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.
What I see pretty much covers all of Aug. as potential dates for news. Odds of something happening in Aug about 100% so no chance of failure for prediction.
So I guess all companies with the birth date of IPIX (however that is established) have the same prediction? I will stick with Bigfoot and Ancient Aliens but to each his own.
Why did you exempt DJT from getting behind Brilacidin?
Is it because of his allegiance to Hydro......?
If what you say is true, that would cross the line totally into the criminally unethical zone.
What is even worse, there does not appear to be much support that it could have been done for any other reason.
And the ones that should be calling for his head should be other doctors.
By coincidence, I am writing a fictional novel addressing that problem. Going to be a love it immensely or hate it totally book.
No clue. I have been one of the most vocal against the current system per grant requests as IMO it is no better than the ol' FDA gamesmanship of slow, slower, and then take a rest before we slow down even more. I write a lot of posts knowing that quite a percentage of readers will hate it but that it should cause a lot of discussion. Reflect on how little discussion goes on most boards, not just rants at one another but real discussions about the investment, and you will understand why I try and make people think and react. I wrote the following today reflecting my views as it does expand on a post I made a day or two ago. So far 75 people read it and nobody responded. I think most on these boards are really just zombies:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement from Inka regarding the grant review process per your post is IMO the epitome of the nearly criminal process grant requests apparently go thru:
“This process takes several weeks, so there is no newly submitted grant from one company that is reviewed differently from, or faster, than all the others."
From this statement, all grants appear to be blindly put into a bin and pulled out at random (or by order of submission) for review. Then to make matters worse, she says "no newly submitted grant from one company is reviewed differently from another.
Now take that logic (or what I think is more illogic) and apply it to any situation you can think of and tell me any other that is so inane. You have a big contract to award (lets say for missles), do you review Lockheed or Raytheon's bids more seriously, faster, and more thoroughly than you do the bid from ABC missle and septic tank cleaning company? Of course you do!! Why isn't this the case with grant requests? There is only so much time, why spend it on drugs that have shown no outstanding results to date?
What is the purpose of paying for RBLs if their results are put in the stack with all other lab results submitted that were run by who knows whom? Is there no pre-screening of grants, just as there was pre-screening of drugs to see which were most probable to work against CV19, so that the grant committee could spend their time most efficiently?
The IPIX request shows data derived from INH labs nearly wiping out CV in both human lung and kidney tissue, showing a likelihood for a very high SI, having a very solid safety profile in prior trials, and yet it is stuck in the stack with joe sh** the ragman and their plea for funds for a drug that has shown what? Where are the test results that make these requests even worth reviewing?
To sum it up, if a piece of crap like Rems... has become the savior drug for CV than Alfred E Neuman (hint - MAD magazine) should be running for President. The entire process would be comical if many tens of thousands of patients weren't dying.
I will give no slack to Inka Dinka and her panel, the INH, or any other bureaucratic organization running this CV Keystone-Cops fire drill. Whoever gave all those funds to the BPs should be tried and shot IMO and all the BP execs that took it, knowing they had nothing to offer but would benefit immensely on a personal level, should also be brought to justice (shot) as well.
We may be in a holding pattern due to lack of B-IV to start a trial at the current time, but even if that is the case the grant review process IMO reeks of the same old FDA bullshit to proceed at the slowest pace possible, form as many panels as possible, and everybody cover your asses so no blame can ever be directed to a single group.
I am not necessarily slamming Inka, I am slamming the process. If she is part of the group clamoring for this process, then I would say she is definitely part of the problem.
Pricing of Brilacidin could prove quite a problem IMO.
The world wants the CV19 treatment (and thus a treatment for what should be quite a host of other viruses)to be priced as low as possible so everybody could afford it worldwide. So now you have a very low cost (comparatively speaking) for B-IV.
Now go to the B-ABSSSI indication for infections and the need to be able to kill superbugs. I have read where leading antibiotic experts say that a price of $10,000 per treatment would be a steal (compared to some other disease and cancer drugs that go up to $1MM / treatment)if it could save patients where nothing now can.
How can you charge $10,000 for the IV for ABSSSI to get the payback necessary for startups to develop such new antibiotics when you are selling the exact same IV for CV and virus treatment patients at a rock bottom price of say $800 / treatment?
Take the same path for COPD, kidney problems, bowel problems, etc, etc. That is why I believe the entire B platform must be handled by a single BP. They would make enough in bulk and have enough patients to generate massive revenues while being able to price B at a reasonable level.
