Cell Therapy News/Articles, page-3707

Another article that SOUNDS unbiased and well researched...but utterly misses the larger point.

Stem cells may be unproven in a number of contexts, and historically, yes.

And MSB may only have its COPD and 12-patient EAP trial that bear directly on the question of whether Rem-L will work for ARDS, yes.

But what about ALL THE OTHER STUDIES SHOWING MSCs WORK ON ARDS?! Jesus, you don't have to dig that hard to find that all kinds of clinical and pre-clinical stem cell solutions are kicking ARDS in the A*S. Lazy authors.

The pertinent question, when assessing odds of success, is NOT the dearth of MSB evidence (though I would argue there is substantial evidence). Instead, it is:

What are the odds that the stem cell product from the company (a) with the most advanced track record of clinical trials on stem cells; (b) with the longest history of manufacturing (on its own or through licensees) quality product at scale; and (c) on the verge of the first FDA approval for its product for AGVHD (a condition with similar morbidities to COVID ARDS at its worst) does NOT work for COVID ARDS when ALL OF THE OTHER LESS ADVANCED STEM CELL PRODUCTS DO?

From that perspective, I would say the odds of Rem-L working in the NIH trials are at least 70-80%, perhaps higher.

Cannot wait for trial results to be announced. Hopefully, we can all watch the halfwits that threw cheap and easy stones having to eat their words.