Ambigood to see someone trying to bring some rational discussion...

Ambi

good to see someone trying to bring some rational discussion to these threads, even if there is very little I agree with in what you say, apart from of course your introductory paragraph.

In a nutshell, I believe your premises are incorrect and therefore your conclusions also: inability to scale, Australian location (geography); and financial constraints without assistance, are all misplaced points in my mind. Here's why.

Starting with geography, this is the easiest to debunk. Australia is renown for its biomedical research. It is a world leader punching much above its relative weight. Even though big pharma do not have their principle residences here, this is only a matter of history. Beer wasn't invented here either, but it does pretty well these days. Wasn't it only last week that the Doherty Institute was the first to clone 20129nCoV? NSW Health provided the genome sequence on two more strains just this week. Let's be clear, Australia is world class when it comes to bio research: Identification of rotavirus; Prevention of spina bifida; Cochlear implant; and the role of antibodies in the immune system. We should also mention the recent Nobel Prize for Barry Marshall, Robin Warren. These are just a few examples. I think the notion of the Tyranny of Distance is a little antiquated these days.

The inability to scale and financial constraints. These two are interlinked. You say that Biotron 'will be unable to embark on appropriate trials (and scale) without assistance.' This is absolutely correct. It is also not a problem. All biomedical research by small companies, if successful, partner or are bought out by big pharma. This is what Biotron and investors hope for. It is not a drawback, but a bonus. When pharma arrive, we know that our product is a seller. Simple. In Biotron's case, it is just around the corner. Their HIV and HBV success is about to bring the above mentioned argument into focus.

Regarding nCoV, your comments that it's 'not a part of Biotrons primary portfolio of compounds,' is also not quite right. Are you familiar with their recent patent applications, or more importantly, the discovery and work that has made the patent necessary?

Biotron's new class of antiviral drugs targeting viral-encoded viroporin proteins are very much part of their primary portfolio. Along with BIT225, their antivirals are likely to become the new generation of this very undeveloped and needed class of medicine. For your information, since the SARS and MERS outbreaks, their are many researchers working on corona viruses, and I am hear to inform all who are interested that Biotron is far advanced than many, and there is every probability that their work will suddenly be realized existentially now that there is an obvious necessity.

To other posters stating that BIT225 will be the cure for the new coronavirus, you are on the wrong track. BIT225 is an antiviral to treat HIV. Biotron has other compounds more specific to human coronaviruses that they have tested, and are testing anew on nCoV. It will be only a matter of short time before we hear on the progress of this.

The question is, will they be successful? I believe they will be, based on their success that warranted their recent US patent application that included much work on coronaviruses. This success is based on their discovery that has lead to the significant interruption of viral replication in RNA viruses, both HIV and corona as well as others. Their new mode of action that I have briefly described previously is not only the best shot we have presently of 'curing' nCoV, but HIV also.

Biotron's future is written here on this page, but you have to love superheroes offspring to believe it.

Happy trading.