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 bought in years ago when K and B(and maybe other defensin abx, say a gm- one that they touted) as an antibiotic were the big draws. I had hopes for K- so much for that. I thought B was a good bet for cellulitis since it is good for MRSA too. Oh well. I never sold and was holding out for B UC since the original rectal suppository study was good.
And then we have the COVID stuff, which may or may not pan out.
Here is an interesting question: why pretend there is a high likelihood of success for B vs C in the coming trial? Why would anyone say this, when it is obviously false. The share price tells you what the world thinks about the chances of B success- not good.
Why then are some asserting otherwise? They bought at 10 cents and want to sell at 50 cents? is it really bogus, and pretenders to be big B boosters are in reality just playing a game?
There is no scientific basis for such silly claims, as we all realize, so why? Those saying it do not comprehend the difference between lab data and a human trial? Can it be that simple? Silly nonsense about 11, 552 and 426 means B stomps C- in patients?
It is hard to fathom. The market is well-aware of where things stand.
Are people just afraid of losing money? Their investment here might be lost if the trial fails, and so the "high likelihood" nonsense mantra gets repeated?
Why pretend B v C chances are better than they are?
Um, what does the share price tell you about that "good likelihood this upcoming trial will be successful"? It tells you that virtually no one agrees with that naive assertion. Most investors are not that dumb.
What's hard to understand about that?
Wake up please. Lab success does not = human trial success. Esp if B prevents C spread and all those inpatients already have widespread disease. Wake up already and accept a good chance of failure in the trial.
Oh sorry- just keep dreaming....
So we disagree. As a shareholder I find his comments way out of line and pointless and stupid. I was sorry to read it and sorry he sent it.
Maybe you would enjoy reading back over the big market app for an oral psoriasis drug? Can you say Prurisol?
Maybe some commentary about how many people die every day from cancer, and how much trouble P53 drugs have had? How about Kevetrin and that big opportunity?
Pathetic: wannabe COVID therapy- do your successful trial and we can talk later, Leo/IP.
remember all the unmet need chatter and market opportunity talk for Prurisol? Ad for B OM?
Wouldn't Leo have learned his lesson to shut up before he can put up?
disgraceful comments by Leo. I rote to him and urge you all to do the same. If you have a successful treatment then others will state the obvious: virus variants may make vaccines and other meds less effective.
But to say this yourself when you have proven NOTHING AT ALL is pathetic. Get in the game already and show some benefit but this bogus talk insults shareholders and potential investors. It is offensive.
Hey everybody, our market share may be going up...oh really, where is your successful trial? Then maybe we can talk.
How truly embarrassing.
Complete nonsense- the trial has not even started and Leo's comments are offensive and they are stupid. No corona patient has received B so what does he know that we do not? How about nothing.
IP/Leo: Hey everybody- other therapies might not work and the vaccines might fail. B might be more in demand.
Um, Leo: get in the game before you start to call the plays.
This update alone makes any shareholder cringe. Prove your drug works and then we can talk.
today's update is offensive and stupid. Look, Leo: prove B works and then the world can talk about therapeutics and vaccines and wins and losses in the corona wars.
but to address this now with the update- it is wrong
Run a successful trial, ok?
Then the medical community can figure out what's next
This update was one of the most pointless offensive things I have read and certifies Leo as a real dope.
Do your job Leo and then you can have a voice.
Let me think. let me think...oh yeah, that trial was for a completely different problem, skin cellulitis and abscesses.
Surely you jest?
Surely you would not suggest that successful treatment for a bacterial skin problem has anything at all to do with B success for inpatient COVID population?
Ha- unless they also have cellulitis, maybe, in addition to COVID and IP was measuring cellulitis response to B... you know, something completely different than they are doing.
Let's hope lab outcomes apply to COVID inpatients- not even CLOSE to a foregone conclusion, buyer beware-figuring most people know this all too well, the company now sells shares for 25 cents or so, case closed.
obv losing enough weight and getting in better shape and stopping smoking and drinking too much would save way more lives. Easier said than done. As we all know.
hope you are vaccinated, we are the lucky ones in that regard. Best wishes.
I get it- many not on the front lines believe COVID is overblown as a threat. And for many people it has no big impact if they get the virus. But those who do get sick are plenty enough to fill hospitals around the world and many die in slow and painful ways.
completely wrong, yes, you are correct. And I hope to be even more wrong now. And yet, with the chance to buy a million shares now, I would not buy one more. Start the trial already IP and let's see if B has a significant benefit for very ill inpatients.
Let's see: what is the argument to buy big now? Make the case. The lab data was promising and it might work?
