"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.

"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.