Cheap Contract Research Organization and Cheap CEO appear to be cheating, page-33

My footy team won the flag last year I am not assuming they will win next year is a bad analogy. While I am constantly critical of BIT communication the overwhelming evidence is for good results. Why?

--They have stated so much from the preliminary results (of which we can't see until it has been fully data analysed). They would not make such bold claims unless they were pretty sure of what they have seen from the trial data so far.

-you CAN go off of previous phases as that is the natural step to final product, this isn't football-it is medical science, the medical trials in mice were good hence even allowing the human trials to take place.

-All communications up until now have only indicated positive results, I imagine it would take a ridiculous miscalculation in the trial data for management to have to do a 180 and say everything they have stated leading up until now was wrong all trials were a total failure. Seems very unlikely

-And finally before all trials began all research was pointing to BIT225 or ANY medicine that disrupts the E-protein on a virus will like have a significant impact on said viruses ability to reproduce therefore being an excellent candidate for mass production and distribution.

if you understand science and have read the papers, probability is saying this medical product is very effective, patented and it is novel. When the management skills and BOD prove that they can do big business and match the science A+ grade I will be more confident. So far business management is getting a C grade from me.