very glad to be here. you all are entertaining to read and you have inspired me to learn more about my investment.

about the A1c criteria for both studies- i think it's exactly what everybody's gut says it is. they want to show huge improvements. they want to drive that baby down and make the numbers look great. they are "shorting" the A1c bigtime. the only caveat to that is you gotta be pretty darn non-compliant to have had type one diabetes for a year and have an A1c of 9-10. i hope they are paying these folks enough because clearly their health isn't adequate incentive .

i'm impressed/disappointed they made their criteria in general so stringent. yes the trials are going slowly and pushing that PDUFA farther away, but i think they will be airtight. shkreli-proof even. the only realistic way this doesn't get approved is if a fluke happens. on that note, the other day i woke up from a nap and worried that someone could conceivably blow up the danbury plant. really, chad? i had to chuckle. (somebody wanna go check on it for me though just in case.....)