DR. SANJAY VASHI, Sub-Continent Homeopath
- Thread starter Psiload
- Start date
Rolfe
Adult human female
In another thread a few weeks back we did some arithmetic and demonstrated that at 6X (1 ppm - 6C would be 0.01 ppm)) only a small handful of very potent poisons (such as Botulinum toxin) were going to have a physiological effect in the sort of quantity a homoeoapthic dose entails, and even then only if you assumed an improbably concentrated mother tincture.delphi_ote said:
Nevertheless, it does seem reasonable to confine the paranormal challenge to the molecule-free end of homoeopathy. Then one can reasonably accept a claim that the applicant can distinguish the homoeopathic remedy from the stock solvent, and not really care how he actually does it.
Rolfe.
deathphoenix
New Blood
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16
Winterfrost said:
Yep, that's the mistake I made, though I was specifically thinking of herbal remedies. I've seen herbalists successfully for the treatment of a few minor conditions. However, I believe that such successes have a basis on scientific fact (such as certain chemicals present in the herbs), and thus I was confused about homeopathy being based on science and not the paranormal.
[delurk]
You should have seen my realization. My introductory psychology professor explained what it is during the section of his class on experimental design. You could have seen most of the 400 students in the room do that simultaneously.
[/delurk]
Psiload said:
You should have seen my realization. My introductory psychology professor explained what it is during the section of his class on experimental design. You could have seen most of the 400 students in the room do that simultaneously.
[/delurk]
Octothorpe
Student
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 27
Forgive my ignorance...
I am correct in reading that Dr. Vashi is going to allow his subjects to continue taking their normal insulin doses during the test? And, that before the test, an independant physician will verify that yes, these folks do indeed have diabetes. And that insulin itself is not considered a drug that "masks the effects of diabetes" - that is, a physician can still determine if someone is diabetic even though they are taking insulin.
Just trying to keep up with the plot of the show...
I am correct in reading that Dr. Vashi is going to allow his subjects to continue taking their normal insulin doses during the test? And, that before the test, an independant physician will verify that yes, these folks do indeed have diabetes. And that insulin itself is not considered a drug that "masks the effects of diabetes" - that is, a physician can still determine if someone is diabetic even though they are taking insulin.
Just trying to keep up with the plot of the show...
The subject, according to my understanding, will be "weened" off the insulin, and eventually declared "cured". At that point, the subject will be isolated, and observed, very carefully, as this could be a very dangerous test if not properly supervised by a physician.
We will insist that a proper MD be the lead member of the investigative team for this applicant. We would also be confident that no funny stuff will be taking place during the test, thanks to the good doctor's expertise and critical thinking skills.
We will insist that a proper MD be the lead member of the investigative team for this applicant. We would also be confident that no funny stuff will be taking place during the test, thanks to the good doctor's expertise and critical thinking skills.
Octothorpe
Student
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 27
Thanks Kramer, that is what I was wondering. I couldn't imagine that he was actually proposing that a diabetic stop taking insulin, yet I guess that's exactly what Dr. Vashi IS proposing. I know the JREF will take all the proper precautions as this sounds like dangerous business. Thanks again.
Serious Concerns!
I haven't been following this thread for a while. Last time I looked the discussion was about a skin disorder and lupus. Now, it's diabetes, and I am seriously concerned.
This will be a double-blind study, right? It will be the homeopathic medicine, as prepared by Dr. Sanjay, that will be tested, right? Not the interaction between the homeopath and the patient, right?
That may be all taken care of, or soon will be, but I will express my concerns anyway.
A while back Kramer said the JREF would not jeopardize an AIDS patient. So why do it to a diabetic? Diabetes can kill quicker than AIDS, can cause as much suffering and disability, and certainly as much pain. It isn't contagious and it doesn't strike as many young people. But it still has the capacity to be deadly or disabling.
In type I diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes, the pancreas does not produce insulin. Any attempt to wean such a patient off insulin under the supervision of a homeopath would be entirely unethical because it could threaten the patient's vision, kidney funtion, limbs and life. It wouldn't work. The weaning couldn't take place, so maybe ethical considerations are not that big, as long as an M.D. was allowed to oversee the homeopath during every aspect of the weaning phase.
