long bone fracture, page-8

Clave,

Your previous post/query regarding MSB manufacturing capability was a very interesting one given the potential ramifications for both MSB and (Pleuristem) PSTI.

I did come across the information you posted below, but no greater detail than that unfortunately. I have not been able to obtain any detailed information that I can use to compare manufacturing capacity and the related costs for either. I sent Stuart Roberts (author of recent Bell Potter report on MSB) querying why PSTI was not covered as a competitor, but have not received a reply to date. I hope Vinn has better luck with his sources.

In trying to get a handle on PSTI as a competitor to MSB some points stand out.

1. PSTI's manufacturing capability as well as being more efficient, is proprietary. Obviously, anyone wanting to take advantage of their manufacturing technology will have to pay for the privilege.

2. PSTI has nowhere near the funding that MSB has.

3. MSB trials are well ahead of PSTI trials for their key (read big market) treatments. This plus the fact that MSB has their funding already sorted out places MSB at a huge advantage in my opinion. First to market with a blockbuster treatment puts MSB in an even stronger position.

Your posts did raise a few questions for me as well.

1. Does PSTI's manufacturing advantage negate any of MSB's current strengths? Do any of the current holders have an opinion on this?

2. PSTI's trial results to date have been good (great safety data and response to treatment). Even if PSTI is behind MSB, does this mean that PSTI won't be successful as well?

3. If PSTI seemingly shows such promise, why has a large pharma not picked up PSTI (similar to the TEVA MSB relationship)? What am I missing?