Khazar10 I can go one better than that. As part of my initial...

Khazar10 I can go one better than that. As part of my initial research I listened to every one of the recent results and investor presentations. In one of the webcasts SI specifically talks about the reason for the futility tests. I think it was part of the Q&A session because I recall a follow up question was asked. The gist of his explanation was that regular futility tests would reassure investors and the board, that a certain hurdle rate in improved performance over the control was being achieved. He said these tests ensured that shareholders money was not being wasted in very expensive trials which were not likely to be successful. The follow up question was relating to the quantum of the performance hurdle rate.SI replied that the specific information had not been made public , but he said ( in as many words) that it  as pointless setting a low targeted improvement as the target would need to be sufficient to justify gaining regulatory approval. I think he guided that most industry trials need to show over 20% improvement over the control. 

I have been reading this website daily now for many months. Is it just me .... or does anyone else notice all the negative theories on this stock suddenly popping up today? It’s funny how they come out after a big share price rise when you would expect most real shareholders are feeling exuberant. Perhaps their portfolios are not quite what we think they are ?   I am not a doctor, but as I understand it, younger and normally healthier women, bridge to transplant patients (BTT) constituted a disproportionate element of the LVAD study compared to normal cohort studies and typically have lower levels of post operative bleeding and different weaning profiles. Therefore AllanHU correctly identifies the control group was healthier than a normal control cohort of  ischemic patients  on Destination Therapy. We were unlucky that the LVADs used were faulty in the weaning tests( nothing to do with the Company- they were chosen by the independent body administering the test) but the findings are still supportive of a positive meaningful outcome in the ischemic cohort of the study group.

Lastly, people need to get real. This company has limited funds and the drawdown on the debt facilities is prohibitively expensive. SI has a personal shareholding of 14.29%. Do you think he wants to be diluted by further share issues ? It is fair maybe  to point to a historic lack of focus on commercialising products, but do you think he wants to deliberately waste his precious funds by spending $80 per annum on phase 3 clinical tests which are going nowhere. Basically, you are accusing the board of wanting the company to self destruct ? Get a life ! Look at the new board appointments . Has he pulled the wool over their eyes ? I am very impressed with what I have heard . If you look at the latest Bell Potter note they also draw attention to a further successful futility test in October 2018 on 526 patients for Revascor.

When it comes to a insurance disbursement and cost benefit analysis... that is an industry wide issue and deserves proper debate. I have read an old research report suggesting MPC treatment costs of $25-40k for high dosage payments on heart trials. It is obvious from recent references to the use of  bioreactors and serum free processes that costs of MPC cell replication and efficacy of those cells are showing massive improvements. MSB does not need to reveal its true costs right now for commercial reasons but you notice the bears never consider the fact that JCR would not be paying royalties for Temcell to produce an uncommercial product even when it was production on archaic procedures approved pre2015. 

Apologies for the lack of links to back up my observations but many can be found in my previous posts. GLA