I'm not an expert, really, and just giving my opinion here.
Surely if one runs a test one time, one will get a result. Running it again in the same lab and same conditions will give a slightly different result. Running the same experiment in another lab, and all bets are off.
Science is messy, and it's really hard to replicate results across different labs, since there are so many variables, such as the amount and duration of virus applied to the cell culture, clinical isolate/source of SARS2 virus, suppliers of various instruments and supplies, etc..., not to mention the politics and human biases that go into doing "science" where the results matter and there are various incentives for finding the "right" results.
If an accountant wants to be frightened, take a look at "The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science" below:
Ioannidis is a truth teller, and I really enjoyed hearing him talk at my hospital a few years ago.
I don't think the FDA relies on the SI that much, but it's important to show a drug theoretically has a large "therapeutic window" where the drug works but doesn't cause harm.
Yeah, sure, but remember if a compound is so ineffective that it doesn't inhibit 50% of the virus compared to control (e.g. aviptadil/VIP), the SI is undefined.
Safety of the 2200 SI was done in cells, not in animals, so no bloodstream involved. It was found to be safe in monkey kidney cells at doses that were effective in stopping SARS2 replication (or killing of the cells, depending on which "assay" or test they used). I think you are right though, that like brilacidin rinse in the mouth or other end, the dendrimers don't enter the bloodstream at doses used.