I thought the same thing, but in fairness, I would say that the...

I thought the same thing, but in fairness, I would say that the initial testing they reported on was as a screen testing only. Pretty much a shotgun approach. This would weed out the ineffective compounds.

What BIT have not done is describe what the follow up testing comprises of. We also do not know what terms of conditions they have to available virus supplies.

It is pointless now to repeat what they did in the initial screen. What they are probably doing is more detailed testing to see what exactly each compound is targeting and is effective against. And for a good laboratory test - reproducibility. They would repeat the test again to ensure they get the same results.

In labs we often "make statistics work for us". So even though their compounds were "greater or equal to 30% inhibition" - that sounds better than saying "these compounds were between 30 and 40% effective in inhibiting the virus". Its in the wording and the stats. Both show the same but transported differently. This is what we often do when we devise a test with a target.


What I have not seen are any scientific publications on any of this work they have done. Peer reviewed publications. Writing something for ASX won't get you grants, clinical tirals, or grant money. Each time I look in PubMed for work I do its inundated with COVID papers that is what they BIT lack in. And it does not need to be a 100,000 word original paper, even a short communication paper would suffice. Their last scientific peer reviewed paper was published in 2016 ...... What does that say.

There is a good old saying in the research laboratory world.... "publish or perish". Time will tell if these 17 compounds do actually fight above their weight.