banter and General Discussion, page-4703

You wrote (in bold) under a screenshot (which I checked - I watched the whole 58 odd minute August 2020 presentation - and it contained little that was new to me (as I'd previously read the relevant science papers from Levine and Ferrara et al - I've got a manilla folder full of them) and what was new (trials stuff mostly) wasn't relevant to what we are talking about)

"You would also be aware of the only trial completed by that other mob. The only positive data that could be found was in contrast to cohort A cohort B shows a clinical response at day 3 , unfortunately however this is only reported as a clinical response at day 3 so no more accurate biomarker data was given more over long term response is not given. The response may not have been confirmed by the blood test.(tangent)

So don't you think it likely that Remectemcell also delivers a rapid response? detection by far more accurate biomarker data that has also been shown in correlation
to long term survival ?"


First re "You would also be aware of the only trial completed by that other mob"

Maybe I would be aware of it - if you'd bloody well refer to it by something meaningful. Like an announcement or a title or a link. "the only trial completed by that other mob" is to me a pretty much useless reference and you end the paragraph with (tangent) like you yourself know you've gone off somewhere irrelevant but what the heck.

I think one of the things you want to talk about is a study entitled -

Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy induces high responses and survival in children with steroid refractory GVHD and poor risk biomarkers.

Here's the abstract

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34471240/

I've been referring to that in my posts with dachopper as Kasikis et al 2021.

How I work is I often use hardcopies (so I cite the name of the paper or something that can be searched for) and I often get my hardcopies from sci-hub (dot) se.

I can't get into your cohort A and cohort B with something significant on day 3 without some context which you lack of referencing denies me.

What I can offer in reply to your question "So don't you think it likely that Remestemcel also delivers a rapid response? detection by far more accurate biomarker data ... etc etc..." is this.

On page 1 of Kasikis et al 2021 (which you could probably obtain for yourself using sci-hub (dot) se, is this, I think extremely relevant quote

- "The clinical response after 28 days in the remestemcel-L group (18/25, 72%) was higher than in the control group (13/27. 48%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.08)."

Now almost nobody else (except you and me - and I've significant doubts about half of us, even though its the half that asked the question) will follow that in my opinion because its too much research into something they aren't interested in, they just want to hear some good news. Most just want to collect evidence to rationalise what they already wish was truth.

But it goes to your question - shouldn't remestemcel-L (assuming it works) show up (as working) pretty quickly. Well at 28 days there wasn't a statistically significant difference in what I consider to be the best data available that MSB has. At 6 months - (180 days) there was a better result for MSB.