Let us pause for one moment this morning to reflect on the potential trial population- moderately to severely ill COVID inpatients. In the spring for example, in Mass, some patients were admitted who were less ill, as physicians got up to speed on treating those with COVID 19. However, I can assure you that where I work, for example, you have to be very sick to be admitted to the hospital if you have COVID 19. Many patients are sent home with coronavirus every day, because their oxygen saturations are not bad, and they are not sick enough to need to stay in the hospital. These are patients with primarily respiratory illness, who do not have more unusual manifestations- neurologic, cardiac, renal.
We have been told by those involved in the trial that the primary benefit of B is to prevent disease spread from coronavirus. However, the inpatient trial population already has very widespread coronavirus. That is how they ended up in the hospital in the 1st place. Will anti-inflammatory benefit of B prove beneficial? Is there enough direct effect on the virus to help those already on oxygen, sometimes very high flow oxygen, or even on ventilators? Their lungs are very badly damaged by corona virus already. Have you looked at online chest x rays? And CT scans? I would urge you to do so. It is impressive. These people are really sick.
It is very important to understand the severity of illness in this inpatient population. Having seen many such patients every shift I work recently, B has a large challenge
It is asking a lot of Brilacidin and will not be easy
OK I read it. No start announced. Recall that Leo has been talking about this trial since April 6 2020 and said for sure q4 start many times. Many here said this q4 start was guaranteed.
Oh well. it's biotech, right?
Why should we believe January start?
The pace of research over the summer and the failure to move forward quickly has been horrendous. Leo lost all momentum.
A big pharma partner woulda meant otherwise, but it never materialized.
If B succeeds in the trial it will be a miracle and all here will have shares worth 10-100x today. It is asking a lot.
prurisol. all those lovely lovely rodents. after they got prurisol. but then the human trial. what happened? gee we never got details, did we? could not pay the CRO, with data delayed beyond any sense of fair play to sorry shareholders who were foolish enough to believe the lab data would lead to success.
imagine how IP will delay the COVID data, if it fails , as they try to find way to spin it rather than admit defeat
because it may mean the company will cease to exist. money for the UC trial?
risky business, this COVID trial, folks.
yes indeed high risk high reward
Interesting- I would have said just the opposite. Such naive assertions that lab data will simply transfer to a human trial are a good reason to make people think twice about an investment here- at this time. Wait for the trial results, already- so you miss some of the big rise, if positive. At least you will not lose it all if the trial fails.
Just to repeat: B lab data as reported by all involved helped most to prevent spread of disease. Having see the patients admitted day after day after day, I can tell you something- almost everyone already has very widespread disease. It will not be an easy trial for B to ace.
One more thing- hey Leo? You gonna be wrong-again-about trial start timing? You have been wrong about so much.
Prurisol. Did someone say Prurisol?
There is no reason to but even one single share now. Leo has consistently been wrong about key events- peer reviewed article coming out, grant on the way , trial start Q4.
Wait for the trial data, and let's see how well B does. Without a clear win, the company will vanish
you are very generous to post the vaccine response stuff fr NEJM- I am way too lazy to bother(when it is easy to look up)
Here: I saw one person with lip swelling after 1st dose. Several colleagues have had myalgias and felt crummy hours after 2nd dose
I felt nothing. That led to coworkers suggesting that I probably had a poor immune response...
Vaccine response shaming-
Guess what- your doctor would never be dumb enough to give the order for such a drug, so you would not get it. And it would not be in your hospital pharmacy for them to bring it to you, so you would not get it.
They need to do some tests of B on corona patients. Why is this hard to grasp?
Maybe then it'll be available.
Nota bene: decent chance it will not succeed...despite what one might read
sure let's just give untested drugs to sick people! Could there be anything wrong with that?
"with anticipated excellent trial results"- you realize that DeGrado would laugh at this totally bogus assertion.
I guess we can just call it just one opinion and agree that we all hope for such results, which are not even close to a lock-
Regarding the recent questions, which are nonsensical: but, here we go. Why bother with trials? Why is there even a hint of confusion about this? Why even a word of discussion?
1- The lab wonder drug may well fail in humans. Prurisol. Need I say more?
2-The drug may have unanticipated adverse effects. It will also be given to people on lots of other drugs. Will there be important interactions? No one knows and that is another reason for trials. I mentioned gut flora, but that can be anticipated, although people do not understand what it's all about. OK forget the anticipated side effects, the paresthesias for example, and focus on the unknown and the unanticipated in a group of sick patients with a new virus.
3-The "conscience" thing. This is total baloney if you understand #1 and #2 above. Other clinicians please with in if you will. I realize it is too silly to bother replying to, and yet....
I do not share your faith in B. In fact I believe B could harm some of the patients. Do you want to destroy the gut flora of all those patients? is that significant or insignificant?
trials have unforeseen consequences and that is why they run them. I think it would be morally wrong to give hospitalized patients Brilacidin right now.
we can agree on this, in the meantime: we hope that B works and that the adverse effects are not important.
