Not talking about scale of revenue - talking about likelihood of...

Not talking about scale of revenue - talking about likelihood of approval, and that in the near term, i.e., what's the fastest and most certain route to getting ONE product approved and SOME MONEY coming in the door.

So you say CHF, LVAD bleeding, etc., is the better option, it seems. Let's test your points:

"An AA is possible for a restricted cohort"...

Ha! OMFG. How did that just work out for us? You really want to depend on the FDA to "do the right thing" re: a restricted cohort again? Fool me once...

"Maybe the FDA officials are in the heart attack age bracket..."

That's not very compelling at all. But I can guarantee you that many of those same FDA officials have or had kids under 12, too, and could likely much more readily envision their own kids getting sick, suffering excruciating pain, and dying. Didn't see that impacting their decision.

The FDA has already signed off on the CLBP trial. It's a huge market, and doesn't require a huge amount of cells per treatment. We have a potential US-based partner in SurgCentre that would be able to push approved product throughs its hundreds of locations. We have a signed-up partner in Grunenthal that would be able to leverage ALL of its distribution network in the EU and LatAm.

Now tell me again why we should bank on CHF...particularly where we have been waiting to hear ANYTHING for how long now on that magical meeting with the FDA to discuss on next steps on CHF??