Along with many other conditions which some people errantly call “impossible.”
I’m dumbfounded by the percent of clinical experts who don’t read their own journals. Scientific inquiry is a constant pursuit with an unending forward march. Yet, I’ve met incredibly well-respected and very highly paid professionals who are unaware of the current state of science, even in their own field. I once shadowed a revered cardiologist who didn’t seem to have read a single publication in Cardiology, JAMA, the Annals of Internal Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, or really anything notable since maybe the late 70s. What do you even say to someone who is avoiding the input of his own peer group?
With regard to prediabetes and type 2 diabetes, I run into this far too often. Even though there are peer-reviewed papers and numerous case studies PROVING the reversal of type 2 diabetes, there is a prevailing belief among specialists and the lay audience that it’s hopeless.
On the rare occasion that someone has any interest in evidence and legitimate science, I might forward them the three pages of citations for studies showing the reversal of diabetes: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/.../Web%20list%20of%20reversal...
Unfortunately, as we’ve all witnessed over the past 4 or 5 years, however, individuals are increasingly unwilling to acknowledge the very evidence and reality directly in front of all our faces. So, I’m not particularly hopeful that beliefs based on facts and repeatedly verifiable testing will prevail.
Nonetheless, here are ample examples of shifts in the very well-understood functions of glucose intolerance and insulin sensitivity.
When you have tons of former type-2 diabetics who have no measurable evidence of the disease 2 years later, it’s time to let go of the ill-informed fairytale that people can’t improve health once they’ve obtained a label that we consider a “diagnosis.”
I’ve mentioned this before:
And a few other times: