Well that is very wishful thinking of Livit123. Here is my take:...

Well that is very wishful thinking of Livit123.
Here is my take:
Inoviq gave up on the projects that came from the former BD1 in favor of what came from the former SDX. We do not care, as long as these are the better choices, profitable and promoting patients’ chance of survival. But in my view the choice escapes my logic.
Here is what I observe:
1) SubB2M “was the best that New (now Old) CSO Peter French ever saw”. Why then did he leave the company instead of pushing his alleged best project ever forward? The impressive 100% sensitivity and specificity (on 47 samples plus 20 controls) was ONE year ago. Since then we had only weak signs of progress:
- Pre-submission of SubB2M manuscript online, but it was never published as peer reviewed paper!
- Grants obtained for SubB2M, certainly based on the 100& sensitivity and specificity fairy tale.
- Immunohistochemistry using SubB2M (but this is not a tool for early detection, as applied on tumor biopsies, and cancer biomarkers that work on biopsies are innumerable).
- ELISA with SubB2M/CA125, very vague announcement lacking real information, no specifics on sample numbers, or reproducibility of 100% sensitivity and specificity.
- Then, surprisingly proposed return to uncommon SPR, does it mean ELISA with SubB2M does not work as expected? The board’s or management’s strategy building on SubB2M is difficult to understand, unless there are terrific results being hold back. Which I hope is the case!
Think about it: Inoviq possesses more than 24 granted patents on the BARD1 tests and one patent for SubB2M, still pending, and for which they have a LICENCE not ownership.
I usually go for what is really innovative: I buy into innovative concepts such as CRISPR, developed in companies such as Intellia Therapeutis or Editas Medecine; they are on the move with highly competent internationally recogised rising stars at key board and management positions. BARD1/Inoviq seemed innovative once upon a time. Today it presents a strong contrast to those rapidly moving companies - when looking at the Inoviq board of fourth age directors and CEO without expertise in the field.

2) What happened to the BARD1 AAB test? Why is it presented as needing “re-evaluation” (Footnote 2, Progression subject to further assay design, development & validation). after 5 years of feeding us with progress ? BARD1 was a newcomer and the company of surfers. People surfed the waves of news followed by a SP lift:
- 23 March 2017: BARD1 Ovarian Cancer clinical study results– 300 samples
- 6 March 2018: Additional BARD1 Ovarian Cancer test results – 400 samples
-19 June 2018; Improved performance of BARD1 Ovarian test – 400 samples
- 6 September 2018: Excellent accuracy of BARD1 Ovarian in high-risk women
- 23 October 2018: World first BARD1 breast cancer test-174 samples
- 1 July 2019: Progress on ASSAY DEVELOPMENT of BARD1 autoantibody tests on Luminex
- 8 October 2019: Phase 3 ASSAY DEVELOPMENT Milestone reached – optimisation phase on track
- 29 September 2020: Successful Optimisation of BARD1 Kit for Ovarian Cancer on Luminex
- 29 April 2021: Positive results from BARD1 autoantibody assay- Independent evaluation of BARD1 Ovarian Cancer kit (on Luminex) at Griffith University – 241 samples
From https://www2.asx.com.au/markets/trade-our-cash-market/announcements.iiq

Do I overlook something? How does the BARD1 Autoantibody test compare to the SubB2M test? When/where was assay development, optimisation and independent validation performed for SubB2M? Compared to the time of the surfers - now the company is excelling on a downhill course.

3) Exo Net: when merging with Sienna, the synergy between the BARD1 AAB tests and the Sienna projects at the time were put forward (8 April 2020). I am waiting for the synergy to emerge!! ExoNet will have to prove its usefulness as a new technology combined with the biomarkers of Inoviq (or others) to become something that stands out from other providers of exosome purification kits (such as Biolabs, Qiagen, Thermofisher, etc.) despite its acclaimed superiority in speed and purity.

4) As Livit123 might not see, David Williams and Andrew Chapman as investors in IIQ should not comfort and assure us, it should make us realise that the biggest investors in this company might be in for the next A&M not for developing life-saving tools. Williams invested into agriculture, yes also medical devices, but excuse me, that does not make him a reference expert for decisions on which biomarkers are best to develop. D Williams is an excellent business strategists, he will come in to make the SP rocket-raise or for an A&M. The first did not happen. He might have the vision of further mergers, as he might have had with the BARD1-Sienna merger. As observed by * (9 April 2020), for both investors (Williams and Chapman) the BARD1-Sienna merger was profitable, but not for the BD1 holders who were diluted, without increase in SP. Interestingly, two of the BARD1/IIQ directors (appointed 17.6.2019, one year before the BARD1-Sienna merger) seem to be quite related to David Williams. They appear as directors on other firms under David Williams’ control (e.g. MedicalDevelopmentsInternational, RMA).