Advfunctionalmedicine.com

adv functional medicine

Has anybody heard of these guys? They claim to reverse diabetes and I called them a fraud on twitter. Since that time their representative has been very smart alec with me but never offers any scientific proof for their claims. I will continue to call them a bunch of frauds. I don’t mind them being nasty with me when they can’t offer proof. I think its rather funny.

1 Like

You seem to have a fairly sane response.

3 Likes

There is only one way that diabetes can be reversed: setebaid

6 Likes

Its so goofy!!! They rather mock the idea that I sell diabetic tshirts. I don’t make any claims to reversing diabetes nor do I film old people claiming to have reversed their diabetes. I just answer them we show me scientific proof.

2 Likes

@Timbeak48 what is setebaid?

1 Like

lol. The answer is in his post. Funny.

:stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

setebaid is diabetes spelled backwards

3 Likes

It is important to understand that Functional Medicine is a form of alternative medicine. It is not based on science and has been repeatedly been criticized for false and unscientific claims. Supported treatments and positions include detox/cleansing, homeopathy, leaky gut theories and most alarming the promotion of anti-vaccination theories which actually causes significant harm. The choice of the term “Functional Medicine” is a deliberate attempt to mislead people that this field is part of Allopathic Medicine which is based on science. Unfortunately many mainstream medical providers have embraced fields like Functional Medicine and provide centers which cater to this market (i.e. Cleveland Clinic). They do this because they make money off this stuff.

Asking a Functional Medicine proponent for scientific advice is like asking Trump for proof that climate change is not happening.

1 Like

I have not heard of these two folks or their institute; however, I have used the services of, and remain in contact with another Functional Medicine Practitioner, Dr. Brian Mowll. Both on his web site, and his care center site (sweetlifgecenters.com), he also talks of “reversing diabetes” – however, when asked what this means, he is extremely specific about his definition.
Dr. Mowll maintains that Type 2 Diabetes is a condition, characterized by a dysfunctional glucose metabolism, rather than a disease. SO, since it is “not a disease” there can be no “cure;” however, the blood glucose metabolic dysfunction can be mitigated (which he called ‘reversal’) by applying certain techniques, including certain dietary and exercise approaches. When blood sugars are maintained in a normal range, the “dysfunction” is mitigated – HOWEVER, the dysfunction is not eliminated – the changes necessary to get there must continue.

In Dr. Mowll words, the reason he uses the word “reverse” for what he aims to do is because having high blood glucose, and other symptoms of diabetes sets a person on a course toward disease and failing health. Mitigating the dysfunction, sets a trajectory toward improved health and wellness – hence “reversal” of the diabetes condition. IN no way does he call this a cure, but he aims to improve his patients’ wellness.

I think many (if not all?) of his ideas make a lot of sense and can help and have helped many people.

1 Like

I have been off work with rotator cuff injury and was dx with blood work. I went to a lot of sites doing research
. but I won’t go to the sites that say can cure diabetes in 11 day’s . in my opinion that’s just giving false hope
to people and taking there money. being dx with this disease was worst day of life and to give false hope to
people like me for profit is wrong . glad someone is calling them out it need’s to stop.

1 Like

I am familiar with Mowll, I’ve listened to some of his summits. But his position that diabetes is not a disease is in direct conflict with current mainstream medical thinking. And using that as an argument that you can misuse words such as “reverse” just seems disingenuous. In medical terminology we don’t talk about reversing disease as meaning that the “symptoms” are reduced, we mean that the actual disease or defects are reduced. The term to use is “remission,” telling people that you can reverse or cure their diabetes is deceptive. That doesn’t stop people from using it as a marketing tool anyway. I wrote about the use of this term back in 2015.

ps. In terms of the more “reasonable” alternative medicine practitioners I give Mowll credit for at least recognizing and leveraging allopathic medicine.

2 Likes

I hear what you’re saying @brian_bsc. Here’s the way Dr. Mowll phrases it
(from his site) : “nutritional strategies and lifestyle modification to
reverse the progression of diabetes.”

