Well, type 2 is definitely curable and reversible. type 1 diabetes..... yea no.

Type 2 can be managed, mitigated, and treated; but it cannot (currently) be cured. The actions taken may prevent all the symptoms, but the underlying condition is still there.

Hyperinsulinemia is reversible. You reverse insulin resistance by stopping the constant, excessive stimulation of insulin. That's the disease, that's what does the most damage over the longest period of time years and years before an a1c exceeds the thresholds on a test. Once people restore their sensitivity to insulin and they change their diet, eating habits, they don't have type 2 diabetes. They have normal a1c, they have normal Kraft tests. They don't need medical intervention. They don't need drugs anymore. They will have normal a1c and healthy glucose metabolism proved by advanced lipid panels. We've known since the Kraft tests in the 1970s that type 2 diabetes can be predicted atleast 5-10 years before an elevated a1c would allow a doctor to diagnose a patient as type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance is accurately measurable for decades now. Type 2 diabetes is curable.

All of the things you've stated can also be explained as it being mitigated / in remission. It's no longer effecting the person, but that doesn't mean they no longer have the "condition".

To quote diabetic.org [1]

> So, can type 2 diabetes be cured? The answer is no. Type 2 diabetes is a chronic medical condition with no cure.

> Instead, it’s best to look at it as a manageable condition. For some people, remission is possible.

[1] https://www.diabetic.org/type-2-diabetes-can-it-be-cured/

The American Diabetes Assocation is not an organization I would trust very much. The advice on those websites is honestly laughable, deliberately misleading. I think the UK's version is even worse basically gaslighting. I could list a bunch of examples. It's actually shocking to read the UK's version there is so much careful misleading wording. Here's the official press release when they added that blurb about "remission" that you quote:

https://diabetes.org/newsroom/press-releases/2021/internatio...

2021? That's them being forced to play catch up LOL. That's a joke.

"Type 2 Diabetes is a chronic disease that can only be managed" was the mantra they stuck to and wouldn't budge, refusing to acknowledge growing science and even evidence from decades ago that was buried by bias. They couldn't ignore it any longer. They basically were forced to finally change their statements, they could no longer hide behind "Type 2 diabetes is chronic and only manageable."

"It's no longer effecting the person, but that doesn't mean they no longer have the "condition".

Again, if the person has normal a1c, normal cpeptide test, normal response in a Kraft test, normal lipid panel even if LDL is high, completely healthy NMR on LDL particles, normal healthy advanced lipid panel, biopsy shows healthy liver function, BMI normal. They have HEALTHY NORMAL glucose metabolism by all measurable standards.

What other "condition" do they still have that evidences type 2 diabetes? What test or evidence shows any evidence of "the condition". They may have damage leftover from all the harm that T2D causes, yes. But those are not T2D

It's the same story as the failed diet lipid hypothesis - incredible bias and ignorance, beaurocratic dsyfunction over many years. Why does the American Diabetes Assocation accept funding from Pepsi and Coke? Lol.

The American Diabetes Assocation and the UK's version of that are the LAST organizations I would trust for the latest science on metabolic syndrome. They're funded by food industry and drug makers, atleast in US. I've lost most of my trust for them.

I mean, I'm pretty sure you'd have heard about that from about a million other outlets before seeing it here, no? It'd be Nobel Prize winning level stuff.

yeah me too. :-( dang should change the clickbaity title.

No one involved in typography, typesetting, DTP, and graphic design (the target audience) would even conflate this title with diabetes...

The website is called "typenetwork" even.

Not everything is "clickbait"...

"type" is a very common and overloaded word. Consider its meaning for designers, programmers, taxonomy, keyboard enthusiasts, diabetics, Pokemon fans, and so on.

The website being called "typenetwork" doesn't clarify much to me.

If I had to pick a topic to associate "type 1" with, it would be diabetes, personally.

You're absolutely right that it's not clickbait, but it is confusing, considering we're not on a website focused on typography or graphic design.

>"type" is a very common and overloaded word

Yes. Just not in the audience of that publication.

You're just not their type of reader (pun intended)

The point is that the HN title should be changed in this case, even though the normal advice is to keep the original title.

The request was not to change the title on the linked website, but have a HN title reflect the clarification that is important for many HN readers.

My thoughts went; diabetes.. network provider. I have worked extensively with PS Type 1 fonts. The title is unnecessary short, even if this was a PostScript working group.

Which made me think it was going to be about Haskell.

I clicked the comments here just to find out what type 1 means, I saw that the site was called "typenetwork", and that didn't mean anything to me.

It might not be clickbait as in it is not intentionally misleading, but it still is a very confusing title.

Not everyone that visits this site is a typography expert...