RGC, the only accurate part of your post is your...

RGC, the only accurate part of your post is your disclaimer:

"unfortunately this is nonsense".

You have taken figures that suit your dubious agenda, and have failed to impart any significance to the fact that BIT225 induced a significant reduction in viral load above the activity of the SOC. An average 1 log reduction in virus level is not "quite likely... due to chance". This is, on average, a 90% less virus than the SOC.

This was a ph II trial. The data is more that adequate to justify the continued investigation of the anti-viral action of BIT225 against HCV.

"More data is required, and data costs money."

They have +$8m in the bank, enough to see them through the HIV trial and negotiations with a partner for further HCV trials. The next phase will see increased dosage that could readily push efficacy well beyond current levels, as the drug has been demonstrated to be dose-dependant. This fact is not unknown to potential partners.

And what of HIV/HCV co-infected population? Do you not see a drug that has demonstrated activity against both viruses as having potential beyond the current $35m market capitalisation?