Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[loanranger]

The "new science paper with information on antimicrobial peptides like Brilacidin is deceptive" because it provides OLD information and omits NEW and more significant information that the authors either had to know or were ignorant in not knowing. I'm not ascribing malevolence to the authors, just a failure to report signifiicant relevant facts regarding Brilacidin.

Your list of "deceptions", on the other hand, is a list of some opinions posted on a self-described "forum for serious investors to gather and share market insights". None of the anonymous authors have any duty to the scientific method (https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-the-scientific-method) and readers are advised that "everyone should approach messages with appropriate skepticism and objectivity".

That is what I was doing when I noted that not only was your "news" not news but that it also lacked the level of integrity that one should be able to expect from a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/8/1062/htm
To say that Brilacidin "has been proven to have antiviral activity, inhibiting the SARS-CoV-2 virus in Vero African green monkey kidney cells and Calu-3 human lung epithelial cells, and showing a synergistic inhibitory activity in combination with the antiviral remdesivir" and then to fail to note that "Brilacidin did not show a difference compared to placebo in reducing Time to Sustained Recovery Through Day 29, the study’s primary endpoint based on clinical status" in a subsequent clinical trial is the kind of due diligence failure that would get the same paper tossed by any rigorous reviewer. That failure resulted in a less than fulsome and hence a deceptive portrayal of Brilacidin.

Obviously you are entitled to describe the paper as "news" just as I am free to describe it as "deceptive" but only one of us is correct. Would you like me to go over the facts again?