What is the problem with PubMed that concerns you?

bob

"What you lack is understanding and not research.

Sorry I am not able to help you any further.  Please forgive all my
iniquities."

I don't lack anything in this matter, except as your opinion unsupported
in research is lacking.  I forgive you in total, we can accept with
grace the one who confesses that they are in fact unable to help due to
their short comings.  This doesn't fall within the area of "iniquities"
but of simple human limitations.  By confession and facing our
limitations we can advance in our knowledge.

Some good research being done just now in the area of the incretin
effect holds promise for something approaching a "cure". In animal
models and human cell lines and indirectly from human clinical
experience, there is reason to think that incretin therapy increases
beta cell mass.  There are some other research in the area of growth
factor thearpy that holds good promise to the same end.

"Actually, what has been described are two ways a person might be
predisposed toward developing type-2 diabetes.

Without metabolic syndrome (MetS), the predisposition is never
realized."

As before, research in support of this claim please?  In past we have
found that too often some confuse opinion and dearly held personal views
in confusion with that which can be supported.  It could be, research
please.

As mentioned before, there is currently a debate among the ADA and other
diabetic specialists as to the reality of mets as a risk prediction over
any of its several possible components, mets is diagnosed where some
number from a possible list is present.  There is also a question of
cause or effect that is not clarified with regard to diabetes and it is
not the case that all with mets proceed to diabetes except as a genetic
basis for the latter is already present only in some.

"This is my clinical and research experience.  More importantly, this is
the truth.

Sorry that you don't like the truth.  Please forgive all my iniquities."

As anyone trained in science knows, anecdotal examples are at the bottom
of any list considering proposed answers.  That is why research using
accepted methods is much valued in all cases instead because of the many
errors and flaws of judgement and subjective impressions that almost
always creep into anecdotal experience.  Until research is provided, as
previously requested, we must conclude that your anecdotal experience
doesn't support the claims about mets and diabetes as presented in the
previous post.

In science there is no "truth", there is the present best answer to
questions based on consensus, all subject to change with new methods or
better data.  "Truth" is for philosophy and theology and as individuals
decide it for themselves by whatever process they choose.  I recommend
"truth" to all but reserve science to its own ways of answering
questions.

"As anyone trained in the applied sciences knows, field experience is
the foundation developing solutions to identified problems.

You pay a doctor for the experience s/he has and not for the research"

As anyone in any form of science knows impressions formed in a doctor's
office are at very best suggestive.  Only with formal research can the
validity of those impressions be found.  The clinical doctor is as to
the car mechanic as the auto engineer is to the research scientist.

You pay a mechanic for his experience, you pay an enjineer for solutions
to fundamental problems; who in turn publishes them in research
journals.

In the case at hand, the relationship between mets and the risk of
diabetes has for some years now been under research and have formed the
basis for clinical guidelines in the doctor's office and at medical
schools; as are accessed in research journals and by continuing
education..

So a simple request for research in support of an assertion about mets
and diabetes is quite reasonable and in order.

"Short of proof, the case gets stronger every day that for folks with no
MetS, no type-2 diabetes develops."

Actually it is the other way around, you need to keep up with the
discussion within the AMA research community.  They are considering
tossing mets because it does no better at risk assessment then do any of
the factors on the list comprising it.  They seem to be trending toward
the view that mets is an artifact of correlations of factors and not a
factor in itself.  There are several factors ot on the mets list that
can lead to diabetes and an even more important fact is that only some
folk with mets become diabetic.  Your blurb above is something of a red
herring, but is an acceptable confession that you have no research in
support.

"Actually, there will never be the research proof that you require even
though what I have written is the truth.  This is because it is
unethical to sit idly by and watch folks progress from MetS to type 2
diabetes with a relative risk of greater than 10-fold compared to folks
without MetS:"

Actually, the research form you mention is not that used in such
contexts, here you may tell us what is as a homework assignment.  Such
situations are studied all the time.  In fact, there are even programs
which do exactly you as mention above, homework addendum, give some
examples.  As your number confirms, all with mets do not get diabetes.
I take it by this answer you now confess that your assertion that all
diabetes is preceeded by mets doesn't have research of which you are
aware and by which the assertion can be supported?

"Truth" is not a term used in science, it is found in philosophy and
related hunanities and I suggest all seek it.