.....and you will recall I agreed with you in direct reply on the data elaboration from the result being too basic. That they should have been far more elaborate on data points and myself suggested they could have included depth and size of infection or a Lipsky composite score comparison.
Its only ONE phase II study on efficacy and safety however, and it met its primary endpoints to the satisfaction of the DMSB (Data Monitoring and Safety Board), who we should be able to rely to make accurate and objective statistical analysis. Your mate actually declared "they have revealed absolutely no data" which is simply not true. Fleeting data revealed to shareholder a far criticism, you and I made already, if he could read. But this it did actually reveal data, albeit succinct, as endorsed by the DMSB:
Come on Zecs, I already agreed with you the data revealed in release too sparse, you are surely a bit more intelligent than to side with one doughnut arguing there is "absolutely no data" and another arguing a target market tenfold the size of Australia in populace and double the size in healthcare spend, is a fruitless commercial pursuit? But perhaps not as you rather rudely dismissed some 4,000 Australian DFU related amputations as a "a result of poor compliance to medication, poor wound care, and socioeconomic factors related to health and medical care access". Are we back to Indonesia again?. You are being too conveniently dismissive of 4,000 Australians a year receiving treatment in one of the most advanced universal healthcare systems in the world; their attending physicians, many specialising in DFU's; and ignoring increased flow of academic studies showing clear increased increased resistance of DFU's to ampicillin, amoxicillin, cefepime, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, clindamycin, etc, etc.
"None of these problems can be solved by smearing on the Recce goop once a day, unfortunately" you say. Yet this study suggests perhaps exactly that with initial phase II trial data suggests otherwise with 93% of patients seeing efficacy under the primary endpoint measure after 14-day of "smearing on the Recce goop".
Its tedious arguing with you guys. Talk it down by all means. I am no great advocate of RCE - clearly the CEO, Chair and CMO need to improve on latest showings - and perhaps you guys might talk my buy in levels, down a little further unchecked, convincing a few more fatigued retail shareholders to sell. I am ultimately just arguing with some of the base and baseless statements made on this thread following the release, not a company advocate. Your initial criticisms of the spare data releases are well founded and I agreed with. Now you, like your two mates are not looking at the data available and arguing on feelings and supposition rather than evidence on balance.
(20min delay)