Before writing a response I really thought for a sec and asked...

Before writing a response I really thought for a sec and asked myself why do I have to do this? Regardless of the facts based on evidence, some people believe in something -true or not- and will not change their sentiment for this stock or many other similar stocks. I don't have the slightest hope to change your sentiment, I do hope all RAP holders double or triple their profit in the coming weeks/months/years. I was a holder of MMJ, a similar stock to RAP as in it makes $0 revenue yet has a market cap of ~$ 57M, purely based on "potential" and "hype" that it will tap into "billion dollar" drug market etc.. It's bshit but I don't care as long as I ride the wave and make a profit. I wish good luck to all rap holders, truly.

However, when it comes to believing something for rather inaccurate reasons is something I have to stand against. I'm not a pulmonologist or an internal medicine specialist, but as a scientist and a medical doctor, I feel obliged to advocate the truth - or what we think is the truth based on the scientific evidence that is available to us now.

The statement RAP keeps using that "current diagnostics for respiratory diseases, particularly pneumonia is not 100% accurate" - this is true. No argument here. However they couple this with a smear that as if they provide the ultimate solution - they do not. Why?
First, if you actually read the 3 original scientific papers published by the inventors of the technology, you will see that their sample size is less 100 and their data is completely biased as 75% of the children in their dataset already had pneumonia (what do you expect?) Second, the research papers came out of this study ended up in mediocre biomed journals (Annals Biomedical Engineering and Biomedical Signal Processing and Control) with impact factor around 2-3, not proper medical journals of impact where the medical community take seriously such Lancet, New England Journal of Med or JAMA. Why? Because the papers were not anywhere near the standard of a clinically relevant importance.
Third, the company started two clinical trials; one on children (this is the one which RAP holders are expecting a "top-of-the-line" results next week) and one on adults. The study on children investigates the positive and negative agreement of SmartCough-C to diagnose or rule out pneumonia compared to "clinical and radiologic" diagnosis. What is the cohort? Patients displaying signs and symptoms of respiratory disease. The key question? What is the positive control here? Patients diagnosed with pneumonia using systematical diagnosis methods + confirmed with chest x-rays. In western world, no doctor can risk a patient's health and well-being by trusting an app and excluding chest x-ray.
Finally this is the take home message from a seminar about pneumonia I recently attended at St Vincents Hospital - The diagnosis of pneumonia can be quiet a subjective call for the radiologist as a few crackles can be for the clinician, though the bottom line is: If you suspect pneumonia, order a chest film.
Nevertheless, can ResApp find a place for itself in western world? Yes, if I have to deal with a patient popped by the emergency dept, rather than listening his/her coughs with my stethoscope, I would love to use an app to do the job for me as the app can show a similar accuracy to an experienced doctor. However that would be the end of ResApp's journey in the course medical diagnosis, it can not and will not replace the proper diagnostics. If we lose one patient because of ruling out chest films, that will be the end of a doctor's medical career or hospital might end up paying a big sum of money for it, no one will risk it.
But as I said, it is a different story when it comes to Africa or other 3rd world countries, where they really can't afford full diagnosis process.