Thanks to all, particularly liane and Chad for those insights and explanations. I'm stepping back off the ledge now!

Chris may have the right idea in taking a MB hiatus, but I must admit the interaction (and commiseration) is very therapeutic. So lets talk about less stressful issues, like FOOTBALL while these other goofballs try to tear away at the data! Lol. Thank goodness for this forum.

Mike

Another hit piece, but I would really love Lia's or Chsmith's interpretation of this blog's comparison of our Trials to Injectable trials as noted in the blog. The danger with this kind of crap is that it sends out ridiculous alarms (as intended). How in the world can people blog this kind of stuff without any accountability? I am an accountant, not in medicine, so this is way over my head, but I do know that if I published irresponsible information that I would be breaking my industry's ethics and rules of behavior and would have my arse sued off. Thanks in advance.

Yeah, when I looked over their (Greenhill) website under healthcare companies, it appears that the vast majority of transactions were mergers & acquisitions. They handled the $46.9 billion acquisition of Genentech by Roche, and a couple of other transactions by Roche. My expectations are very tempered right now; I was not incredibly impressed with the CC but it also sounded to me like the typical analyst nitpicking stuff, which is all over my head. I have to chalk this up to further need for patience and let this thing play out.

It is kind of interesting that Roche had to drop their diabetes drug trials on aleglitazar last month due to health/side effect concerns. Maybe they will have an interest in Afrezza to pick up slack in pipeline.

oops, sorry, I meant Feurstein or whatever the heck his name is......:)

Just once I would like for Al to send his legal minions after Mr. Fartstain and kick his butt into oblivion. What a self-serving smarmy POS. But I'm not bitter.

Personally, JMHO, we hit that $3 billion WAY before 2025 - analyst is being very conservative. I agree with you - article was positive but that portion was too conservative