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.