Cell Therapy News/Articles, page-8035

Well, I did say that I wouldn't say any more on this topic but that was before I read your latest.

I put a lot of time and effort into my original post. I welcome discussion and reasoned disagreement. I want to learn. But your misquotes of me and your non-sequiturs could be misleading to readers and wrongly detract from the information I try to provide and the sensible questions I welcome.
So I must answer, with apologies to those who might be bored.

I did say you were sub-literate. I didn't expect you to be so eager to prove it.

Example: "conspiracy". Look it up before you use it. A conspiracy requires two parties. So, I accused FDA and who else? Of what?
In fact, I acknowledged the FDA's reasons for rejecting the aGvHD application, without any argument from me. The fact is accepted, although MSB's continuing appeals are noted.
My point was that if Covid-ARDS results in secondary endpoints in a couple of months that are compelling of benefit in areas other than mortality then those post ODAC style reasons won't cut it with the people on the front line in hospitals, with politicians who are under the pump from the entire population for an answer to a problem that is tearing their nation apart. The powers that be will give a lot more credence to "We The People" than a small faceless team at the FDA.
I offered it as a discussion point. There's not a hint of conspiracy

Example: "obfuscation". Look it up. I said the FDA is "obfuscating" MSB?? And that's "textbook conspiracy theory"??? Which of my words accuse the FDA of obfuscating? You need a new textbook as well as a dictionary.

"Every single trial has failed in Mesoblasts history. You can’t argue with that. Yet, seemingly, you want to."

Nowhere have I denied that MSB's trials have failed to meet primary endpoints. I "seemingly" want to?? Show me one word that supports your gross mischaracterisation.

What I did say in my original post was that the Rem-L story in the Covid-ARDS trial is not over until the secondary endpoints are assessed. Please argue with that. I want that point discussed here.

It is confirmed by the FDA that sufficiently compelling secondary endpoints can count towards approval even when the primary endpoint is not met. Many of us hope that for the CHF DREAM trial. I am just offering this possibility for consideration in the ARDS trial. I welcome informed discussion. I certainly don't want to provoke further posts from people who for their own peculiar reasons (well, money, I suppose) try to dismiss well-meant contributions.

I don't have to answer you any more. The transparency of your motivations is plain to see. You want to discourage rather than inform. In fact, your posts are repetitious, boring and uninformative. I will not encourage you by engaging in further replies.