Disagree. Their hair cure angle was high risk since nobody in the history of man has ever cured baldness. So likelyhood of failure was a near given. This is why I talked about lowering the bar as a safer bet. Too late for that now.
That alone does not prove their company has nothing of value.
I have not read enough into it but from what I gather, they’ve found that DSC cells are not fully differentiated. Apparently they can serve as progenitor cells to bone tissue and other tissues as well?? I haven’t read through the research throughly but I vaguely recall reading something like the above. There is apparently some evidence in the scientific literature which supports this as well which unthinkable they published.
Of course someone could say if DSC didn’t work well for their hair research, why should we believe they have any credibility on any other front. However event A in this case has no connection to event B.
From a business development stand point for a startup company, the more applications they can find for their product the better. It’s a low cost way to expand the product portfolio. The hope is that it works well for at least one of the areas they are targeting from a profit angle. A good strategy that does not put all eggs in one basket.
This tendon repair stuff sounds in line with the PRP hype except they are trying to add scientific rigor and proven experimental authority and of course a patent to their claims. PRP as you know has appeal to consumer from the sports injury prespective even without proof. Something with proof would be a money maker.
They are taking the right step from the business prespective.