a proper update , page-35

ok, we have touched on it but i think the point isnt totally clear to 123. here goes...

1. the competition (apparently) has a 50% healing rate from a 12 week treatment
2. we have tested 'failed to respond' ulcers with a 16% healing rate over 2 weeks.
3. we have not tested normal (new) ulcers and do not know what our apples with apples comparison will be with the competition.
4. therefore we can not say our efficacy will be 50% + 16%.
5. at this point all we can say is our efficacy for 9 month 'failed to respond' ulcers is 16% which is 16% better than the competition.

what will be of interest will be the trial results as that will allow an apples with apples comparison between VitroGro and the competition. the benchmark efficacy is around the 50% mark of new wounds. VitroGro can fall anywhere between 0 and 100%. the expectation is obviously that it will have the same efficacy as the competition or higher. higher doesnt mean 50%+16%. our efficacy could be 70%, or 80%, or 90%. we dont know yet.

so if we dont know our efficacy why are we all excited about the product? again greenisgood explained this: we already have a market which is the people for whom the other treatments dont work and we can heal 16% of them in 2 weeks (and we can heal more at 4 weeks, at 6 weeks etc).

back to our trial results. its clear to see the advantage of VitroGro if we have an efficacy of 60% or 70%. but what about say 40 or 50%. in this situation the product is still attractive for the following reasons:
- its competitive and will take market share
- it still has the advantage of efficacy for 'failed to respond' ulcers
- its cheaper (see slide 9 in update to Clinical Trial on 20 Dec 2010)

these are my personal thoughts and not those of the companies or anyones else. if i have made an error in logic then ill be happy to discuss it. lord knows i aint the sharpest tool in the box... or the best looking one according to tda!