@Pledge I do accept that the Company has many shortcomings…and...

@Pledge

I do accept that the Company has many shortcomings…and my previous posts discusses some….but if you are trying to imply that previous guidance on strategic discussions has proved to be false, allow me to at least remind you of subsequent developments with Grunenthal post the article you referenced. Remember also the discussions with Novartis that emerged the following year. Silviu always stated that Covid ARDS was not the area of ARDS that Novartis originally intended to target…and that they were interested in financing all cause ARDS with high margin pricing strategy rather than a public health service emergency contribution where margins would be pressurised.
By the way, ARDS still accounts for almost 1 in 10 emergency beds in US hospitals especially as a consequence of sepsis from HAI.


In my opinion, Mesoblast has never intended to fund itself through a further pivotal Phase 3 trial in CHF. Post near term guidance from an FDA meeting on agreeing a pivotal trial surrogate primary endpoint such as 12 months ejection fraction?, I would be surprised if Mesoblast were not able to partner globally in due course for Rexlemestrocel. This might also take the form of a securitisation as Silviu will not want to give a large percentage of the upside unless absolutely necessary. I guess you think that I am looking at things with rose tinted spectacles. Maybe you’re right ? But I prefer to state what I genuinely believe to be the case , even if I have to take flak for it. Cynicism is healthy so long as you acknowledge that tremendous progress has been made along the way and reassess the risk reward on a continual basis. If you want to make an omelette, you have to break…..some legs. … OP



Please do your own research and do not rely on facts or representations in the above post when making an investment decison.