CLDN always amazed at the amount of money these companies can...

CLDN always amazed at the amount of money these companies can raise, major science lots of potential complications.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3089636-celladon-cupidminus-2-is-likely-to-fail
The article focuses heavily on ejection fraction.
This measurement always seems to be problematic.
My understanding is that:-
Same person can give different readings at different times of the day.
Two different operators can get different answers on the same patient.
The same ejection fraction for different patients can have a markedly different meaning for each of these patients i.e.. one can have HF the other can be doing OK.
Small changes in EF can have a marked difference in clinical outcome.A person can move from HF to non HF with a few percent increase in EF.
I think he has a point but whether his point will survive a larger study that evens out the imbalances? a holistic look at the data? I don't know?

Again I would be suspicious about making a weakened heart beat harder.
Say the therapy is effective,  you give a low and a medium dose, the heart beats harder, things improve, but the heart is just stressed more, no rest, increase in nutrients not there, therefore no healing and further damage so the heart after a small period of time will revert to its downward trajectory.
Maybe a bigger dose will increase contraction and blood supply, nutrients etc to muscle to pump better without incurring further damage.
Seem to be a fairly touchy thing, can it cope with peak output demands, is it enough to do more than band aid, too much contraction, is the extra benefit going to be outweighed by the extra strain on the heart?
Would CUPID 3 at even higher does levels achieve a better outcome? The CLDN product if it does anything is probably not so much about absolute dose level as managing a dose level through time. Sounds expensive to me.

C-Pulse is obviously caught in a leaning curve, but the college  of doctors says we're pretty on top of it.

Even if reasonably successful CLDN has an difficult and expensive leaning curve there.
CLDN and C-Pulse ( if CLDN gets somewhere?) appear to be symbiotic therapies not direct competitors.