Encouraging, page-3

"Not bad" is not a bad assessment on your part Kakala (minus the dubious hmmm). And that's as good as you can hope for at this stage. In this situation "not bad" = "good". The only alternative was "bad" and the results were decidedly not that. "Great" was never a chance, from the mouth of a company spokesman.

A small n cohort of a safety trial (with secondary observation for efficacy) should never be described by the company as "great" because the market would interpret "great" as MSB's strong advocacy for the product. The n could not support "great". I would call these "good" mainly because they aren't "bad". And, believe me, for this phase of a trial of a new product, not bad is good.

SI was very careful, and appropriately so for the CEO and lead researcher of an ethical company: "We are encouraged by the efficacy signals seen in the initial results" and "They suggest that a single intravenous administration of our cell therapy may result............"

"encouraged", "initial", "suggest" and "may" are not weasel words; they are as strong as he is legally and ethically entitled to use.

I would say, we go ahead with an increasing level of confidence. My confidence that is. Others must draw their own conclusions. Let's see what the analysts say.