Except me? I have to come with proof and references to support my opinions otherwise they add nothing to the thread? My observations and subjective interpretations and evaluations of those observations must be backed by scientific study. Whereas you - you're allowed to just have an opinion.
The bottom line is I have not "promoted a theory" I've offered my interpretation of data that has been heavily discussed on this forum and elsewhere for years. I've met people 'in the real world' who have followed the diets promoted by those studies and have ceased having a diabetic response. I have read about other people who have ceased having diabetic responses. My understanding is there are numerous people on this very forum who, whichever word they choose to describe their circumstances, have ceased having a diabetic response.
So whilst reversal may not be an option for you have you considered that there are people who would like to explore this as a first option. You know those people who can be bothered to endure "the misery of a VLC diet" because they'd take healthy over sick every day of the week EVEN if it meant a little bit of effort.
So by all means have your opinion but stop being so bloody demanding when it comes to the opinions of people who happen to disagree with you.
You proposed a theory, I requested evidence of the scientific foundation of your theory (goodness, that was pages back, and you are still in a tail spin about it).
I think I have had similar conversations with at least three people on this forum and others, within the last week. In all other cases, those posters have
very kindly, and reasonably offered their references and links. (thanks
@AloeSvea for those interesting links on beta cell regeneration
) Which I have then read up on. Some of which made sense to me, and have entered my melting pot of information. Some I consider to be in too early stages of research to get excited about (small trials, on rats and mice, with implications that are probably 10-20 years away from benefiting us diabetics) but all were interesting to read.
What you seem to be missing is that I don't actually object to the idea of reversal. I would love it. Everyone would love it. It is a wonderful goal. But there is a fine line between offering hope and false hope, and you don't seem to distinguish between the two. And we need to be very precise with our terminology to avoid disappointment.
I am all for people saying 'I have reversed my T2D provided I eat in a particular way. This is what worked for me...'
I am not in favour of people saying 'cure/reversal is dependent on a normal HbA1c a few months after a very low calorie diet, while eating in a way that will require severe discipline for the next 40 years. That isn't reversal. That is control. And may or may not be sustainable.
All I am asking is that you provide evidence of your theories. Good, sensible evidence.
A perfect example would be a well run study (such as Professor Taylor's ND study) showing that for a certain % of people, reversal works following a particular regime like the meal replacement shakes, long term. Say 5+ years. Preferably 10 years, since 5 doesn't seem long term to me nowadays. And the older I get the shorter it seems!
Obviously Prof Taylor is trying to do this, and has published some preliminary results of his latest longer term study. It looks promising. Last figs I saw there were about 43% 'reversed' (his chosen terminology) at 6 months. But that is still short term. We need longer, more comprehensive studies using real food, with rigorous follow ups, before people start making strong claims. Prof. Taylor is very circumspect in his language of achievement!
Provide me with evidence like that, and I will be happy. In fact, I will be jubilant, because I would love to see such good news. I am following Taylor's work, and I am following Fung, and the various low carb options and info as it appears. If you have more, better info on which you base your theory, them please, I am interested. I am always interested. But what I am NOT interested in is someone's unsubstantiated pet theory.