Well the CEO is not a liar. IMO. And yes, MSB can only continue...

Well the CEO is not a liar. IMO.

And yes, MSB can only continue the trial because the efficacy is on track such that the FDA approved it.

Also there is the point about improved delivery system by the FDA for our cells. The mode of delivery of the cells has not been optimal (as loudly broadcast in here in as many ways as possible, as frequently as possible, most recently used as a justification for Teva walking) ,

BUT as I posted a couple of days ago, a new delivery system is being trialed in the EU which includes a mapping system to target the damaged heart muscle tissue. Then there is a targetted delivery of the stem cells through catheter.

This approval will speed up patient recruitment (another of the nego crowds favourite disaster scenarios) and by necessary implication, the speed of the trials.
It will also bring us nearer to the point of 'overwhelming efficacy', which will lead to faster approvals.

Surely this is what is going to be a double solution? Many post as if the whole thing is a disaster the excessive use of extreme adjectives is a trigger to react emotionally.

More logic: given that Celgene asked to extend the scope of applications and that remains under negotiation, why wouldn't they want the most lucrative on our portfolio, CHF?

These key points seem blindingly obvious to me but it seems nobody wants to run with these arguments because they make the issues about Teva and funding, redundant.

It's very difficult to ignore the barrage. Because if you leave taunts unanswered, it looks like you agree or have no answer. If you address them it's hard not to be dragged to their level. Either way the strategic issues aren't being discussed, ( but I do try!).