As you have done so many times in the past JB1975, you try to...

As you have done so many times in the past JB1975, you try to sow the seeds of doubt, to the uninformed investor, by going to apparently impressively nth degree on a particular aspect of potency assay that should impress on many less informed investors to question the wisdom of their investment, given your (attempts at) displayed apparent superior knowledge in the area. The more patient and informed on here indulge and disprove your latest misguided cat amongst the pigeons arguments and then in usual desperation you go too far as usual and show your ignorance of the very basics.

"Yes, but in CRL number 2, the FDA has not asked Mesoblast to validate the potency assay.

Isn't that an assumption you are making in the absence of having seen the CRL?"

You just suggested SI, Krause and co. of purposely misleading investors on CRL disclosure (careful JB - people making known false and misleading statements to investors on Hot Copper have actually been publicly prosecuted on referral by ASIC). You'd of course probably get off prosecution with a wrap on the knuckles at worse, with a "sorry I didn't follow the webcast defence, but a slander lawsuit perhaps not. Once again, for all those investors on Hot Copper who did not see @dachopper's refute:

"one of the significant positive indicators from the CRL - is that the CRL did not question the efficacy of the product as demonstrated in GvHD001, (which was the case for the previous CRL )" (Krause, 31 Aug 2023)

One more time, a little louder, for the hard of hearing, ignorant, our residents down-rampers, sowers' of doubt and apparent know it all's (who actually are very ignorantly uninformed or willfully lie):

THE FDA DID NOT QUESTION THE EFFICACY OF REMESTEMCEL-L IN THE SECOND CRL