| Erich,
Thanks for the update. Looks like a re-hash of December's news, but it's nice to know their PR department is working hard!
My comments in the updates:
** They bring up Type 2 treatments more than once in the article. "BEYOND TYPE 1"... Not good!
** Real world translation: The research team needs more research money, and the only way to get research money is to pull in type 2 diabetes. This is not a good sign for research grants when they have to do this. That tells you there is little interest in finding a cure. Can you imagine how much unemployment would go up if people were cured? (Sorry, I'm tired, maybe I'm feeling more conspiracy-theoryish tonight).
** Theory 2: They're pulling in Type 2 diabetes because they like to make predictions on what their research can do, rather than what they have already accomplished. Too much forward-looking is a sign of dreamers in the lab word. I imagine the article was written for a different audience, though--perhaps the people who have the money.  | 
