Hi Reg, yes, as you say this is the salient point here for MSB...

Hi Reg,

yes, as you say this is the salient point here for MSB holders. There's no need to get down into the weeds with some non-holder persona that wants MSB hodlers to do his work for him/her/it.

As a very-experienced miner once said to me, 'If you buy the premise, you buy the joke' e.g. a CYP shareholder walks into a bar to 'splain to Mesoblast shareholders just exactly where they went wrong....

It's a bad joke to think that any person involved in biochemistry would ask for Mesoblast's data. Show us the corresponding data for CYP, eh! Oh, but that data's not public now, is it. No. We won't be seeing THAT data now, will we.

Regarding the paltry amount of potency vs clinical outcomes correlation data which is publicly available across the entire industry, the figure below & the 2024 article from which it's sourced are extremely instructive IMO:

First, here's the figure taken from Kymriah's (tisagenlecleucel's) FDA Summary Basis of Regulatory Action document:


Now, here's the snapper, from the authors:




Check it out. It's a great article. Very topical, and absolutely on the money about the distinction between potency and efficacy. None of our 'friendly'non-holders ever want to talk about how the FDA can approve a biologic that's efficacious but not potent (cf. potent but not efficacious).




https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-024-05179-7#ref-CR11

Wow. Some of the most high-powered researchers in biotech in one of its most pre-eminent journals, and all they could turn up was one measly potency vc clinical outcomes graph for theentire CTP industry.

How ridiculously ignorant that anyone involved in biotech would walk in here & expect Mesoblast's data to be available to simply give to them.

Cheers
GLTA(LT)H