Your observation is 100% correct! Well researched and you...

Your observation is 100% correct! Well researched and you actually could/should have pointed that out on the other thread at the time, as I don't think we were all aware of that (me included)!

However...

"Certain posters" were not comparing MSB's current trial with Cynata's current trial.

As @Barman76 was saying:
"you are comparing a study of adults vs a study of children? Can you draw any real conclusions with so many variations in data?"
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/msb-trading.4042474/page-3313?post_id=36943599#.XCTmz1wzbIU

And as stated in my previous post, my reply was actually the comparison of "very sick apples" with "very sick apples" for the JCR phase 1/2 trial:
"Fourteen patients with hematological malignancies who suffered from grade II (9 patients) or III aGVHD (5) were treated. Affected organs were gut (10 patients), skin (9 patients), and liver (3 patients). Seven patients had two involved organs. The median age was 52."
http://www.mesoblast.com/images/pdf/Japanese-Society-Hematology-July2013.pdf

Plus you omitted a very important detail (another devil it seems), that back then patients "were given at a dose of 2 x 10 6 cells/kg for each infusion twice a week for 4 weeks" (same link as above) as well as in your current aGvHD trial


(http://investorsmedia.mesoblast.com...00rMfcJd2V5 E/d2A==&cb=636655098352210968

the doses vastly differ (I'll continue using bold letters, apparently that is not as rude as capital letters) if you compare that with Cynata's trial (in adults)


http://files.cynata.com/355/180625-Cynata-investor-presentation-vFF_kk2.pdf

Regarding the phase 2/3 trial (same infusion quantity), JCR did however out of the 25 patients recruited, have 22 patients with grade III and 3 patients with grade IV participating.
The final figures however are perhaps difficult to compare as at 52 weeks, out of the 12 patients alive, only 6 were treated with MSCs only, while the other 6 patients received additional treatments.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pap...mura/94cfdbad6fed01516b9d593a53fe60b1361d3179
http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/124/21/3913

If I may add, interesting enough, out of the total 15 patients, of which 8 showed a complete response, 5 were grade III.
http://files.cynata.com/446/18.12.18.Cynata-Completes-Clinical-Study-Report-in-GvHD.pdf
http://files.cynata.com/355/180625-Cynata-investor-presentation-vFF_kk2.pdf

If you now re-read my original reply to this post here (https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/msb-trading.4042474/page-3306?post_id=36942867#.XCTuM1wzbIU), you'll see what I'm talking about.
It's a bit like being back in school, you spent a lot of time writing a really long essay about pears, you include tables, graphs, links everything, just to then realise that the topic should have been apples.

I hope you don't mind if I pass on calling Amy Keating, as I'm sure she has more important things to do than commenting on a HotCopper post, not to mention that it wasn't exactly the same topic...

And about the "completely out of date" harvesting techniques, numbers, potency levels and production processes, as mentioned in my previous posts, I can only go by what's in the public domain (which happened to be the article that contains quotes from Mr Itescu). If he happens to have been misquoted back in July 2017 or if there have been any major advancements regarding the well discussed bottleneck of commercially viable, large scale manufacturing of safe, high level of batch-to-batch consistency and therefore clinically predictable MSCs, that ideally also happen to overcome the issue of donor dependancy, maybe the shareholders/owners of your company should be told exactly that.

Despite probably coming across a bit "rough on the edges" with all my first capital, now bold writing and the "", I really appreciate your posts (hence no "pity thumb", but instead a genuine one, especially for pointing out the differences between the current trials) and please keep up the good work.

Cheers,

"certain people"