Exactly my thoughts. Inka Dinka's thoughts on progressing were so out of line with "all systems go" thinking that I almost puked. She is cut from the same ol' administrative delay BS mode as FDA was in prior to Covid IMO.
All the virus moneys and current testing is being done on DNA alteration that to date has no basis in safety or effectiveness. Going to be coming out w/ GMO changed humans possibly.
Sorry to sound like I am belittling Dr. Inka ..... She is obviously a very qualified doctor - I just get so steamed over delays and I rank this peer review as pure BS when the tests show the overwhelming results right from a governmental lab.
Two points:
1 Investors have lost nothing as to date they mainly have only been holding their shares, not trading them.
2 "unless the SEC or Finra steps in to straighten it out" after you made this wildly funny statement, almost too far-fetched even for a joke, you forgot the LOL LOL LOL LOL
I don't understand it, but I know those that are good chartists usually do a lot better than those that aren't. I just think that stocks with a large block of ne'er do well wishers may be a bit more sketchy regarding the chart than those that don't have such a subset.
He was so far ahead of his time (and his ideas most likely still are) that it does prove interesting to wonder if indeed he was in contact with higher forms of intelligence.
If that is not the case, he was definitely a freak of nature to have such a marvelous brain.
I bet he is in another space and time pondering "Brilacidin, why didn't I think of that"?
Not directed at you but at charting as a whole, what the heck does staying above the XXX line mean for any indication other than possibly signalling what the MMs want to do with the stock? Are you simply trying to read their intentions because other than that it is pure BS as far as I can see. It is not science like the Earth is going to rmake a complete revolution every 24 hours or circle the sun once every 365 1/4 days, it is just what the MMs want to do with the stock.
In the last 10 minutes of today they could of taken it up a penny or, as usual, drop it back down per their whim (or more correctly their algorithm).
Was the last trade today for 5 shares? A whole $1.25? If that's how they make these charts, I can see why they are so predictive.
Are we also to think there is not even 10 units of B-IV to do a quick test on CV19 patients so govt can decide if they should be throwing BILLIONS at Brilacidin to stockpile the product and save lives now?
Nobody can tell me IPIX is responsible for getting B-IV available at this point in time for a crucial human test. Govt thru $2B at Rems... for stockpiling their POS treatment (I don't use that term lightly, look at their trial results, their trial conditions which were all geared to perfect patients for their product as I have been led to believe) so how much money could they throw at Evonik NOW to push a quick 200 units of B-IV available in the shortest time possible?
Not attacking you, attacking the article.
Even a dunce of a group would have realized the difference between a true medical advancement like Brilacidin and a PUMP and DUMP which is what I feel Rems.... is based on past trials.
IMO big money in the right pockets is advancing both REMS... and Moderna.
For those new, the following is extremely heavy on the sarcasm.
The last few weeks seems to have proven what so many on this board keep trying to tell us, there is absolutely no nefarious doings being played by outsiders (whether MMs, hedge funds, cabals, major trading groups, whomever)against IPIX. There are very few shorts and for certain no naked shorts (of course, if there were wouldn't the "naked" mean they couldn't be traced?). What we have is a perfectly trading market adhering to all the rules put in place by the SEC. If any of the named bodies above were fiddling with the trading, we certainly would be protected by FINRA who would throw the top management of firms doing such brazen thievery in jail (or more likely give them a a token slap on the wrist, tell them not to do it again, and let them keep about 95% or more of the money they filched from honest investors with their illegal dealings).
Now how can I support such belief in the system such that it must have been bad company news that sent the stock price dropping? See the following:
1- B found to be one of only a handful of drugs found to be lethal to CV19 via computerized model of over 11K drugs.
2- Further testing by a govt lab showed B exceptionally effective in killing CV in a petri dish.
3- Further testing showed B killed 85% of CV19 within an hour against an extremely tough strain of CV19 in human kidney tissue
4- Further testing showed B killed 97% of CV19 in human lung tissue.
5- RBL that did the lab work on the human lung tissue (and had worked with B since 2018 against antifungals) was so impressed with the results that they co-authored a grant request to do a PAN-CORONA investigation of B.
6- Both RBLs plan on publishing peer review articles of the work and findings they did on B because the results were so stellar.
7- Further testing at RBL showed at the lowest dose given to date B still showed a 90% effective kill rate of CV19 whereas Remsdesivir only showed a 50% kill rate. Thus, the SI (selectivity index), which is a great aid in determining those drugs with the highest expected success rate against CV19 and the safest, should be MUCH higher for B compared to Rems....
