Thank you for providing your reasoning as it allows me to actually engage with your points. I understand where you are coming from, however, one thing you either seem to be missing is what MSB is aiming to get approval for and what patient group CYP's P2 trial is trying to recruit.
A few months back I posted a graph, trying to highlight the difference:
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-fda-clears-cynata-ind-for-phase-2-trial-in-gvhd.6763678/page-73?post_id=66220575Remember, all these claims about patent infringement, same "drug" blablabla is really free advertising for CYP if MSB gets approved.
Why?
1. CYP's trial allows patients have access to MSCs before aGVHD turns steroid refractory, giving patients a greater chance to defeat this horrible disease.
2. CYP's trial is free of charge since it is just that, a trial of a product people claim is the same as a (potentially) soon approved one.
3. It doesn't come with Osiris's baggage of failed trials in this indication in adults (that started the whole process of aGvHD to SR-aGvHD to SR-aGvHD in children only just to get this therapy approved).
Missing the enrollment by end of December 2024 is not the end of the world, as the data release date had a delay baked in from the start to allow for that.
In the old days, yes, I agree, Hail Mary and all. But at least the important timeline, data readout, is still on - depending on how this quarter now goes with all hospitals recruiting. If we miss this deadline as well (based on projections provided by the hospitals of how many patients they can recruit in line with their past track record nonetheless), more of a same-old-same-old story again that will cost shareholders as a further dilution is unavoidable without results (either GvHD or DFU).
(20min delay)