But what about type II diabetes?
In type II -- also known as adult on-set diabetes -- diet, exercise and weight reduction should be the cornerstone of management.
Type II diabetes has a genetic component, but it is largely a disease of lifestyle -- excess weight, not enough exercise, too much stress, poor eating choices.
If the subject is weaned off insulin while also undergoing supervised changes in lifestyle, and then put into isolation for 72 hours with the lifestyle changes still in effect, they could easily appear "cured." Homeopathy would have nothing to do with it. It would be the result of the lifestyle changes.
The cure would last as long as the lifestyle changes lasted. That's my main concern. A gullible patient could be convinced they were cured by homeopathy, when, in fact, their blood sugar improvements were the result of supervised lifestyle changes during the weaning phase.
The test ends, the patients goes off with a vial of homeopathic pills, resumes the old lifestyle, and goes blind, loses a limb or croaks.
Diabetes is the wrong disease to test homeopathy. It seems unethical to use a life-threatening illness in a paranormal challenge. Let me state that a little more strongly: IT'S FREAKING CRAZY!
Bottom line: The patient could die. Maybe not during the test, but it doesn't take long for a crisis to appear once the old lifestyle habits are resumed. A couple days, a week, a month after the supervised portion of the test ended, the patient who had been convinced to give up insulin could be dead.
During the test, the JREF and its associates will take all the proper precautions. After the test, zip.
If this test goes forward using a diabetic, then the protocol must insist that during the weaning phase not one word of counseling or coaching or suggestion regarding diet, exercise, stress reduction or weight loss be allowed. Not one word.
Dr. Vashi prepares his homeopathic medicine and that's all he does. It is administered in a double-blind fashion with a test subject and with a control subject who's getting ... uh ... plain water or placebo pills.
Oops.
I've stumbled into absurdity here. Are you all laughing at me? It's all right. I deserve it.
Gayle
edited to change it's to its
I haven't been following this thread for a while. Last time I looked the discussion was about a skin disorder and lupus. Now, it's diabetes, and I am seriously concerned.
This will be a double-blind study, right? It will be the homeopathic medicine, as prepared by Dr. Sanjay, that will be tested, right? Not the interaction between the homeopath and the patient, right?
That may be all taken care of, or soon will be, but I will express my concerns anyway.
A while back Kramer said the JREF would not jeopardize an AIDS patient. So why do it to a diabetic? Diabetes can kill quicker than AIDS, can cause as much suffering and disability, and certainly as much pain. It isn't contagious and it doesn't strike as many young people. But it still has the capacity to be deadly or disabling.
In type I diabetes, also called juvenile diabetes, the pancreas does not produce insulin. Any attempt to wean such a patient off insulin under the supervision of a homeopath would be entirely unethical because it could threaten the patient's vision, kidney funtion, limbs and life. It wouldn't work. The weaning couldn't take place, so maybe ethical considerations are not that big, as long as an M.D. was allowed to oversee the homeopath during every aspect of the weaning phase.
But what about type II diabetes?
In type II -- also known as adult on-set diabetes -- diet, exercise and weight reduction should be the cornerstone of management.
Type II diabetes has a genetic component, but it is largely a disease of lifestyle -- excess weight, not enough exercise, too much stress, poor eating choices.
If the subject is weaned off insulin while also undergoing supervised changes in lifestyle, and then put into isolation for 72 hours with the lifestyle changes still in effect, they could easily appear "cured." Homeopathy would have nothing to do with it. It would be the result of the lifestyle changes.
The cure would last as long as the lifestyle changes lasted. That's my main concern. A gullible patient could be convinced they were cured by homeopathy, when, in fact, their blood sugar improvements were the result of supervised lifestyle changes during the weaning phase.
The test ends, the patients goes off with a vial of homeopathic pills, resumes the old lifestyle, and goes blind, loses a limb or croaks.
Diabetes is the wrong disease to test homeopathy. It seems unethical to use a life-threatening illness in a paranormal challenge. Let me state that a little more strongly: IT'S FREAKING CRAZY!
Bottom line: The patient could die. Maybe not during the test, but it doesn't take long for a crisis to appear once the old lifestyle habits are resumed. A couple days, a week, a month after the supervised portion of the test ended, the patient who had been convinced to give up insulin could be dead.
