Sorry I caused the discussion to divert to vaccines.Back on the...

Sorry I caused the discussion to divert to vaccines.

Back on the topic of the trial, though... my spreadsheet with the numbers was lost when my Galaxy tablet died, but from what I remember, we got good results for under 65s, and even better results for under 65s receiving both steroids and MSCs. I can't remember, but MSB may have pointed out that those receiving just steroids didn't do well. What they failed to point out to the market was the fact that even in under 65s, those receiving MSCs without steroids didn't do well. The good results looking at all under 65s was carried entirely by the weight of the incredible results of those receiving both treatments.

Now, you might ask, why did those 12 mostly-under 65s do so well in the initial trial when they probably didn't receive steroids, as it wasn't the standard of care so early in the pandemic?

Well, I am guessing, but have no proof, that they were put on ventilators sooner than those in the subsequent trial, since later in the pandemic doctors were trying very hard to avoid putting people on ventilators. The MSCs were (I suspect) given to the 12 early enough for the MSCs to help. During the subsequent trial, by the time they were on ventilators they were too sick to benefit from MSCs UNLESS steroids had also been given.

So what I would really like to see in the next trial is for patients to receive MSCs as soon as moderate-to-severe ARDS develops, rather than waiting for patients to need ventilators. It would also be nice to see results with and without steroids, but I don't think it would be ethical now that steroids have become SOC...