ACTC Vs. STEM, Buy the best of the breed ACTC, ACTC about to change medical history in coming days$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you are a Big Pharma, an investor in stem cells, or a scientist involved in stem cell research would you rather use subjective data, or objective data. STEM presented subjective data on a tiny group of patients, and no one claimed a reversal of actual visual acuity. ACTC will reveal unprecedented photographic evidence of engraftment of injected RPE cells, and measurable increases in visual acuity.
STEM must dig for clues that their therapy is having a effect vs ACTC a picture is worth a thousand words. Where would you rather invest? Something where contrast is a little better in some patients, which IMO is the absolute most subjective data point imaginable, or where most patients can show increased acuity whereby they can see clearer at increased distances and doctors from 4 out of 5 of the top hospitals in the nation all agree that they can have photographic evidence the cells are RECAPITULATING the photoreceptors. Subjective vs recapitulation. Also, keep in mind we have 3 year data on 34(+) patients. ACTC best in class cells showing engraftment at 50k cells vs 1MM cells with subjective data that could be debated as a placebo effect.
I could add pages of concrete differences including costs to manufacture, but I will conclude by saying that their "efficacy" is a huge confidence builder for investors of a company that uses cells unlike any other company out there, including researchers, because of the advantages of blastomere cells.
Let it be written,
Dr. Tony Montello.