GreaseLightning, I've worked for Wise for nine years, so I'll give some backround.
Download the PDF of the published paper from the trials in Hong Kong and Kunming-
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10....6368916X691411
If you look at the graph on pg 1930 (Kunming Trial) it gives the ages of the 20 participants, under that, how many years they have been injured. The range was 2 to 20 years post-injury, and there was no difference in recovery. All of these subjects received the 6-6-6 training.
If you look at the results of the first trial in Hong Kong (8 subjects/pg 1930), you will see a major difference, none had substantial recovery. This group did not do 6-6-6.
You asked, why
6-6-6?
Chinese neurosurgeon, Zhu Hui, began the 6-6-6 walking program many years ago, at the SCI Military Hospital in Kunming, China. Wise met her while he was there organizing
ChinaSCINet. He was very impressed by the recoveryof these patients and decided to make it part of the trial. I visited there several years ago, very impressive.
We learned from the Hong Kong/Kunming trials, that without intensive training, the participants don't recover. Is 6-6-6 necessary to recover? We don't know. Are there less time consuming ways to exercise and get the same/better results, probably. We first need to confirm that this therapy is effective before we radically change any part of it. It is very possible that the cells + transcutaneous stimulation could be more effective that 6-6-6.
After the trial subjects are operated on, this therapy will be available for expanded compassionate use. Anyone can apply to the FDA to have it done, unfortunately, you would have to pay the cost, about 200K. After the trial is complete, Wise plans to hold trials for groups that aren't in the inclusion criteria. Those under the age of 17 and over 65, and those who have injuries above C5. There is a lot to do, we need more clinical trials in the US.