"Really interested in any comment you may have on the article...

"Really interested in any comment you may have on the article posted early today - at 7.24am by 'The Yankee'."

@dingle,

Of all the people on this forum - most of whom would be better qualified than me to comment - why you solicit my opinion is somewhat strange, but in the spirit of constructive debate, here goes:

MSB is -at this stage of its corporate evolution - a research and development company.

Using its proprietary products, it conducts medical trials, to test whether or not those products do what they are hoped to do, i.e., provide effective therapies for certain serious medical conditions.

But:

1. because the medical conditions sought to be treated are serious (in all respects of the word), and
2. because the sort of research being conducted is pioneering in nature, with almost no precedent upon which to draw,

... health authorities and regulators - rightly - have strict oversight of such trials, for a multitude of self-evident reasons.

So for MSB - a company that is currently in the business of conducting trials - to announce to the market that it has received permission to do exactly that (i.e., conduct trials) is - in itself - not all that remarkable, I don't think.

There are certain boxes that need ticking along the way for a company like MSB, and obtaining permission to do what you want to do is, I think, a minimum requirement.

If you are saying to me, "Yeah, but the hearts of 5 year-old children are being injected here, so that makes a difference", the logical response is: well, we know from heart trials currently underway that MSB's stem cells and the manner in which they are applied are safe, and pose no known unintended health risk, but safety doesn't equate to "they definitely work".

Which is why they are subject to ongoing trialing.
Trialing for which permission is required.
Permission which MSB has received.
Per default thinking.

If you are saying that, because the FDA has agreed to this particular trial proceeding, it is an explicit endorsement of efficacy, well then that is a judgment you are welcome to make.

Me, I prefer to follow a path paved with somewhat more prudence.