Cameron,
you're doing well and appear to be a responsible promoter of a product that's had many trials - I'm not condemning ALAMO or any of the label substitutes and am hopeful that with time and varied practitioner's use of it for DED and perhaps even some feedback on the injections into innoculated oaks here, we'll have more opportunity to treat trees otherwise condemned to fail..cost has been a hurdle for many.
While I appear to be a burr under the saddle, my persistance is relevent to prescription. Like I've maintained, I've used the fungistat with varied results and am desperately digging for a co-treatment that will improve results unique to both my area, the sub-species afflicted, and effectiveness for distribution within the host and longevity of the active antagonism. I mentioned briefly before the dire necessity and diminishing returns of multiple treatments...I'm associated with this epidemic here and management of it's effects away from the conventional approach most people primarily reach and advocate for. People want (as Nate mentioned of) a "silver bullet"...one time magical pill that fixes the problem. ALAMO or your new acquisition isn't that and no one really expects it to be. However, we need to expand on the thesis presented so far. Cheaper versions will only continue the limitations relevent to success rates, allow for more trees to be treated (which can be a good thing), yet most likely will divert the need to consolidate expertise that can influence more acceptable success rates for both individual trees (the limited reality with sterol-inhibitors) and ethically more important - entire forests.
Lessoned toxicity was a milestone in adapting a more sane treatment, but vascular cells still respond negatively. Transmission through and beyond a surviving tree is still problematic, as is systemic uptake for effective distibution. These two problems are surmountable yet the "offical" position of the researchers maintain that response/acquired immunity from prior fungal events is irrelevent....or nutritional considerations being translated as NPK guidlines - therefore not worthy of further study - keep the issue from being effectively studied or perhaps a "magic bullet" from being discovered. I believe it was I who stimulated a focus at A&M regarding nutrition but the effort was sidetracked down the wrong road with their understandings incorporating synthesized ferts into innoculated subjects. They fed the disease, Miracle Grow style.
Adriamycin is deadly toxic to soft tissue and rapidy-dividing cells as well as the cancer target it's aimed towards. It wasn't until ten years ago - twenty years after it was prescribed as a conventional therapy - that a red-cell booster and additional lmyphocytes be combined to rescue the human in order to kill the cancer, instead of both. Propoconazole rings of the same frustrating shotgun effect. Study the areas of forest hit with specific bacterial or fungal diseases...many treatments are formulated targeting the pathogens but limited study is funded to dig closer to the root of epidemic - where cures in my background are formulated in hyposthesis then flagged to experiment. Market comes last, but comes because it has to.
I'm not an "anonymnous" poster afraid to reveal my position, nor really care to just trouble your efforts...as I said I hope you the best. But it can get better. That's where my interests are. Is there room in the board room for expansion and committment?
, but the use of Alamo/generic on elms doesn't work. Can either side of this discussion clear this up for me? 
