Back in the 1980s, I recall a classmate in Grade 5 (I think) tell me that his father sold a health supplement of some sort that could cure my diabetes. I was truely skeptical and somewhat concerned about this. That was the start of my skepticism towards the supplement industry.
Of course I never tried the supplement so I can’t be sure if my classmate’s claims were true
I ran into a very well-meaning lady at the grocery store who is the mother of one of my friends (who knows I’m diabetic). Once she put two and two together (“Oh, you’re that David!”), she insisted I come with her to the bulk bins to purchase pure, unadulterated turmeric root (which wasn’t, incidentally, in the bulk bins, or even the store). It would absolutely cure my diabetes, “whatever kind you have, I promise.” Guaranteed, according to her spiritual advisor. Make turmeric root tea, drink it twice a day, say a mantra or three, and presto chango, no more diabetes!
Bernstein most definitely does use the word “reverse” when he discussed his “reversal” if the diabetes complications that he had prior to taking control of his diabetes. I agree that words matter, but up to a point – words only have meaning in context. On the other hand, people who want to misinterpret words will do so, regardless of context - or specific words, for that matter.
My wife’s BFF reversed (anyway never again bothered with it) her gestational diabetes within 9 months. Don’t know what steps she had to take to have a healthy baby and keep her BGs safe.
But seriously, I’ve checked out many claims to reverse, cure, etc and NONE will claim, or offer proof, that their snake oil will work for T1D but of course they often claim it will help reduce your insulin.
Well… GD is not quite the same as other types of diabetes, in that it is expected to go away shortly after pregnancy ends. In some populations (Asian, for example), as many as 50% of women who have GD later develop Type 2, but that can be years in the making. So, to my mind that’s not reversal of diabetes, but rather GD acting as temporary type of diabetes that is a strong predictor of future permanent diabetes. As with Type 1, I’m not aware of any cases of Type 2 “going away” due to intervention. The symptoms can go away, but absent treatment (even if that is only strict diet and exercise), those symptoms will return (since the underlying disorder is not curable). My understanding, anyways.
I honestly don’t understand why the ADA doesn’t put out commercials or advertisments dispelling all these myths and ridiculous old wise tales. If people said the same about breast cancer or AIDS there would be an uproar.
If it sounds too good to be true, then it usually isn’t. This is America, the land of free and where anyone can fabricate some medical cure to make a buck if someone falls for their act. They used to call it snake oil.
Reversing pancreatic function to near 100% is useful to those with type 1. Those with type 2 need to have their insulin resistance reversed much more.
I’ve read of ONE scientifically verified cure of type 1. It had enough side effects that most people would consider the cure worse than type 1, though. It involved a bone marrow transplant from a donor whose bone marrow did not make the specific type of white blood cells responsible for attacking the beta cells, and requires taking anti-rejection medicines for the rest of his life.
I object to the term “reversing diabetes!” It makes no sense. I have never heard of any body talking about reversing HIV or breast cancer. The term reverse give people that are not knowledgeable about diabetes hope that a cure is present. This is not true and it is irresponsible to give people such hope. With all the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars that has been dumped into breast cancer and no cure has not been found what makes you think they will do find a cure for Type 1 let alone Type 2 and other diabetes. I have no hope of this happening in my life time.
Reversing diabetes is a cash cow statement for personal trainers, space age guru’s and other charlatans that are seeing accessories and junk to the public. Every time I as the one question -show me proof of increased pancreatic function- I never hear from them again. The fact that a PWD doesn’t show symptoms doesn’t mean they are cured it just means they have found a way to manage their body and its systems which what we all need to do.
If you read @Robert_Miles post and take it all in context than you see what he explains does in fact do the reversal. However this comes at such a high cost that quality of life (assuming the transplant patient survives which is not a guarantee) suffers greatly - far far more than a typical insulin dependent PWD. A bone marrow transplant replaces a patient’s immune system with the immune system from the donor. This is a valid procedure for certain conditions which are immediately life threatening such as various forms of aggressive Leukemia. Certainly no sane person would do this to treat diabetes. But I can certainly see where an accidental side effect of treating a condition such as Leukemia may have also happened to cure a concurrent case of T1 diabetes.
So yes - it is possible.
No - you would never want to do this.
Your larger point is completely valid. I suspect you are preaching to the choir.
True in some cases, not in others. Type 2 is not a diagnosis; it’s a catch-all for forms of diabetes that can’t be (or haven’t been) diagnosed as a specific type. Some T2’s suffer from insulin resistance, others don’t. As with everything pertaining to diabetes, generalities almost always are full of cracks that a significant number of people fall through.