I get it, we've all got anecdotal evidence that some can eat **** food and not become diabetic and some can eat healthily and yet become diabetic.
This is largely irrelevant to the wider point.
There is a population of people (Set A) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - but they don't because they are sensible in their eating habits.
There is a population of people (Set B) who have the potential to become diabetic because of diet - and they do because they are less sensible in their eating habits. (lets not get into a debate about what sense has to do with it)
Set B can be further divided into sub groups, two of which are:
Set B1: those who remain diabetic for life. Perhaps they reduce diabetic response, perhaps not. In any event how do we know they are diabetic - because they exhibit physiological responses that can be directly measured.
Set B2: those who fully recover and exhibit no diabetic responses.
In terms of measurement Set A and Set B2 are indistinguishable from one another. I see no reason to apply different labels.
Small Print (to be read at triple speed without pause): Sets A & B do not represent individuals on the forum any likeness to individuals on the forum is purely coincidental. Sets A & B do not represent a full population of diabetics or non diabetics, they are formed to demonstrate how the boundary conditions for applications of the term Remission in conjunction with the term Diabetic are frequently either ill formed and / or ill applied. Before feeling offended readers are urged to consider that offence is always taken and cannot be given. Have a nice day