Ann: Shareholder Update, page-19

Samba61,

"Although it had no significant benefit over standard care, did it work as well as standard care?"

But the problem is that the ftt arm in the trial received standard care and ftt magic solution. So it's most probable that the ftt solution did sweet fa.

There would need to be a trial of ftt's treatment alone v standard care to test whether it's as good. But as it showed no shred of improvement in the phase 2 trial it would not be worth testing imho.

It would however be worth testing if before this was demonstrated:

"Proven potency and safety"
"Effective corporate turnaround, de-risked lead program"
"Probability of healing in Mild and moderate patients is 93% and 65% respectively."
"12 week data showed statistically significant wound area reduction from baseline (p=0.003)"
"VF-001 shows Improved and efficient healing"
"Poised for Clinical and Commercial Success"
"De-risked product with prior clinical experience demonstrated safety and efficacy"