<i>“A peer reviewed scientific article resulted from their independent testing.”</i> <br /> <br /> We learned from the peer-reviewed scientific article that an IPIX employee or consultant was responsible for the following: <br /> <br /> <b>Conceptualization <br /> Methodology <br /> Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation <br /> Writing — original draft preparation <br /> Writing — review and editing <br /> Project administration <br /> Funding acquisition</b> <br /> <br /> Where’s the “independent testing”? The only “independent” thing I see is that a lab technician at GMU (probably a student) did the bench work. IPIX was involved in the rest. <br /> <br /> The pre-print omitted this information. It was the peer-review process that required disclosure. Since IPIX was involved in writing and review of the pre-print, one can reasonably conclude that it was their original intention to <b><u>not</u></b> reveal their involvement. <br /> <br /> This does not mean that the data was invalid. I think I've made clear in several past posts that the data is valid and, unfortunately, does not bode well for success. <br /> <br /> I've also written several times that this is not a bad time to be holding the stock because of the depressed share price/valuation, massive cash flooding the market, and abundance of uninformed investors.