At this point we don't know if it worked better than SOC, we...

At this point we don't know if it worked better than SOC, we just know the trial was ended early for futility which means the trial had no chance of reaching its primary endpoint.

As much as SI might like to blame a changing treatment environment, this just shows the failure was due to management. Everyone knew improvements were being made a rapid rate in the space and to not plan your trial with that in mind (i.e. via the inclusion/exclusion criteria) is almost negligent.

As I mentioned before the real failing was the trial taking so long to recruit. Only getting 223 patients recruited after 7.5 months is shocking trial mismanagement. If that was the pace they should have pulled the plug 6 months ago and designed a new trial that would recruit.

Probably the biggest error they made is thinking that a 12 patients open label pilot study would provide the excitement to get the clinicians onboard. They could have run a large open label trial in Europe and generated a ton of clinical data that would have not only allowed them to identify the patient population that would benefit most from the cells, but also get the clinicians in the USA excited about the RC trial.

The trial should have ended in July at the latest with either MSB pulling the plug and starting again, or them getting to 300 patients. With the trial they ran even if the treatment was a success and met it's primary endpoint, it would have taken until March 2021 to finish recruiting and then 60 days after that for analysis. What good would this do in an environment where the US population is at herd immunity by vaccination and/or infection?

How many errors can one massively overpaid CEO make and still keep their job?