I've had a brief look at Cynanta. They're using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) not MSCs. Now the iPSCs are the differentiated type of cells whereas MSCs are undifferentiated. iPSCs were the originals. But they weren't efficient because they were autologous.
What's interesting about CYP? For one, they've got Australian government funding for their clinical trials of Osteoarthritis treatment. They also have a licensing deal with FujiFilm Pharamceuticals for their aGVHD trials, which is a bigpharma deal. However, they admit this is suboptimal as partnerships are better, but this is what they currently have. They hope to have bigger partnership deals in the future, but the reality is they aren't as progressed in clinical trials as MSB so their options are limited. Stage 2 is a long way from where they want to be. They say they have fielded takeover offers but ultimately rejected them.
This situation affirms my belief that MSB is in a pre-eminent role. And the wisdom of having a policy of not selling out to a deal, any deal, as the traders and shorters were constantly screaming that we needed to or we were headed for collapse....GOD it was rough dealing with that barrage of nonsense daily.
But instead, MSB has maintained independence and taken a policy of maturing our pipeline as far as possible. It seems more than likely we would have been offered suboptimal deals as CYP has had which is what you, vinn, col69 myself, and others have argued for years.. It's clear that CYP has done what it needed to survive.
Wisely, SI didn't blink. We continued to defy the commentators who were constantly giving us dire warnings it was all about to implode. We continued to dissapoint on that level....lol.
What else? CYP say that they only need 2 doses of their stem cells to get the same result with aGVHD, as other (unspecified) researchers needed 8. Could they mean MSB? Not saying. Is there any point in calling MSB for a comment? My guess is no, they'd be incredibly busy right now.
This is the interesting bit: CYP say they can scale up manufacturing of their iPSCs with a patented process. However I'm unclear how they are managing to do the manufacture without possibly provoking high risk of cellular mutation, then provoking cancer later on. Given that cell multiplication is a cancer risk, reflected in the reality that cancer is largely a consequence of ageing I'm not sure that iPSCs which are differentiated cells, are a great move. There isn't much detail on their website. Perhaps others with a medical reseerach background might like to comment?
I found a few articles on this but they're quite old a challenge for a non medical person. Here is a relatively recent one on IPSCs from 2018.....
https://peerj.com/articles/4370.pdfIt is interesting that SI is an advisor to the FDA because there are risks that go beyond the clinical trials process. Our MSCs seem to be the safer route.
I'd be very interested to hear comments on these issues.
(20min delay)