What Does Science Mean To Certain People?

I keep up with Peter at Hyperlipid and I like to read the comments there too, because he has a crew of highly intelligent folks who regularly thinking of something interesting to say. Here is a little exchange, and unfortunately, one of the persons in this exchange is simply not up to par with the discourse over there:

SuperCheeseUs said

I was diagnosed as type 2 in June, 2011. I cut my carbs to 75. I got no exercise due to DDD.

It took 4-1/2 years to lose 143 lbs., which is exactly half my starting weight.

Within 1 month, my fasting BG went from 200 to 94. My a1C went from 9.3 to 5.1 in a year, and has stayed there. The protein in my urine disappeared along with high blood pressure. Chronic diarrhea and daily mentrual bleeding went away too. No hysterectomy for me. I was 55 when diagnosed, and had gone through menopause. When my BG went way up, I bled every day.

I didn't follow anyone's diet, I correctly made the assumption that diabetes is a disease of carb intolerance, so I cut back quite a bit. It worked for me. I doubt I was ever in ketosis, but don't know for sure, I didn't test.

Then Charles Grashow said

"diabetes is a disease of carb intolerance"

statement not backed by science

I don't know what Grashow means here. Type 2 diabetes starts out it's life as insulin resistance, meaning the body's cells are ignoring insulin's call to take up more glucose. When it gets to the point where the blood glucose levels are known to be dangerous, they call it type II diabetes and start giving you insulin and various insulin sensitizing drugs in an attempt to cram more of the glucose into the cells. This is mostly because the doctors don't expect very many people to change their lifestyle, so they manage rather than solve the problem. The doctors, at least the good ones, are mentioning low carb diets more often these days, probably because there is always that one patient or two who pulls things together and reverses the condition, but seeing a type II diabetic around in my daily life has led me to a conclusion: the carb-addicted person will risk death in favor of continuing to eat carbs. They also risk amputation and other horrible things.

But anyway, to me, the statement that 'diabetes is a disease of carb intolerance' is a sound bite sized statement that fits with the science. It doesn't encapsulate type II diabetes completely, but it certainly paints a picture consistent with the science, and it directly suggests the only solution. Indeed, simultaneous with the high glucose, the type II diabetic is also experiencing too much insulin which is aggravated further by extra insulin- usually of a variety design by pharmaceutical companies to hang around for twenty hours. This is also bad. One could also say- hey, the body is getting insulin intolerant too, but one would still have that one solution- stop eating carbs.

To me, science attempts to explain reality. Perhaps it is telling that Grashow appears to think it backs statements. Is it a god, the NRA, a political party, one of those ghastly women's groups, the FDA?