research reports and media, page-752

New competition in healthcare markets can be a positive. It raises disease awareness and highlights deficiencies in current treatments as reps visit doctors and remind them of those. My view is that even if stem cell treatment may well prove to be a panacea - and across many disease states - this would surely not limit the appeal of PAR as a stock to own?

I'd be keen to see the full Phase II results - as it does appear effective. But - what about cost? Both of manufacture - but also to patients and payers (govt. / health insurers). And who is likely to have responsibility for initiating / prescribing treatment?

Stem cell therapy will - by its very nature - remain costly and a treatment modality that would be restricted to specialist centres. iPPS - on the other hand - is likely to be less costly - either to the patient or to the healthcare system if reimbursed - and in all likelihood initiated / prescribed by GPs.

And for patients to be treated with stem cell therapy I assume they would need a referral to a specialist from a GP. If iPPS proves to be as effective and side-effect free as most of the data sets to date seem to suggest - my guess is that most GPs and patients would be very likely to at least consider and use iPPS before considering a referral for stem cell therapy.

Indeed, it would be interesting to see how the average Australian GP would respond if he/she had a patient present enquiring about stem cell treatment for OA - and the GP was aware of iPPS and its efficacy and safety profile. How many would not raise iPPS as a treatment to consider? They may feel - and perhaps even have - an ethical responsibility to raise it as an option.

Would I worry about stem cells as competition at this stage? Absolutely not.

IMO a far, far greater worry for the SP is a certain morbidly obese American who can't keep away from social media.

Good luck all. PAR is a long game. It will be bumpy.