Agreed, they say the publication covers what was announced 19...

Agreed, they say the publication covers what was announced 19 June 2018 and 6 September 2018, and now got peer review approval of a study performed on more than 700 samples. There is a strange comment in the end of the announcement: "whilst this has shown promising data, the Company believes it requires considerable further assay development and technical validation on a commercial assay platform before advancement towards clinical development of a potential commercial test". Haven't they told us over the years that they will bring the ovarian cancer test onto the commercial platform Luminex? Haven't they announced the successful transfer of the BARD1 autoantibody test on 1 July 2019, the successful optimisation of the Luminex ovarian cancer kit on 23 October 2020 and its validation by Griffith University 29 April 2021? BD1 should explain why the published results are relevant and what is the current state of the development of the BARD1 ovarian cancer test on Luminex.

Instead they feed us with the submission of a manuscript - it might never get accepted - for the SubB2M technology.
SubB2M certainly might have potential but there are a number of flaws: 1) SubB2M uses a technology, surface plasmon resonance - I have never seen or heard of in the context of routine blood tests, hence certainly not a commercial platform, thus its use on a commercial platform needs to be developed, they say (ELISA), and mean a long way to go. 2) SubB2M "the game changer for specific detection of multiple cancers" is not specific for any cancer and not useful for screening and early detection. if you are positive you have to search where your cancer sits -agony. Therefore they propose to use it for monitoring of treatment response and recurrence, which seems reasonable. 3) Although the sensitivity and specificity (100% for ovarian cancer) might have impressed many share holders, this is only possible with the very small number of patients tested (47 cancer and 20 controls). Who knows whether with larger numbers the sensitivity and specificity might drop. I would be surprised if reviewers would not pick that up.