“A peer reviewed scientific article resulted from their independent testing.”
We learned from the peer-reviewed scientific article that an IPIX employee or consultant was responsible for the following:
Conceptualization
Methodology
Visualization, Formal analysis, Data curation
Writing — original draft preparation
Writing — review and editing
Project administration
Funding acquisition
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.
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 not reveal their involvement.
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.
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.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
