results, page-17

"Seems only chronic patients were tested, and TIS now seems to suggest, in this document, that the market is actually chronic wounds which DO NOT respond to regular treatment"

Surely testing patients who do NOT respond to regular treatment is a better scientific control. If they had tested people prior to receiving regular treatment this would simply raise more questions.

Whether the market is for everyone with an ulcer, or just chronic ulcers is probably a pricing and manufacturing issue.
Would you:
a) Make a cheap mass produced product for everyone?
b) Make an expensive product with lower production for chronic patients?
c) Or... start with b) and then move to a) over time once you have managed to gear up higher volume manufacturing facilities.

I guess this also depends on who you partner with.

"but some have been doing outrageous revenue forecasts"
Thats pretty normal on HC. I would be more worried about doing a competitor analysis, rather than trying to figure out the optimal price point for the product.

"6 patients withdrawn ... lost to follow up. I wonder if "
OK. So worst case scenario, assuming the announcement iseconomical with the truth about the 'other medical complications' reason which you ignored:

That makes 8 patients for which the treatment is ineffective out of 53 (worst case) = 15%. Is that bad in light of the 33/33/33 mentioned in the post above?

Dear Sir,
you have not responded to conventional treatment. We have an alternative that is 85% successful in cases such as yours. Would you like to try it?