Creative Medical Technology Holdings Inc (CELZ)

[uvaphd]

“Table 2” contains vague and oblique data that COULD be read—at a VERY generic level—as positive, but nowhere are we told (neither in this table, nor anywhere else that I can find in the article) bottom-line efficacy percentages. How many patients who received which version showed what levels of improvement, how many of each showed minimal improvement, and how many (if any) showed performance worse than the baseline? This article is supposed to be “a game-changer”?!