The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here:<p><a href="http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabetes-peptide.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabete...</a><p>Is equally useless, nearly a copy/paste. The older report, here:<p><a href="http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/dimarchi-obesity-study.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/...</a><p>Makes it very clear that this is a <i>treatment</i> for diabetes, not a cure.
Here is the paper in question (PDF): <a href="http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf</a>
> essentially cured [...] fully potent [...] unprecedented [...] unparalleled<p>Is anybody else getting a strong "too good to be true" vibe from all these unqualified superlatives?<p>"New single-cell molecules with triple-hormone action" sounds like somebody's already planning the marketing campaign.
Both obesity and type 2 diabetes are for the vast majority of sufferers voluntary conditions. These people choose to suffer these conditions, and further, every day make the choice again to continue to suffer these conditions. Even very late in the process type 2 diabetes can be turned back by aggressive use of low-calorie dieting [1]. Obesity can be reversed just by the exercise of willpower in the very same way.<p>It is a fascinating statement on the human condition that research for medical methods of treatment that do not require a patient to try to alter their lifestyle or calorie intake receives so very much funding in comparison to, say, meaningful research into aging, or any one of hundreds of medical conditions in which the patient has absolutely no choice in the matter.<p>[1]: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909</a>