Ann: Quarterly Activity Report and Appendix 4C for Q2 FY202, page-7

Couple of concerns
1) TGA approval for a medical device is very easy to obtain - same with FDA. It is very different than for pharmaceuticals where you have to demonstrate they are effective. The noise with human lungs during CT and any breathing is incredible. I'll be staggered if it actually works like they say
2) Despite huge claims (and lots of media) they have not published any work in humans. Almost everything on their site is old ~2016 and in rats.
3) The studies aren't that hard to do - just actually get people with COPD or asthma and compare results to spirometry (=current gold standard). Would be safe and simple to do. There is no intervention. Radiation clearance only for ethics but this is easy. Pilot data on 30-40 patients would be very compelling and cheap - yet not done? Give me a research nurse, the equipment and maybe $100K and in 6 months I could do this. They have $50mil. What have they been doing for the previous 5 years - an eternity in health research. Lots of cash burn prior to IPO but no outputs.
4) Lots of spruiking of hospital network partnerships and yet they go with St Josephs or whatever it. Website doesn't even have a Dept of Respiratory Medicine or Pulmonology?? Not a good sign. If they have an orthopaedic surgeon on their board or supervising the trials I would run for the hills.

5) I have heard them present at conferences and they always have flashy displays etc but they are unimpressive. Lack of human data is a big big problem. Glaring. It takes a very long time to convince doctors to do new tests when old ones are cheap and familiar. Takes even longer if they only work on rats.
6) Big claims, no evidence. Reminds me of Theranos.

That doesn't mean you can't make money on them - Gee lots have. I would want to see some progress over spin though. Should be rapid and compelling to match the rhetoric.

DYOR