Why does that article seem to emphasize treatment of wet AMD by other companies and seem to imply that ACTC will render those treatments obsolete?
>>>Currently there are no treatments available to reverse macular degeneration and as the population ages the growth rate of the condition continues to increase.
Although reversal of the condition is not possible, there are still some treatments to hold the condition in check. Two drugs (Lucentis and Avastin) sold by Genentech, a unit of Roche (RHHBY.PK), and Novartis (NVS) are the most used in this area. Lucentis sales grew to $2.9 billion in 2010 and look to be on track to repeat similar numbers. Avastin is actual a cancer drug, but has also worked well in the[wet] macular degeneration arena. Smaller players in the space are working with a drug called Macugen. It was discovered by Gilead Sciences (GILD) and licensed to OSI Pharmaceuticals in 2000 for marketing in the United States. Outside the US, the drug is marketed by Pfizer (PFE). The macular degeneration market is said to be a market opportunity of $25-$30 billion for the US and Europe. If ACTC is successful in the trials then all of these drugs used for macular degeneration will be shelved <<<
Misleading, IMO, and based on no evidence I am aware of. No wonder some readers take seekingalpha with a grain of salt. ACTC is not treating wet AMD at this time---anyone with a different opinion or evidence? And no one is treating dry AMD other than ACTC.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
