Dew, while I agree with you that having one patient losing vision in the 6 patients 10mg 207 trial is too bad, it is still too early to conclude. But I agree that this one patient is skewing the mean results negatively.
As far as I understand, the 10mg was added to the 207 trial and to the 211 trial to see how low the dose could go. From what I heard, with a 10mg, subcutaneous injection could have been possible. In the best of cases the one patient who suffered vision loss may have a particular condition; it would be worth knowing why this patient did not respond. But in any case, 1\6 patient is too early to conclude about the competitivity of sql. Note also that only 1 patient had positive vision improvement with 10mg.
The results of the Mexican PI-II trial were obtained with doses of 40mg and above. The next results will consider 20mg and 40mg; hopefully these will show comparable results.
As for the comparison with competitors, those are the numbers for competitors in PII that I had, per % of patients:
Macugen : 25%visual improvement - 71%stable vision
Lucentis: 26%visual improvement - 69%stable
Genaera Mexican PI-II: 33%visual improvement - 64%stable
Even with comparable results, sql could be used alone because it is safer, or in combination with visudyne because it acts on both eyes even without injection in both eyes. This would be an interesting option for physicians; and it lowers the risk for investors.
The fact that the drug is given in the arm rather than through the retina is in itself a strong comparative advantage given comparable data results. I have to disagree that only a drug with vision improvement can become a blockbuster; although we would all dream of seeing vision improvement for all patients.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