If this turns out to be the case, will my stance have been wrong?
Only in retrospect. That is why they have trials- to shed light on these important and difficult questions.
As stated: clear conscience because I do not believe that B is more likely than not to help those hospitalized with COVID 19
Your questions are fair questions. I guess I was not clear enough earlier.
For me it's easy and obvious. It is a waste for time for Dr Sax to wade through the trials so far of B v C in the lab. He- and we- will know in about 60 days if B has any real benefit. In patients.
I think he can wait to hear about B in 60 days- if it works- and would not even bother to bring it up before then. Reading the lab studies now is a waste of time- the trial is nigh.
just one opinion.
A trial to answer the question is about to start. I can wait the 60 days or so to see if B helps.
I do not share the belief of many here that B will be a slam dunk success. I think there is an equal chance of trial failure- conscience is clear.
interesting question- my guess is that holding shares disqualifies me pushing my hospital for the trial.
With all that institutional interest Leo has been chatting about for months, the trial sites should be all set, no? I think IP is capable of finding its own 120 patients without my interference.
Really? You are telling me that if the trial had a very high or even high likelihood of success the share price would be less than 25 cents?
OK then we disagree. That is what makes our country great.
People can express their opinions even though they disagree. Completely, in this instance.
I broke my word because every shift I work involves care for COVID pts and I am feeling desperate for something to offer them. I will be thrilled if B ever gets in a trial and succeeds.
Every time I get through a shift I am in some amount of despair and I do not even work in an ICU, where the sicker patients are. I am lucky enough to have reached the 95% protection level post vaccine. The reality is that sick people keep rolling in the doors.
As I said: I expect grown ups to figure out that having DeGrado as an adviser does not matter at all right now- only the trial does. My objection comes over a pretense otherwise, like he is the cure.
In summary then- I am not expecting him to swing by anytime soon to wash my car, although it could use a wash. Great idea though, right? To pretend that is what I want? Nice one...
LOL/sigh
right. and if the trial fails? Where will that get you?
Will IP even be able to do the UC trial? or just fold?
you are really gonna count your chickens before they hatch? best wishes. We all have hopes, but the most dangerous logic expressed here is that the trial is bound to be a success. It can easily fail- that is why the share price is less than 25 cents.
It is fine with me too, of course. Any shareholder is happy to have him on board. But sleeping better at night right now because of DeGrado when all that matters now is the trial- just plain silly
Oh now I get it: DeGrado is responsible for the Q4 miss trial start? And for the failure to get the paper out by end of September? And for the failure to get the paper into a peer reviewed journal?
he is so important that we now know whom to blame.
Whew, glad to clear that up. DeGrado is so important- he must be hiding them back, then. Gosh, I thought he was busy inventing new molecules. But no-
Pathetic understanding of the role of a scientific advisor- HE IS SO IMPORTANT!!!
LOL
Ah, but your understanding of the DeGrado contribution is so deep I am sure. LOL. How about measuring it by the share price? Or the grants received? or the peer reviewed articles published?
It may be that DeG was behind all of the testing and he should get credit for what he has done
He just has done nothing for me or IP lately.
But I am sure you and others know better.
Too funny, really.
Hang on- all that counts is the trial. What is Dr DeGrado contributing to the trial? I can tell you: nothing. The synthetic molecule maker knows nothing of clinical trials.
But hey it's a free country- let's pretend he's a big help even as we speak
What a total joke
Promises, promises. Peer review publication promised but no, sorry, prepub only, not in any journal. Promises promises just so much infield chatter. For some people, apparently, promises alone are enough for optimism- reality is secondary
DeGrado gave advice- as he should have- he invented the drug.
the proof is in the pudding- NO grant and no peer reviewed publication.
If the trial succeeds Dr DeG is Man of the Year and B Synthetic Molecule of the Year.
And if the trial fails, we will say thanks Dr DeG, and we are back to UC. That is, if there is a penny left for the planned UC trial...
Thanks for making my point. The list of stuff since DeG join is about stuff he likely had little or no role in.
Show me the grant.
Show me the peer reviewed paper.
Show me his role in trial design.
DeGrado will be a priceless PR presence IF the trial succeeds
Ad that is all
So many words to say so little- but nice try
and any future investments depend solely on trial success or failure.
Sure he is good to have on board but this foolishness about sleeping better at night because IP has DeG- embarrassing nonsense.
How has the investment community responded to DeGrado joining thus far? Oh- let me see what the share price is...LOL
Grant? peer reviwed paper? Let me know when that happens and I will give DeGrado credit. it is a silly joke here that people pretend he is making a difference now.
I am talking about his entire career. Did he suddenly go back to school to run clinical trials?
Where is the peer reviewed paper? Where is any grant?
Wow- he has saved the day...Dream on.