grown into insulin producing cells:
Cadaver cells usually require 3-5 donors for 1 person and require the receiver to be on lifelong immunosuppresors due to the immune response. Depending on the kind of stem cells, the patient may still even need immunosuppresors due to the cell type you're converting from
All this the say - the article says nothing about where the cells where transplanted, where they came from, or whether the person has Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. Although it is still a feat, it is likely not the first time it has been done, and we're still a long ways off from a cure
Interesting. So if you chose the hard route (implant in the pancreas through invasive surgery) would that effectively cure you? I'm betting many people would be willing to take the risks
A single patient was weaned off blood sugar medication over a year and hasn't redeveloped diabetes in almost three years.
There's obviously a lot more research into the cell therapy process and many more patients are going to have to undergo this therapy in controlled conditions before we can call it a new cure.
Right now, this is an interesting medical anomaly that occurred over more than a year of treatment in which someone's pancreatic process was restored in correlation with a new cell therapy.
First human trial for a treatment strategy passed (notably, we know that placebo treatments for diabetes fail). This more than passes the bar to justify further large-scale human trials and, clinically, is a very strong indicator of success.
What, is it not a cure until it's available to the public?
Well, the phrase is, "the plural of anecdote is not statistic." In this case, we only have a single case, so it doesn't even escape "anecdote." I think at that point, there isn't yet a scientific basis to call it a "cure."
It justifies, in fact begs for human trials, but a single unregulated data point from a single moment is hardly a cure.
It becomes a cure after the treatment is isolated from mitigating factors and acutely applied to the same disorder in many patients in controlled conditions with peer-reviewed and independently confirmed repeatable results over time.
