a liitle more of the breakdown on the recently published...

a liitle more of the breakdown on the recently published paper:

The Calu 3 and vero cells referred to are the culture bases for the test tube segment of the trials. Culu3 are derived form lung cancer cells that have an enhanced gene modification found in numerous cancer types providing greater opportunity for disease expression. Vero cells are a cell line derived from the African Green Monkey and commonly used for culture growth

No joke.

The TMEM16A in Xenopus oocytes referred to are Transmembrane Protein 16 cells of the African Clawed Frog which are common lab cells that provide an important cell model for experimentation.
At least if everything fails, we can always move into the animal laboratory breeding industry.

The remaining segments of the research paper quote the trial results of the 12 mice being infected with SARS-Cov-2 and treated with BIT225. The results are fairly self explanatory.

To recap, the mice continued to thrive after being treated with BIT225 for 12 days in the various time frames of administering: 12 hours prior to being infected with SARS-Cov-2, 24, and 48 hours afterwards, of which one mouse died from the later group. All mice untreated with BIT225 died within 9 days.

In evaluating further the mice trial results, it is best to consider the expert comments from the review team of PLOS PATHOGENS, the onlive peer reviewed journal that published the paper. You can read the comments form the initial expert review and Biotron's response and the necessray changes for publication on the PLOS website, under the tab, Peer Review.

The reviews are fairly straight forward and I reccommend readng it. A couple of points of interest in the review criticism.

The fact that they examined previous HIV data to make comparisons to the research in question.

The issue regarding to what extent BIT225 actually targets the E viroporin of SARS2 and the other viroporins of SARS-2.

There is also a review comment comparing these results where six strains of SARS2 were utilized, but no other types of coronaviruses. This is true for this testing, but you may recall from their ealier work that I quoted in my initial C19 post, Biotron have a patent in place based on tests done with most other corona viruses. You can see that here, although all the long termers here have already seen this probably too many times. https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/43808854/single

Another point of critique is the dosing level of BIT225, and you'll see in the authors response that these tests dosing levels were made with human dosing levels in mind for the forthcoming human trials (which we are waiting on), and previous clinical trials (HIV).

Of the few critcisms, the one most interesting from a scientific perspective is the issue mentioned above regarding the papers ability to show what viroporins are being targeted by BIT225. As you will read in the authors comments, further phase II/III results are leikely to establish this. IN short, the precise 'mode of action' is still a little mysterious.

For that I quote the authors reply in full:

"Weagree with the reviewer that it would be highly interesting to determine ionchannel activities and the impact of BIT225 on these for the other proposedviroporins of SARS-CoV-2. However, current techniques make suchexperimentschallenging; reliable methods to measure these activities still have to be established. We believe such studies go beyond the scope of this manuscript, as it is not the intention of this manuscript to determine the detailed mechanism of action of BIT225 here. While we see that BIT225 is an inhibitor of E-protein ion channel activity, we specifically mention in this manuscript that the particularly high in vivo efficacy of BIT225 may stem from simultaneous inhibition of multiple viroporins. Indeed, it will be interesting to find out more about this point in the future."

Overall, the paper was very well received as can be seen form the reviewers introductory remarks. The criticisms are fairly low level and do not in any way jeopardise the trial results. If they did, the paper would have unlikely been published.

My personal take on everything overall is very positiive. I am all in.

It seems another day of good trading. I was at the beach. Nothing more to do.

Not long now.