Why AVH's sale in US is better than Europe and Asia, page-6

I've read this about a dozen times and I can't work out what you are saying.

Not that it matters. I'm pretty certain the system of health care funding has nothing to do with take-up. Recell saves money and makes money at the same time. It saves money because it cuts inefficiencies in the cost of treatment; it makes money because treatment results are better. That's great for governments, insurance companies and customers alike.

I think the real answer is clinical trials. I work in health (mental health) and understand first-hand that health professionals have an ethical obligation to only use treatments that are evidence-based. Many doctors would consider the level of evidence supporting Recell prior to the studies that were submitted as part of FDA approval to be insufficient to support its use. That doesn't mean they don't think it works, it just means they can't say with enough confidence it does until the clinical trials have been done.

In Australia I think there is another factor regarding tall poppy syndrome and some other stuff - as I've outlined before, which explains the WA / rest of Australia division - but I don't think that applies in Europe.