you are invaluable in many ways!! that must be a typo on the criteria. i suspect there is a typo on the c-peptide too. okay that really sucks!!! i mean if that is the case, that is really, really negligent on someone's part. actually that pisses me off too.

yep, i'm convinced it's a an error now. mother ****er. look at inclusion criteria on both studies. one says that FEV > or + = to 70 but the other just says FEV = 70. they wouldn't have differing lung function requirements for both studies i'm sure of that. somebody got thsloppy. is it that hard to proofread your criteria, matt? al? don't we have people dotting ALL i's and crossing ALL t's??

i did reserve the right in my analysis that if it's a typo, then i take back what i said about mkc 171 packaging up insulin dependent T2s as T1s. i'm really disappointed that something like this happens. again, losing a tiny little bit of faith in the system. don't know who's fault, but in the end little errors can cause big issues. not necessarily this one, but maybe something else. it's along the same lines as when prospective patients call a screening center and get no call back.

anyway, i'm so glad you got the dreamboat inhaler. and i've got you on the bench press but anything more than a pool's length in the water and i'm fading fast. dang, 13 minutes!?

chad