Thanks for the many responses I received to my last post. I will...

Thanks for the many responses I received to my last post. I will attempt to answer each poster here:
@nippy Regarding SI, you said "In the meantime he is not worried about market shenanigans..... partly because he knows just how readily he can raise money if he sees a need. He is not worried about money raising - he has to beat those offering $$$ off with a stick in fact. Others may worry but thats their problem"

Well, raising money may not be a problem, but at what share price you raise can and will be a problem. A CR when the share price is say $2 adds a lot more shares than a CR done when it's $4. Think dilution. This is why it is crucial for the company to protect the share price and its shareholders from hit-piece articles in the media, FUD, be proactive in explaining that lawsuits do not hold merit (for example), rather than just speaking to the "Australian". If SI had the time to speak to the Australian, he had time to explain to the market the same.
@Grainger You asked about Arbitrage. I will quote this from learn.robinhood.com:
"Arbitrage trading is when an investor simultaneously buys and sells assets in two different markets where the asset has different values, then pockets the difference. Like all trading, when it comes to arbitrage, timing is everything. Investors who practice arbitrage are called arbitrageurs, and they typically trade their choice of stocks, shares, or cryptocurrencies."
So @Grainger with the dual listing, Arbitrage creates churn and is "holding back" share price appreciation. For example, if MSB closed at $1.94 AUD and next day on the NASDAQ MESO opened at it's equivalent (which is $7.47 USD) but it later started climbing up to say $9 late morning, the market makers very often bring it down to $7.47 USD by the end of the trading day, basically matching it with MSB, thereby capping it. I have seen this to be the norm during the past 5 years I have held the stock. So traders basically are "assured" that they can take advantage of the difference.
@Chau165 You seemed to imply that Mesoblast does not inform the US side about trading halts because the US holders don't have voting rights. Not true. We do get to vote by means of a proxy vote
@6151 You asked me what email I was using to correspond with Mesoblast. I have used [email protected]. I know that's the correct email because it does not bounce.
@Wilba32 You said SI has loyalty and pride for keeping the company HQ in Australia. Fine, but this is a business. The dual listing is not helping the share price. He can keep the HQ in Australia but I believe he needs to stick with just one exchange, not both. As validated by Alex Waislitz and several others here, it would be better to list it just on the NASDAQ. Current ASX shareholders can trade on the NASDAQ after their shares are converted.
@yelrom You said the NASDAQ fees is 4c, not 4%. But 4 cents = 4%.
If you hold 50,000 shares (ADRs), you pay $2000 USD fee annually.
50000 x $0.04 = $2000 (4 cents)
50000 x 4/100 = $2000 (4%)

Moving on,
I have decided to write to SI again and this time I will copy several other officers and Board members as well.
I also wanted to speak with Alex Waislitz and have called this number -
613 9921 7116 for the past 2 days and left VMs. No response, yet. Yes, I did call at 9:30 AM Melbourne time, aware of the time difference. I will email them at [email protected]
If anyone has Alex's direct email, please share.

I believe both IR people, Julie Meldrum and Schond Greenway have left the company.

I have not commented much on the CLBP results in a while but unless I missed seeing it (as I am not very active on HC), no one has addressed the "regenerative" portion of the treatment.
When Mesoblast released the Phase 2 results, they stated the following regarding the regenerative evaluation:
Radiographic measurements: In patients with early disc degeneration (Pfirrmann MRI degenerative grades below 5), increased translational movement of the disc is a potential indicator of instability associated with early disc degeneration and annular fissures seen on MRI and pathologic examination. This is an FDA validated measurement that has previously been used in Phase 3 trials of surgical devices for discogenic back pain. At 12 months, MPC-treated patients demonstrated a reduction in radiographically-determined translational movement of the disc, suggesting a treatment effect on disc degeneration, anatomy, and improved disc stability. The 18 million MPC group had a mean translational movement of only 1.3%, the MPC-06-ID group 2.0%, the HA group 2.5%, and the saline group 3.5% (p=0.021 between groups). In this study, 85% of patients had early disc degeneration as evidenced by Pfirrmann grade <5 on MRI. At 12 months, no significant differences were seen between groups in overall Pfirrmann grade by MRI.

Curiously, no mention of such improvement was noted in the Phase 3 results. The Phase 3 results concentrated only on pain reduction and its durability.
Puzzled??? After all, MSCs provide "regeneration", not just "pain reduction".
So what's happening here? Was the CLBP treatment not providing regeneration of the disc(s)?

Well, Mesoblast, in the Phase 3 results release, said this:
"Mesoblast will meet with the FDA to discuss the results from this trial together with the earlier randomized controlled trial of MPC + HA....."
I take that to mean that they will emphasize to the FDA the disc regeneration effect found in Phase 2 along with the pain reduction and durability found in Phase 3 to push for an approval path. Now the question is: why were MRI results not published in Phase 3? Was there no MRI done on the subjects in Phase 3? I find that a little hard to believe.
Regardless, Mesoblast has the biggest blockbuster in CLBP due to the sheer number of people affected. Bigger than ARDS or CHF. Bigger than both combined. The money is in the numbers (of people affected, that is). Remember, the CLBP population is a wide spectrum, not just the elderly people with underlying conditions. CLBP is a huge problem in the industrial setting (lost productivity, workers comp, etc.)
No wonder SurgCenter "jumped the gun" and invested.