I don't think enough data is in yet to draw statistical conclusions No one is drawing a statistical conclusion. I was simply pointing out Bazsa's terrible maths skills, then making a 'what-if' statement based on the established data from the 6 patients.
Where a surgeon cuts under antiseptic conditions along a line to remove the big toe is that really the same as when a wound occurs (presumably not during surgery and not under the same conditions of closely watching for infection etc) are the wounds actually truly comparable or has some confounding elements been introduced such that more than the diabetics natural capacity to heal or not is being measured? I don't know. The question is this: why was surgery necessary to amputate the toe? Honestly, I'm confused as to your contention in the rest of this statement.
We aren't seeing pictures for the other four even. Correct, if you read the slide you will see why they have just chosen these two patients.
By the time DFU is done - standard of care may not be standard of care if any other promising treatments are available earlier This is such a straw-man argument. There are competing treatments for virtually every injury and illness being developed at all times. Some will work and some won't. Some will be more cumbersome or expensive, while others will be cost-effective and straightforward. As far as I can tell, CYP-006TK falls into the latter categories.
My only other comment on Polynovo is that they're a $1.2Bn company while Cynata is about $35M.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)