It is a bit crap. The details were a bit vague. Its a poor reflection of how this company is run and a poor reflection on governance.
I will never understand why companies like this give superficial details in their formal ASX releases, that are privy to all shareholders, but then go into (somewhat) decent focus and explanation in private interview with some crappy online finance channel few follow - see above. It seems 1/3 of the infections were DFU's under interview and 27 from 29 had showed "cure or improvement rate". Okay.....? What were the improvement rates by measure?
The methods of study are here for those interested and zecs makes fair, if unpopular points amongst suffering shareholders - there is no reason they could not have given at least insight to wound size and depth at least or a Lipsky composite score comparison and how that was reflected in improvement rates.
https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/__dat....-Bates-Jensen-wound-assessment-tool-BWAT.pdf
https://iwgdfguidelines.org/wp-cont...psky_et_al-2020-IWGDF-infection-guideline.pdf
The study did ultimately meet its primary and secondary endpoints though under clinical examination (and we are left to trust the ethics of the attendings and the DMSB). The one drop out was due to pre-existing pain and against the theoretical control cohort of normal recovery, 27 out of 29 cure or improvement in 14 days is pretty bloody good.
Its very a very promising product. I am buying in here despite my reservations on management. But the company does indeed need to improve on communicating results to remove potential and natural healthy doubts from a skeptical market when presented with vagueness/;ack of detail in results. Predergast keener to suggest the Indonesian authorities will approve on interim data on 100 rather than go into any detail on the results.
Don't pump John, you will get investors nervous you are doing so to raise.
