"Your confusion was the intent of the question."
Bullshit. An ANSWER was the intent of the question and you and virtually everyone else have failed to provide a clear one.
"It was an outstanding result"
This was the result:
Brilacidin reduced the viral load in the samples 97 and 99% more than nothing at all did.
Here are the only two conclusions available for you to choose from:
Is my characterization of the results incorrect (and if so, how)?
OR
Do you really consider the reduction of the viral load in the B treated samples of 95 and 97% more than nothing at all to be an outstanding result?
How much of a reduction in the viral load would you expect nothing to cause?
This absurd conversation will stop when someone answers that very simple question. While it was not my intent, the question appears to have caused you some confusion or you would have answered it instead of taking a potshot at my intent in asking it.
Or would you care to suggest that the significance and real meaning of the phrase "reducing viral load by 95 percent and by 97 percent, compared to control", in the Company's words, doesn't really need to be understood?
Now we hear that "it does not follow that substance with marked viral load reduction vs. 'nothing' would lack potency" as if I had actually suggested that B lacked potency. I certainly didn't and I don't believe that anyone else did.
The intent of my questions from the first time they were asked has been to try to understand this headline well enough to assess whether it justified an immediate 88% increase in the closing share price followed by a 53% increase the next day:
"Innovation Pharmaceuticals’ Brilacidin Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) by 97 Percent in a Human Lung Cell Line"
To some, and it seems as if this applies to you, the share price increases themselves may have been enough and no further examination is required. That's up to you and I make no judgment about it. Please do me the same courtesy.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
