What you essentially need to grasp Stephen, if its not obvious from RCE's usual regular detractors, that for R327 gel, is in the absence of clear composite data, you should
not believe a reputable Professor of Medicine and principle investigator of the its phase II trial, specialising in Infectious disease when he tells you R327 has "extremely good efficacy against many bacteria"; "rapid onset of efficacy"; "no adverse effects"; "achieved all primary and secondary endpoints as an open label trial evaluating the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the drug"; "at 14-days up to 93% achieved primary efficacy in our endpoint, in other words responding in terms of local inflammation or signs of infection" (by Lipsky and Bates/Jensen assessment scales -
yes we would all like to know the precise scores, despite not being infectious experts)You should also ignore him and instead listen to anonymous posters on Hot Copper who dismiss approximately 4,000 DFI related foot amputations alone in Australia, being simply due to patient laziness/ignorance, rather than the Professor's discussion of polymicrobial and superbug anti-biotic resistance and limited effect anti-biotic treatment. I mean he is just an eminent specialist of infectious disease in Australia - what would he know?
You should also believe anonymous posters on Hot Copper who dismiss the clearly dodgy Professor, and who are clearly fare more qualified, reputable, and informed when they say "the 'data' they release is pretty much meaningless".
I am a keen advocate of scepticism for companies selling unproven treatments, but then there are professionally and successfully trialled treatments under the watchful eyes of reputable clinical lead investigators.
