So that's the plausibility argument. It's wrong, so wrong. With diabetes type 2, there's both hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. There's too much insulin. How could there be both reduced insulin production and too much insulin?

OK, lemme just put this into the proper perspective for all of us dumasses of the world. Let's say there's too much pollution, this then cause reduced tyres production and that's why there's too many cars not running properly, but simultaneously these same cars are stuck with too many tyres. (If we also analogize blood glucose, we could say they're also stuck with too much gasoline, which would take care of itself if only all those cars started running properly) Even us, dumasses of the world, can see this is completely retarded.

Now let's use my paradigm to offer an alternative plausibility argument. Let's say pollution doesn't reduce insulin production (otherwise implying the pancreas is affected), but instead reduces insulin degradation at the liver. Now we got something that can actually explain why there's too much insulin.

As a side note, why do experts never ever tell us about the hyperinsulinemia in diabetes type 2? Maybe they just don't understand it like that. Maybe for them, hyperinsulinemia is related to blood glucose in such a way that if BG drops too low, that's how hyperinsulinemia is determined. With diabetes type 2, BG never drops too low, it's always too high, so there can't be hyperinsulinemia. See? Furthermore, one possible treatment for really bad diabetes type 2 is insulin injections. Maybe for them, no matter how much insulin there is, even if there's tons of it already, there's just not enough of it to get the job done. And maybe for them, that's the extent of their knowledge about insulin, and that's why we get retarded plausibility arguments like in the article.