According to Merriam Webster, due diligence is defined as "research and analysis of a company or organization in preparation for a business transaction". The post you referred to contains neither, just opinion based on inaccurate assumptions and information. For the benefit of all, I will provide an example of actual due diligence below.
Preclinical in vitro tests of Sucanon (then diab2) in rat muscle showed an up regulation of insulin receptors
Sucanon outperformed biguanides and sulfonylureas in rat models
Pharmacokinetics showed dose response relationship, peak response 2-4 hours, no effect by 10 hours
Toxicity: none at dosing 2000x therapeutic levels in dogs and rats with therapeutic index > 10,000, no carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, or mutagenicity in mice
Clinical studies: randomized double blind placebo controlled study in 370 adult type 2diabetics , 6 months (1 month screening, 4 months treatment, 1 month post treatment) Sucanon outperformed Glyburide in control of fasting blood sugar levels, urinary glucose, and glucose tolerance testing.
(All above results done under management of Bob Rieveley, Biotech holdings, before FROI or ROTH)
Finally Dr Rojas study presented at EASD annual meeting 2013 in Barcelona Spain: 97 pre diabetic Latino adult patients (HbA1C 5.7 to 6.2) 12 weeks of Sucanon treatment and showed normalization of HbA1C (below 5.7) in 81% and decrease in weight and visceral body fat, in contrast to weight gain seen in alternative oral diabetic medications. No "obvious conflict" of the researcher acting as a consultant to ROTH since any reputable professional organization (including my own and many other medical societies) allows researchers to present results at meetings and in publications when declaring a financial relationship or consultancy regarding the company or product.
The science is in fact done right, publicly verifiable and speaks for itself. The results of Sucanon testing, in addition to the risks of alternative treatments make Sucanon, IMO, an excellent first line choice for pre diabetic and non insulin dependent diabetics due to its efficacy and safety. That is the reason I am involved as a shareholder. If this information is effectively communicated to prescribers and the burgeoning diabetic populations throughout the world (50% of population diabetic or prediabetic in USA alone) the potential of Sucanon is enormous, IMO.
Note that the above contains publicly verifiable facts where stated and accompanying analysis (my expert analysis based on those facts) that resulted in a business transaction (my initial and subsequent share purchases and my continuing analysis that leads to my holding and not selling any shares to date). Those 3 elements, I believe, meet all the major points of the due diligence definition.