Arguably, that is not confusing, at last not to me. Note: I went thru
his program and, while perhaps I hooked for more, I have seen
considerable improvement in my diabetes management. Of course, my Dx is
somewhat cloudy, so it stands too reason that others could benefit more
(or, perhaps less?) Than I did.

1 Like

You know, sometimes we have to be careful about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater by lumping everything under a specific label. From that Wikipedia link on Functional Medicine there is a point that is interesting to me as a biologist and researcher:

“Biochemical Individuality” (i.e. the notion that the nutritional needs, chemical constitution and disease states are unique for every individual;[10] this represents a revival of the mainstream medical conception of disease common before the development of germ theory[11])

The suggestion is that, because of germ theory, “biochemical individuality” is somehow no longer valid, which is complete nonsense. For diabetics, in particular, where our chronic set of diseases are not caused by ongoing infection (although it’s possible some T1 is triggered by infection), the idea that treatment changes with individual biochemistry is so common as to be daily identified as common sense in these forums.

When we say Your Diabetes May Vary, what we’re really saying is that “…nutritional needs, chemical constitution and disease states are unique for every individual…” While this may not be true for smallpox infection, it most certainly is true for every case of diabetes I’ve ever heard of :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Not mine. Mine is different :wink:

2 Likes

Reversing the “progression” is a very different thing than reversing the disease. IMHOP the word “reverse” should not be used at all because for nearly all who hear it, it connotes the latter. As Brian suggests.

Bernstein reversed his progression, but he doesn’t talk about “reversal” for just these sorts of reasons. Words matter; language conveys messages beyond the overt ones.

2 Likes

LOL :rofl:setebaiD

1 Like

I wonder if it wouldn’t even be more accurate to say that Bernstein (and others, including myself) have mitigated comorbidities and complications. I had mild neuropathy immediately before and after diagnosis, and that is now subsided (to nothing). I suppose one could call that “reversal of symptoms,” but the underlying mechanism (faulty beta cells incapable of producing enough insulin to manage blood glucose efficiently) has remained the same: the reason why I don’t experience neuropathy doesn’t have anything to do with “reversing” a biochemical pathway or regeneration of critical tissues. The lack of symptoms has to do with effective treatment of the underlying condition.

Biological systems aren’t really any different than other systems which follow physical rules: in systems science (which happens to be my area of research), a “reversible process” is one in which you can literally reset a system state by reversing inputs/outputs and achieve a stable state. In other words, if you stop an intervention (treatment) and the state returns to “disordered,” then it wasn’t reversible.

So, in an illness it would make sense to think of it this way: only conditions where a treatment can return the body to a previous “healthy” state could be considered “reversals.” Successful antibiotic treatment of minor infections is a pretty good example of a reversible condition. Diabetes, on the other hand, in the absence of continuous treatment results in continued illness and development of complications. The problem is, the “reversible” bit preys on those who desperately want diabetes to not be a chronic illness. As far as I’m aware, all forms of diabetes mellitus are true chronic illnesses: they are incurable, irreversible, but are treatable. Most of the forms of D.M are also progressive, in that in the absence of treatment (or sometimes even with treatment) the conditions worsen.

2 Likes

Well, he talks about symptoms and complications reducing—not just halting, but actually lessening. Healing, in other words. So it’s a matter of how you use the words. In any event, things didn’t merely stabilize but actually got better. Of course, he is “pure” T1 through and through so the parallels are not exact. (Are they ever?)

1 Like

duh!!! stupid me!!! LOL

I don’t like the term “REVERSING DIABETES” in any context. To a person newly diagnosed or to the general population they will think Type 2 is a temporary thing like a common cold. These new age gurus rarely explain themselves or the condition to any degree. So now you have personal trainers (that know nothing about a glucose meter), sales reps for Herbalife and the misguided Type 1 believeing they can cure Type 2 diabetes or save us from ourselves. I have encountered each of these people.

Normally I ask for proof of pancreatic function has increased to near 100%. If that has not happened then how did you reverse anything but MY pocket book?

5 Likes