Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I believe that the soon to be published results of our Brilacidin for Covid Phase 2 will show efficacy. But regardless of those Phase 2 results, we will NOT lose everything. We still have multiple shots on goal remaining; OM, UC, and ABSSSI to name a few.
Kingofsting said,
I’m not arguing for using B wholesale on the general population as a prophylactic. However, unless the virus/bacteria mutate to have Kevlar vests, resistance developing is not a concern. Most antibiotics use a chemical MOA but Brilacidin stabs the virus/bacteria to death. As the Borg would say, “Resistance is futile…”
Lemoncat said,
Why would it have to be an “under the counter” sale? If Putin wants Brilacidin, then I’m sure that the Russian version of the FDA will approve it. The sale will be open and above board.
Snowy Owl said,
Are you talking about Compassionate Use?
TheDane said,
I agree. I was subtly trying to make this exact point.
Petemantx said,
How would they be able to deliver approved drugs for human trials without a functioning QMS?
Sunspotter said,
I’d rather have 50% of the next 10 or 15 years. I don’t see how you could license just for Covid. Licensing would more likely be for IV administered Brilacidin. That would cover every bacteria Brilacidin will treat as well as every virus; including the next pandemic. I’m not thinking about just this version of Covid. We have a lot more than just the answer to the current pandemic and I hope that Leo does not rush a deal based on this version of Covid.
Lemoncat said,
I don’t see why and I have done significant consulting work with a defense contractor regarding financing and delivering on his first contract. In this case, I see Leo contracting the production and quality control of Brilacidin for IV administration (which he already does). That Brilacidin production will then be drop shipped directly to the address specified in the contract. Submit the invoice and then deposit the check. It isn’t brain surgery. It could get complicated due to the number of governments demanding product. But there is certainly no need to give away the store over logistics. Those who have talked of settling for 20% or 25% on the back end are talking about “giving away the store”; IMO…
Lemoncat said,
You left out a couple of possibilities.
6. The US government signs a billion dollar contract with IPIX to buy Brilacidin.
7. Other governments sign large contracts with IPIX to buy Brilacidin.
Dreamer0 said,
$3.45 AND 50% of the gross…
DaubersUP said,
Also, I can be reached at: anatabloc@mail.com . I’m trying to collect contact info for those of us old “Anatablocers”.
Do you think it’s working as well for you as the original Anatabloc?
Somebody please tell this doctor about Brilacidin!
PJ007 said,
Thanks for the update. How many bottles did you order when they sent you three?
The “emergency need” is to give Merck a big payday. Merck supposedly already has a >$1 billion government contract ONLY if the drug gets an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. IMO molnupiravir is another HCQ or Remdesivir, just potentially much more dangerous…
TradingPro said,
Actually, I have a pretty significant “grasp of the US legal system” and I did not get it from watching Law & Order. I’m not saying it will happen but prosecutors have significant authority and latitude when using that authority. There is a reason for the old saying that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Lemoncat said,
There is no federal statute of limitations for the crime of murder. And as to the jurisdiction of individual states; “Usually, any state in which an essential part of a crime has been committed can prosecute the offender. That means that authorities in each affected state can prosecute a crime that stretches from one territory to another.” https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/if-crime-occurs-more-states-can-prosecute.html
Lemoncat said,
In NC, there is no statute of limitations for felonies or crimes classified as “malicious” misdemeanors. I suspect that is the case for many other states as well. From a jurisdictional standpoint, every state has had deaths due to Covid and District Attorneys (DAs) in NC are elected. I think if Brilacidin is proven to work and the fact of this illegal, unethical, and immoral manipulation becomes known, DAs across the nation will want a piece of all of the criminals who played a part, big and small.
Lemoncat said,
There are legitimate shorts and not all those involved in illegal manipulation are hedge funds. However, to my mind, Mako, Rosen, and their associated persons/entities ARE ALL EVIL. They deserve prison and then a special place in hell. And I’m sure that they are not the only ones who’s illegal, manipulative activities in the biotech marketplace are also so deserving.
Loanranger said,
I believe that is exactly what has been happening and evil is the proper word to describe it. Revenue generation will put an end to the price manipulation. We’re almost there…
Hungry Ghost said,
I am listening… to the absolutely insane idea that IPIX capitulating (accepting) a ridiculously low offer is somehow good for us. Sorry, no sale…
Lemoncat said,
Well said.