During the test, the JREF and its associates will take all the proper precautions. After the test, zip.
If this test goes forward using a diabetic, then the protocol must insist that during the weaning phase not one word of counseling or coaching or suggestion regarding diet, exercise, stress reduction or weight loss be allowed. Not one word.
Dr. Vashi prepares his homeopathic medicine and that's all he does. It is administered in a double-blind fashion with a test subject and with a control subject who's getting ... uh ... plain water or placebo pills.
Oops.
I've stumbled into absurdity here. Are you all laughing at me? It's all right. I deserve it.
Gayle
edited to change it's to its
Re: Serious Concerns!
I've been lurking on this one too, and I think your concerns are valid.
I agree, and still think any type of "curing a patient" is rather slippery for the JREF not just for safety of the patient, but for ensuring a double blind process an independant evaluator can clearly identify.
Controls need to be very very very tight.
I think just having him identify his treatments next to just water is a good way to test his claims. Forget the effect, can he even identify the treatment? I would guess no.
Though he didn't suggest that protocol...
Gayle said:
I've been lurking on this one too, and I think your concerns are valid.
I agree, and still think any type of "curing a patient" is rather slippery for the JREF not just for safety of the patient, but for ensuring a double blind process an independant evaluator can clearly identify.
Controls need to be very very very tight.
I think just having him identify his treatments next to just water is a good way to test his claims. Forget the effect, can he even identify the treatment? I would guess no.
Though he didn't suggest that protocol...
Kramer wrote this to Dr. Vashi:
That's not a good test. It will not work with a type II diabetic. Dr. Vashi could "cure" a diabetic with diet, weight loss and exercise. The cure would hold for the 72 hours of isolation as long as reasonable and regular meals were served.
It probably wouldn't work on a patient who had become insulin-dependent. But most type II diabetics are classed as insulin-resistant.
If Dr. Vashi (or anyone) found a patient in the early stages of insulin-resistant diabetes, he could "cure" the disease with lifestyle changes. The cure could hold for 72 hours, as long as the patient was fed reasonable and regular meals during the isolation period.
Likely outcomes of such a test ...
1. The JREF loses its million.
2. The JREF seemingly helps to prove that homeopathy works.
3. The JREF possibly assists in convincing the patient to abandon proper treatment for a disabling and deadly disease.
Number one would be annoying, number two would be embarrassing, number three would be unethical.
Please rethink this test.
Gayle
That's not a good test. It will not work with a type II diabetic. Dr. Vashi could "cure" a diabetic with diet, weight loss and exercise. The cure would hold for the 72 hours of isolation as long as reasonable and regular meals were served.
It probably wouldn't work on a patient who had become insulin-dependent. But most type II diabetics are classed as insulin-resistant.
If Dr. Vashi (or anyone) found a patient in the early stages of insulin-resistant diabetes, he could "cure" the disease with lifestyle changes. The cure could hold for 72 hours, as long as the patient was fed reasonable and regular meals during the isolation period.
Likely outcomes of such a test ...
1. The JREF loses its million.
2. The JREF seemingly helps to prove that homeopathy works.
3. The JREF possibly assists in convincing the patient to abandon proper treatment for a disabling and deadly disease.
Number one would be annoying, number two would be embarrassing, number three would be unethical.
Please rethink this test.
Gayle
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
I agree. Patient must be type 1, insulin dependent. But then there is an ethical issue.
Another warning: It is difficult to find out who is who of these doctors, but one of them har a reputation in homeopahtic circles of mixing conventional meds and homeopathy, so any protocol must also ensure that only homeopathic treatment is used.
I think the JREF is getting out in the deep here. Eficacy of medical treatment is not something you can test with simple protocols. I think you should leave this area to the professionals.
Restrict homeopathic challenges to distinguishing between a remedy and placebo. That is something that can be handled within the capabilities of the JREF.
Hans
Another warning: It is difficult to find out who is who of these doctors, but one of them har a reputation in homeopahtic circles of mixing conventional meds and homeopathy, so any protocol must also ensure that only homeopathic treatment is used.
I think the JREF is getting out in the deep here. Eficacy of medical treatment is not something you can test with simple protocols. I think you should leave this area to the professionals.
