That is sort of the thing about receptors, it is really had to know what will actually work. When you run these types of programs you'll get a number of possibilities that the simulator will spit out, that be from an AI or more traditional stat generated model. There were a few articles very similar to this with Coronavirus cures. They then have to go work in a well designed clinical trial, against a placebo, and then in humans, which is way more unlikely. It's most likely that all 9 don't work, unfortunately. I'm not saying the fact they found them was luck, the luck is if they actually work.

Finding nine is more like luck then finding one. Note that just one of the nine (so far) is validated. If I tell you to roll a six on a dice and you do that’s pretty lucky. If I tell you to roll an even number (I.e., give you wider scope) and you do ... less amazing. They could have lab tested every compound in the set but it would have taken too long. The ML for them to 9. I’m not saying that this isn’t good work. Just addressing the statistical point re 1 v 9.