Loanranger said,
I would be mad as hell. A one billion dollar buyout for a drug that may be a cure for most bacteria AND viruses is ridiculous. I cannot imagine an explanation that would keep me from instigating a shareholder lawsuit. Licensing Brilacidin for a billion dollars up front and 50% royalties would be more like it.
Lemoncat said,
But it absolutely IS insane. I would never sell an asset based on it’s cost. You ALWAYS sell an asset based on it’s market value. And in determining market value, it is certainly appropriate to take into account future cash flow projections and the time value of money.
Lemoncat said,
Please provide a link to Dr. Nathan Thompson’s video. TIA
There have been other biotech companies in the past who were targeted by shorts for takedown. Unfortunately start-up biotech companies tend to live off of their ability to raise funds through dilution. The lower the price, the more dilution it takes to pay for research, development, and administrative costs so it can be fairly easy to drive the share price down to the point that the company can’t survive. I therefore lean towards the cause being the illegal actions of a predatory hedge fund or some other malevolent “investment” group. At this point, the bad guys are probably realizing they picked the wrong target with IPIX and are trying to extricate themselves from the hole they have put themselves in. If the SEC was worth even 10% of its budget, this kind of thing would not, and could not, happen; regardless of who’s behind it.
Petemantx said,
Please post links. TIA
Hungry Ghost said,
It’s a 2% chance of dying of Covid. So what are the increased chances of dying of cancer over the next 5 years? 10 years? Oh that’s right, they haven’t done that study yet have they? I guess they want to get that EUA and the limits on liability that comes with it. That way they can use the American public as their guinea pigs while being protected from liability for killing and/or debilitating people with a drug that they KNOW is mutagenic.
Sunspotter said,
You would think that such testing would be a priority for a drug known for its mutagenic tendencies.
LIVED said,
The FDA exist, supposedly, to protect us from this kind of thing. Instead the FDA has crawled in bed with the big pharmaceutical companies that it’s supposed to be regulating.
Live said,
Unfortunately, it can take years for some of the SAEs caused by a mutagenic drug to manifest. Expect a significant increase in cancer over the long term. I suspect that this delay in the appearance of cancer SAEs is what Merck is counting on. Also, if they get the drug approved under an EUA, their liability is very limited. That leaves their suffering victim’s health AND finances in the toilet. Any system that allows this to happen is a failed system.
HereToday said,
From the “Conclusion” in that article: “ In our patient, SARS-CoV-2 persisted with proven infectivity for over eight months.”
Eight months!
Or perhaps:
1) Knowing that the company was not flush with cash and that it’s hard to get blood from a stone, and
2) Believing that in the end, the company will succeed, so
3) He therefore decided that instead of filing suit and becoming another roadblock for the company, he would wait until the company’s financial situation improves before trying to settle the issue.
Maybe it’s just me but somehow that makes more sense than him just “washing his hands of the whole thing.”
Loanranger said,
I think the sweet spot for Brilacidin against Covid would be earlier in the disease progression. If someone presents at the hospital and gets a Covid diagnosis, that person should be hooked up to a Brilacidin IV PDQ. At that point one or two doses of Brilacidin might be enough to overcome the virus.
TradingPro said,
The problem with compassionate use in this context is that by the time they get Brilacidin approved for a particular patient, the virus has already over stimulated the immune system and done most, if not all, the damage it’s going to do. Brilacidin does have the other MOAs that might help. Brilacidin’s immunomodulatory capabilities might still help and it could also probably address bacterial pneumonia. But in a compassionate use situation, I expect that Brilacidin arrives too late for its virus killing capabilities to do much good. That is my fear when it comes to Brilacidin and compassionate use.
I can. Some patients are apparently having to discontinue Remdesivir because they are experiencing significant SAE’s. In some cases, those SAE’s may be being cited as one reason for needing approval for the compassionate use of Brilacidin.
Sunspotter said,
Now that’s something to think about!
TradingPro said,
And once again, that questionable 1000 SI number for Remdesivir was determined by Gilead employees. Cell Research says that Remdesivir’s real SI number is 129.87. Perhaps that’s why Remdesivir’s performance in the clinic is only “so-so”. The 426 SI number for Brilacidin was determined by independent testing at a US Regional Biocontainment Laboratory. So, which SI numbers are more likely to be accurate?
Sunspotter said,
Touché. However, you did say “twice as many patients” not twice the “percentage” but regardless I should have audited the numbers myself.
Sunspotter said,