Restrict homeopathic challenges to distinguishing between a remedy and placebo. That is something that can be handled within the capabilities of the JREF.
Hans
Rolfe
Adult human female
I agree. This is not a good test, and it is definitely susceptible to manipulation. A single "cure" on a single subject doesn't sound like a good risk to put the million to. One person's health can vary for all sorts of reasons.
To start with, you'd need to be very very sure you had an extremely insulin-dependent patient, who was already on the best diet and exercise regimen posible, but still couldn't do without insulin. Then you'd need to do the 72-hour test before the homoeopath got anywhere near him, to confirm that blood glucose would really increase significantly under those circumstances.
This all sounds ethically very dubious to me, and it still puts all the stake on a single patient, which is not a good idea in my opinion. I'm not sure the JREF should be involving itself in something like this.
You've got a perfectly acceptable challenge available. Homoeopathy depends on the assertion that the magic sugar pills cause recognisable symptoms in healthy people. So, show, by observing whether or not these symptoms appear, whether you've been given the potentised remedy or a sham. And do it often enough to show you're not just a good guesser. (And if you think you can do it by HPLC or mass spectroscopy or thermoluminescence or even degranulating basophils, then yes, that's also acceptable.)
Homoeopaths frequently claim to be able to do this. In fact, it's the most common response to a sceptic - just take this 30C remedy for a few days and you'll be converted because of those unmistakable symptoms you'll feel. Sanjay Vashi almost certainly believes this - it's a fundamental part of homoeopathic teaching.
But it's an awful lot easier to scam the system by claiming magical cures.
Rolfe.
To start with, you'd need to be very very sure you had an extremely insulin-dependent patient, who was already on the best diet and exercise regimen posible, but still couldn't do without insulin. Then you'd need to do the 72-hour test before the homoeopath got anywhere near him, to confirm that blood glucose would really increase significantly under those circumstances.
This all sounds ethically very dubious to me, and it still puts all the stake on a single patient, which is not a good idea in my opinion. I'm not sure the JREF should be involving itself in something like this.
You've got a perfectly acceptable challenge available. Homoeopathy depends on the assertion that the magic sugar pills cause recognisable symptoms in healthy people. So, show, by observing whether or not these symptoms appear, whether you've been given the potentised remedy or a sham. And do it often enough to show you're not just a good guesser. (And if you think you can do it by HPLC or mass spectroscopy or thermoluminescence or even degranulating basophils, then yes, that's also acceptable.)
Homoeopaths frequently claim to be able to do this. In fact, it's the most common response to a sceptic - just take this 30C remedy for a few days and you'll be converted because of those unmistakable symptoms you'll feel. Sanjay Vashi almost certainly believes this - it's a fundamental part of homoeopathic teaching.
But it's an awful lot easier to scam the system by claiming magical cures.
Rolfe.
sami_sdata
Student
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 32
You could specify they use someone with type 1 diabetes. Type 1 cases are totally insulin dependent. Don't make the test period without injection 72 hours. With a type 1 they would be hospitalized for ketoacidosis by then. If you use someone on an insulin infusion pump just shot off and disconnect the pump. mg/Dl of glucose should start elevating very quickly. You should have definate proof that they still need insulin. It might be worth while to try to get the advice of an endocrynologist for the sake of safety as well as the the reliability of the test.
The link below is a FAQ on diabetes. It starts with a description of the different types of the condition.
http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=103442
The link below is a FAQ on diabetes. It starts with a description of the different types of the condition.
http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=103442
Rolfe said:
Good News From Kramer
As I stated previously, I've had some serious concerns about this test because type II diabetes can be controlled through weight loss, diet and exercise. Such a patient can be weaned off insulin and they will appear "cured" for a while. However, control is not the same thing as cure. As soon as the patient returned to the previous, uncontrolled lifestyle, the diabetic symptoms would return, perhaps with dire consequences.
Kramer PMed to let me know the concerns voiced in this thread have been taken into consideration. A doctor will make sure nothing slips by.
Kramer gave me permission to pass on this information in the forums: He said, "ANYONE can PM me [Kramer] at their heart's desire."
