So they're saying they don't know if the complications of diabetes, which incidence and severity is shown to increase with increasing blood sugars, are due to the blood sugar levels or some other inherent but as yet unknown factor that is also concurrent with diabetes.
However, assuming that these complications really are due to 'some other factor' which is not the high blood sugar, therefore it may not be necessary to control blood sugar, and instead the approach should be to find that other factor, and ignore the fact that complications increase exponentially with increasing blood sugar. Maybe part of the problem is that the official definition of satisfactory Hba1c in people with diabetes is 7.0, which is already nearly double normal. That way, even with 'tight control", blood sugars are still 'high', and actually at a level where complications are inevitable in all but the most genetically blessed.
Knowing how tightly most body systems are controlled, including blood sugar levels in people without diabetes, I would think it is common sense that blood sugar levels in people with diabetes should be kept as close to normal as they possibly can.
The fact that poor wound healing is clearly related to high blood sugars as well should raise alarms, and that improved blood sugars can improve healing!
I think the insurance companies would rejoice if such approach became common. [sarcasm].... They no longer need to treat people with type 2 diabetes. When they do get ill, it will probably be severe, and they might just die quickly without draining the insurance coffers too much, especially as the high blood sugar does not need monitoring or treatment.
However, of course they should look further into diabetes... aside from just blood sugar. Considering we are well heading for this affecting 20% of the world population, it should be considered an emergency.