Two statements in your comment might be be usefully addressed. First, there is no coagulation without the action of platelets. So the reported absence of platelets in the AC5 - wound interface by MIT researchers is interesting. Based upon MIT reports and the types of wounds on which AC5 has been tested, it seems to function as a sealant (vs. a hemostat). In certain types of bleeding, this might be adequate. In more aggressive bleeding, a mechanical barrier (sealant) without adequate hemostatic activity might allow the formation of hematomas, a safety risk. Second, though the approved hemostats are slow acting (these are not sealants, which act very quickly), these hemostats have been tested and found effective on patients using blood thinner medications.
The foregoing being said, AC5 may well be the basis for a useful device with good commercial prospects. Is it a breakthrough product? It's simpoly too early to tell based on the information ARTH has provided to date, and no device is a panacea. The comments about ARTH being acquired for $10 - $12 a share (with 160+ million shares outstanding) imply a liquidity event value of $1.6 billion or more. Do people really believe this?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