He said he'll spend no less time reading the Challenge section of the forums than he did previously, he simply will not be posting. He said he considers the input he receives here invaluable and he can't see how he could possibly jettison it.
I'm relieved and happy to hear that. This particular challenge application has caused me considerable concern because it's dealing with a disease that can be deadly or disabling. Full disclosure: It disabled my mother for several years and helped kill her. It did kill another relative's 40 year old husband. I know way more about diabetes than I would like to know.
I strongly urge any forum participants who have medical or personal knowledge of homeopathy or diabetes to continue posting in this thread or to PM Kramer if you have concerns.
He's out there reading this. Can't you feel his chi energy?
Nope, me neither.
Gayle
As I stated previously, I've had some serious concerns about this test because type II diabetes can be controlled through weight loss, diet and exercise. Such a patient can be weaned off insulin and they will appear "cured" for a while. However, control is not the same thing as cure. As soon as the patient returned to the previous, uncontrolled lifestyle, the diabetic symptoms would return, perhaps with dire consequences.
Kramer PMed to let me know the concerns voiced in this thread have been taken into consideration. A doctor will make sure nothing slips by.
Kramer gave me permission to pass on this information in the forums: He said, "ANYONE can PM me [Kramer] at their heart's desire."
He said he'll spend no less time reading the Challenge section of the forums than he did previously, he simply will not be posting. He said he considers the input he receives here invaluable and he can't see how he could possibly jettison it.
I'm relieved and happy to hear that. This particular challenge application has caused me considerable concern because it's dealing with a disease that can be deadly or disabling. Full disclosure: It disabled my mother for several years and helped kill her. It did kill another relative's 40 year old husband. I know way more about diabetes than I would like to know.
I strongly urge any forum participants who have medical or personal knowledge of homeopathy or diabetes to continue posting in this thread or to PM Kramer if you have concerns.
He's out there reading this. Can't you feel his chi energy?
Nope, me neither.
Gayle
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
If you're got a magic cure for Type II diabetes, don't keep it to yourself. Get us some verifiable data, such as passing the JREF challenge. Or just about any independently replicated double-blind control study. My dad sure could use it. (Keeps it well under control with diet, exercise, and some medication. Last checkup, the doctor said it would have been hard to distinguish him from a non-diabetic, going by some of the tests he had done.)
Bronzedog, congratulations to your father for keeping his diabetes under good control. As you reported, his own doctor says it would now be difficult to distinguish him from a non-diabetic, going by some tests he's had.
That's my point. A carefully selected patient in the early stages of non-insulin dependent diabetes (type 2,) who was brought under control in a supervised environment, could appear cured for 72 hours under certain conditions. There would be nothing paranormal or homeopathic about it.
Control is not cure.
Control can be lost. That can lead to dire consequences. Hence, my concern over the use of a diabetic patient in the Challenge.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990515ap/2835.html
Someday, perhaps even in our lifetimes, there may be a cure for diabetes. When that happens, the million dollar prize won't come from the JREF, but more likely from the Nobel Committee.
Gayle
That's my point. A carefully selected patient in the early stages of non-insulin dependent diabetes (type 2,) who was brought under control in a supervised environment, could appear cured for 72 hours under certain conditions. There would be nothing paranormal or homeopathic about it.
Control is not cure.
Control can be lost. That can lead to dire consequences. Hence, my concern over the use of a diabetic patient in the Challenge.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/990515ap/2835.html
Someday, perhaps even in our lifetimes, there may be a cure for diabetes. When that happens, the million dollar prize won't come from the JREF, but more likely from the Nobel Committee.
Gayle
I'd like to rephrase the situation slightly.
The proposed testing method actually seems to be testing NOT homeopathy NOR the homeopath but merely the patient. It is simply a test of how long the patient can go without meds until serious if not potentially fatal problems occur. In some patients this may be indefinitely, in others it may be but hours or days. Overall, it's neither a reliable test, nor is it properly directed, and it's bad PR to boot.
I would like to reiterate my support for the proposed method where the homeopath has to reliably and consistently distinguish between blank solvent (or substrate) and "potentised" solvent (or substrate) under DBPC conditions. This is actually a test of both the homeopath AND a prime homeopathic paradigm. It potentially harms no-one but the testee themself, and therefore requires THEM ALONE to produce the phenomenon. PR-wise, if they carry it off, they bring kudos on themselves. If not, well...
