So many ways to consider it but study designs these days can't...

So many ways to consider it but study designs these days can't be "cooked". Unlike politicians they put everything out on show without fear or favour and therefore in similar fashion it's a bit unfair to turn around and say this group or that got better patients. The limitation here is the small numbers but this is done at a phase 2 deliberately not to potentially put large numbers of people at risk. Likewise it's always the sickest people selected who "have nothing to lose". Therefore p values are very important because it's a statistician's way of taking emotions out of the results. Therefore once again ignoring all the emotions this is the number that you must look at first. In this study great results were achieved in an extremely sick population.
Don't forget that MSB have also achieved results of sufficiently high calibre that the FDA have approved the drug to be moved to phase 3 for bone marrow replacement which is something they don't do lightly. They have also demonstrated healing of long bone fractures in patients who had mal-union over ~18months or more.
If there was some slight disappointment from my end it was in the early pre-clinical Type 2 diabetes experiments in primates announced recently that suggested the MPCs worked for up to 8 weeks reducing blood sugars. Without having seen the study in its entirety I'd have loved them to say it was an on-going effect.
Other than that slight disappointment I still feel it's the most exciting field in medicine.