RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:January 2019 investor presentation Putin,
Toxicity and skin lightenining effciency are two opposite factors. When you have higher concentration you see more skin ligtenening effect but you have the risk of being toxic.
1067 was toxic for 0.1% concentration in the Melanoderm study that is why they choose 0.05% in their formulation.
Do you know the upper limit of hydroquinonu usage? It is 2%, which is 40 times than the 1067 test.
1067 claimed to bind to enzyme 8X more effectively than hydroquinone but they are using 1067 1\40 concentration of the HQ upper limit.
You can not cut and paste results of different studies. What you should do is, testing your 1067 formulation vs marketed product. Then you can understand whether 1067 is worth the effort or not.
Now only Chinese are doing such test. I find it fishy that Sirona did not report such results for their melanoderm model (1067 vs marketed product) it costs almost nothing.
May be partners did such test and they did not observe superoirity? Could it be the reson of the delay? Could be, and when it comes to Sirona I would be extremeley cautious. It should not have taken 3 years to come to the point I said years ago.
I am repeating, NR study possibly would show some efficiency. But since they have no head to head comparison with the marketed product, it does not neccassarily worth a transaction. 1067 could be just another fish in the pond, not more than that.
If you trust 1067, then you would compare with marketed products, not with a placebo.