I would vote no to the live trials on patients - it's bad news all round.
The proposed testing method actually seems to be testing NOT homeopathy NOR the homeopath but merely the patient. It is simply a test of how long the patient can go without meds until serious if not potentially fatal problems occur. In some patients this may be indefinitely, in others it may be but hours or days. Overall, it's neither a reliable test, nor is it properly directed, and it's bad PR to boot.
I would like to reiterate my support for the proposed method where the homeopath has to reliably and consistently distinguish between blank solvent (or substrate) and "potentised" solvent (or substrate) under DBPC conditions. This is actually a test of both the homeopath AND a prime homeopathic paradigm. It potentially harms no-one but the testee themself, and therefore requires THEM ALONE to produce the phenomenon. PR-wise, if they carry it off, they bring kudos on themselves. If not, well...
I would vote no to the live trials on patients - it's bad news all round.
Zep, I completely agree with you.
We'll have to watch the thread that KRAMER maintains in the official Challenge forum for news of this test.
In the meantime, KRAMER did say anyone could PM him. He's reading and paying attention to the forums, too.
To me, doing trials on a living patient, even a fully informed volunteer, represents great ethical concerns for the JREF because it could endanger the patient's well-being.
It doesn't matter what the disease, if it's life-threatening or disabling, then a living patient should not be used in the tests. It's too risky.
I suggest toenail fungus or age spots be cured by homeopathy. It would be easy to do a double-blind study. Nobody's life would be endangered. If it worked, it would be a great service to humanity.
Gayle
We'll have to watch the thread that KRAMER maintains in the official Challenge forum for news of this test.
In the meantime, KRAMER did say anyone could PM him. He's reading and paying attention to the forums, too.
To me, doing trials on a living patient, even a fully informed volunteer, represents great ethical concerns for the JREF because it could endanger the patient's well-being.
It doesn't matter what the disease, if it's life-threatening or disabling, then a living patient should not be used in the tests. It's too risky.
I suggest toenail fungus or age spots be cured by homeopathy. It would be easy to do a double-blind study. Nobody's life would be endangered. If it worked, it would be a great service to humanity.
Gayle
sami_sdata
Student
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 32
This is part of the reason diabetes is listed as a "chronic condition" by mose inurance companies instead of a disease. The condition can have many causes. Insulin resistance, insulin deficiency, or even a total lack of natural insulin, all cause the elevated blood-glucose levels that are diabetes. By changing your diet, weight loss, and exercise the symptom of the condition can be removed in type 2 diabetes. Type 1, although it shares the symptom has different causes. Any claim of a cure for diabetes by normalizing blood-sugar is a bit like claiming theraflu cures a cold. All it really does is treat the sypmtoms. In a type 1 diabetic this cure would have to either replace or regrow the islet cells that have been killed off by the bodies own imune system.
Disclaimer: I'm not an endocrynologist nor do I play one on television. I'm just the father of a 12 year old type 1 who was diagnosed 5 years ago.
Disclaimer: I'm not an endocrynologist nor do I play one on television. I'm just the father of a 12 year old type 1 who was diagnosed 5 years ago.
Gayle said:
Missing anatomy parts!
In his latest communication with Kramer, the good 'doctor' said:
"...I donot have any objection regarding your diabetes proposal. The only condition is the patient should not be a case of Juvenile diabetes which I think should be acceptable to you. To get cured of diabetes one should have the pancrease in the body atleast."
Why would anyone trust their heath to a 'doctor' of any kind who thinks that juvenile diabetes is caused by a lack of a pancreas in the body?
This guy is nuts and dangerous; or dangerous and nuts, if you prefer.
In his latest communication with Kramer, the good 'doctor' said:
"...I donot have any objection regarding your diabetes proposal. The only condition is the patient should not be a case of Juvenile diabetes which I think should be acceptable to you. To get cured of diabetes one should have the pancrease in the body atleast."
Why would anyone trust their heath to a 'doctor' of any kind who thinks that juvenile diabetes is caused by a lack of a pancreas in the body?
This guy is nuts and dangerous; or dangerous and nuts, if you prefer.