"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.

"Through many days of prayer seeking the LORD's guidance on how to
effectively call out as one of HIS lowly watchmen regarding the
catastrophic event (Revelation 6:14) that may possibly happen sometime
between now and the end of the year"

He just added 10 months to his "maybe".  What a dork. And a quack.