Ann: Mesoblast Webcast, page-67

I accept that the original patient hardly had or less effective and likely lesser amount of drugs (experimental and approved) which may have changed their reaction to remestemcel-L (and also how long before they got onto ventilators), especially that as SI mentioned it was used as a "salvage therapy", instead of as a theraphutic medicine after maybe one attempt with a different drug. Different sites may have used different drugs and when none of them work finally let's try Remestemcel-l. Does not sound right tome. It is like going to doctor number 1, use their presciption, then when it does nto work, go to number 2, 3.....until nothing else left and expect that the mixed and drugged patient will do miracles with another one. Some cases yes, other cases no. Also, the standard of care is very different today from what it was in May and have to assume improved learning from mistakes. Maybe the original definition of who was eligible to participate should have been much stricter and specify totally drugged stuffed patients are not allowed to participate. What cheeses me off that no response of how far from the 43% was the result, as at earlier points in the trial it was good enough not to consider the treatment futile and now suddenly after just an additional 15 percent suddenly becoming futile???????? Just my thoughts and will be interesting to see what the ful analysis will show. .