8- Testing results listed above shows that Brilacidin should kick Rems.... ass in a head to head trial.
9- Govt has already committed to a $2B order for Rems.... product. What would they commit to a product that wipes out Rems... results?
10- Grant request was submitted in early July and keeps getting closer and closer to being announced.
11- B's 3 MOAs against CV19 gives it a Billion X Billion greater chance of viruses not being able to develop a resistance to it compared to all other drugs that have only a single MOA to kill CV19.
12- B's 3-in-1 properties of being antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, and having strong immunotherapeutic properties makes it able to attack the results of the CV19 such as lung cell death, brain swelling, kidney disruption, bowel disruption, cytokine storm, etc while most every other drug just is able to try and kill the virus to a far, far less greater effect than B.
13- B does not alter the DNA of the human genome. Most other major drugs being discussed, especially for developing a virus, affect the DNA in a recombinant or like manner and to date NO DRUG HAS EVER BEEN tested to see what the long term effects on humans is of these drugs. But then, who doesn't mind for-profit companies playing with the human genome?
I think the above has pretty much made my point. Why wouldn't all stock holders have realized the price would plummet of our shares when we have been faced with the above body of news? Who would ever have thought such mind boggling success after success for B against CV wouldn't have set BIG MEDICINE on its ear (or maybe that is one of the problems, BIG MEDICINE realizes what a threat Brilacidin brings to SO MANY of their drugs which don't cure anything, just treats conditions for life long needed therapies off of which they happen to make a fortune)? Who wouldn't have expected a major drop almost daily at the last second and a major drop right out of the gate in the first 15 minutes of trading by the MMs?
Yes, I now realize I should pity all us dumb long stock holders for the rose-colored glasses we have been wearing. Even a fool could look at the data above and see we were headed in an ever increasing spiral down in share price.
And if you believe that, you are most likely profiting from this unconscionable attack on IPIX. Not blaming the traders that buy and sell daily, that is all part of the game. But the larger game is being allowed by the regulatory bodies IMO and though they know how to fix the system the big money says to keep their hands off - and so they do.
Then explain the below excerpt from the article posted:
The drugs were first identified by high-throughput screening of more than 12,000 drugs from the ReFRAME drug repurposing collection — the most comprehensive drug repurposing collection of compounds that have been approved by the FDA for other diseases or that have been tested extensively for human safety.
I think all the article is talking about are "repurposed" currently approved FDA drugs.
Thus, no Brilacidin.
and thus, no winners in the group, just lots of targets for all the govt money being wasted IMO
You are talking about a drug that has proven quite worthwhile for one indication. I admit rheumatoid arthritis is a fearful condition to have, but I have friends that still have it so Bucillamine hasn't been a panacea for RA for all.
Brilacidin, on the other hand, should have equally good or better results for a plethora of conditions and will far surpass ANY AND ALL drugs that have proven good for just one condition.
Bucillamine/Brilacidin is a win/win for the world. Not trying to belittle Bucillamine in any way.
Are we wildly optimistic about Brilacidin? Da** right we are.
It has to prove itself, I give you that, but it was like when my Dad asked an F16 pilot how he would fare against my Dad in his F4 Phantom and the response was "No disrespect, sir, but how would a Model T compare against a modern Ferrari?"
This is the quantum level jump in medicine I feel Brilacidin is compared to drugs from 30 years ago.
You most likely will disagree and we will just have to agree that neither of us will ever change our view.
I have always believed Dr. Menon deserves all the credit for the acquisition of PolyMedix. Leo didn't/doesn't have the background to have envisioned the potential of the PolyMedix pipeline of products at the time of the acquisition.
However it happened, what a godsend for IPIX.
Brilacidin to me goes back many, many years when one of the very learned doctors said that the many uses for Brilacidin had not yet been barely scratched.
Turns out he knew what he was talking about.
It is also why I shake my head at those that want to put a current value on Brilacidin - we have barely scratched the surface so how would one have any clue as to its actual value?
Unless the partnership was written where IPIX profits greatly from future revenue streams (I think our royalty fees should rise with rising sales on all partnerships) than IPIX is getting taken to the cleaners. One of my biggest peeves is that to not appear to be pumping Brilacidin, we always estimate we will attain about 15% or so of the markets we are entering but in reality, if Brilacidin is by far the most effective and certainly the safest treatment, plus priced right, it should be able to attain 50% or more of many of these markets (unless the ol' BP payola game to doctors and hospitals is still widely in effect). If anything, I think most have under estimated the value of Brilacidin greatly.
