All good arguments.There are plenty of published data about the...

All good arguments.

There are plenty of published data about the side effects immediately after the vaccination.

But I am not going nit pick all of your points rather:

So the BIT drugs....
1. Use a different mechanism >>>>>>>> Naturally, its a drug rather than an immune stimulant.
2. Can target different areas of the body to vaccines. >>>>>>>>>>> Love to see the BIT published data that these drugs target the different areas of the body.... Have they published the list of these compounds on humans and their distribution on humans... pure speculation (granted).
3. Have a very good safety profile >>>>>>>>>> have they considered drug resistance (just look at HIV and almost all the ART's on the market have produced drug resistance mutations ......... trust me on that - Sequencing is what I do). Which compounds in particular are you basing this assumption on? Have they all been tested in human trials? Sorry I must have missed that communique.
4. Are cost effective. >>>>>>>>>> possibly but has BIT come up with a price yet, they have yet to find a partner for 225.
5. Will not have severe temperature constraints >>>>>>>>> one has temperature storage "issues", but the reality is, its not really an issue. If you wander into any tertiary hospital (pre COVID) you will see dozens of -80 freezers (in fact they even have liquid nitrogen tanks - If I described our storage you would most likely not believe me). Storage is not an issue per-se. Media making a big thing about it.
6. Will probably work with Vaccines in combination or as a staged treatment to eradicate the virus. >>>>>>>>>>>> probably but not known or proven. (certainly hope so).

It may be less efficient...because it is harder to get in the cell. >>>>>>>> So how can it be better? their work early in 2020 using a Cell line which was infected with the virus, is far less complex than the human body (lets use the lungs as the example as a comparison). The published summary went like this:

47 compounds selected in round 1.
Of those, only those with a >30% virus inhibition were selected being 17.
Of the 17, 15 of them showed antiviral activity. .. and for that it had to show >20% virus reduction. What they have not stated was how many were >50% reduction or >75% or greater. Because, knowing how research work, if I had a compound that demonstrated (lets say) >90% reduction and the rest were in the area of 30% I would be making a big song and dance about the single one compound. Them not stating the obvious to me shows that the remaining 15 compounds most likely wont cut the mustard, commercially. (My opinion).



Cripes, this is the longest I have typed... now I'm going to be labelled as a down ramper! and have all these names thrown at me.
Having said all that... I would rather the vaccine ... and gain the extra few cm's