Thanks for that. If I've understood you correctly they've done one study with 6 participants, ... Four participants received topical dosing to wounds as per protocol.One participant stopped treatment early.One participant switched to conventional antibiotic therapy.No serious adverse events were recorded. I couldn't find a report discussing the resuts of this and presenting their conclusions. I wondered if
https://www.recce.com.au/case-studies/ was the summary of these cases on the Recce site but it didn't mention anything about any patient switching to conventional antibiotics or leaving the trial, so It maybe this is a different group. Is this selection of patients not considered a meaningful result? Is that the reason you consider they are mislabelling this result as a Phase2 ?
Reading the announcement of the SPP they state that the purpose is to fund Phase 3 clinical trials in Indonesia and Sth East Asia. You seem unimpressed by this...why is this not a good thing? My understanding is that antibiotic resistance is rife in Sth East Asia because of the misuse of conventional antibiotics. If Recce can show good results where the problem is worse, would that not create cedibility?
I appreciate your comments as you've obviously spent a lot of time looking at things. I confess I was under the impression that they were much further advanced in their clinical validation than they appear to be, and I have yet again validated my operating assumption that I generally know much less than I think I do
(20min delay)