I think you guys may be on to something, but I think it might be a good idea to report it as adverse event. If a drug does not do what it claims to do, and no one tries to document this in an official way I see that as kind of a slippery slope. If a company marketed an antibiotic as being highly effective at treating say Group A Strep, and in reality in a significant number of cases, it was not effective no one would say that was okay. I don't really understand why Aventis can swear up and down that lantus has not peak, and someone can feel so strongly that that this claim is BS and just shrug it off. Doesn't that just say that you can market a drug and claim it does something it does not in fact do, and we should just accept it. Based on what you are saying lantus is no better than ultralente. And ultralente cost a fraction of what lantus did and didn't burn.