I am so grateful for IPIX having the chance to put itself in a very comfortable position due to CV19 treatment that we will not be at the mercy of BP to partner out B indications simply to stay alive. If they want it, they will have to pay a decent price for it. If not, there will be some that will.
I don't think it is any coincidence that the Aarthi Narayanan from GMU who received a grant prior to 2018 for $1.86MM for the study of Host-Based Anti-Microbial Peptides as Therapeutic Strategies for Alphavirus Infections by the U.S. Department of Defense is the same person that IPIX paid $35K for further study of Brilacidin for CV19 and who included the PAN-CORONA study request in the grant submission with IPIX recently. Remember, alphavirus study was part of the IPIX grant request. I am of the opinion that is why Brilacidin was assigned to the GMU RBL for CV19 study in the first place.
"Aarthi Narayanan, Assistant Professor, National Center for Biodefense and Infectious Diseases, received $35,000 from Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for a project in which she is examining the use of Brilacidin for the treatment of coronavirus infections. Brilacidin is an investigational new drug. It is a polymer-based antibiotic currently in human clinical trials. It represents a new class of antibiotics called host defense protein mimetics, or HDP-mimetics, which are non-peptide synthetic small molecules modeled after host defense peptides.'
She obviously was quite familiar with Brilacidin and all its wonderful attributes long before CV19 so when the pandemic arose she would have been adamant to get Brilacidin sent to the GMU RBL for study.
I think she is fully aware that bringing Brilacidin into the limelight thru a complete PAN-CORONA investigation will make her career. I had posted this before, but this information really solidifies that thinking(at least IMO).
It is something BARDA should have provided grant money for a few months ago as they knew then that Brilacidin was a strong candidate for not only CV19 antiviral but as a strong anti-inflammatory.
Maybe it just wasn't enough of a cost for them to address it, they seem predisposed to allotting monstrous amounts to BP for shot in the dark purposes.
But maybe I am in error, for when has the anti-inflammatory abilities of B been shown to date in a clinical trial? Not sure if the ABSSSI, OM, or IBD trials to date have made known that strength of B yet.
Can't believe it would be that costly to get into inhaler/neubalizer form but not sure.
Alphavirus was used in relation to Brilacidin by the RBL that wanted to do a PAN CORONA investigation. The excerpt below is from the June 11th IPIX PR:
"Longer-term objectives include potentially performing additional research to develop Brilacidin as a broad-spectrum antiviral, with possible application beyond coronaviruses, e.g., treating other viruses, such as encephalitic alphaviruses and filoviruses."
I don't worry about stuff like that. I believe Leo is pretty busy and when he gets around to the website, fine, but this summer I think he is one busy man.
I have no pharma background and use the term we, us, etc in my messages as I feel as a long term stockholder who has put a lot into IPIX in terms of buying stock, that I am a part of IPIX. Nothing else.
There is indeed a lot of chaff on this board, but a few very worthwhile posters. You have unlimited ignores. When you identify a poster that you deem worthless, put him on ignore. I have many, many posters on ignore so my board is very readable. I log on and see 80 new messages have been posted yet on my board I only see 12 or so, all others being ignores.
FYI, when you make a posting mistake you have 15 minutes in which you can edit your post. You can edit as many times as you want within those first few minutes.
Simply go to your recent post and in the upper right you will see a button IN RED that says edit (and the number of minutes left to edit). Click it.
Your message will pop up and you are able to do anything to that message, whether it be correcting spelling, grammar, or you can change any (or all) part of the message by cutting, inserting, etc.
Once you finish your editing, hit the submit post button or your changes won't take effect.
After that initial time, though, you cannot edit anymore.
In the 2016 CTIX drug profile listing there was a CTIX-1502 but no PMX-1502 (I take it PMX stood for PolyMedix and CTIX for Cellceutix) which made me wonder if Menon slightly modified PMX-1502 and made it CTIX-1502.
I bring this up only because in the FDDCD PR they mention the work is related to CTIX-1502 (or C4).
He has a defensin mimetic lab at U of Calif San Francisco.
A poster here contacted him and his response was such that one would not think he is a stockholder in IPIX.
We would owe U of Penn 10% of our 6% (netting IPIX 5.4%) as we are getting the "proceeds" from a sub-licensee (FCCDC) and that is specifically stated in the agreement to be at a 10% rate.
Now if IPIX had partnered with a BP all our "proceeds" would have been subject to a U of Penn 3% fee as we were the licensee, but since it went thru a sub-licensee, 10% is the going rate.
It has to be this way for U of Penn to protect themselves from IPIX sending too much thru sub-licensees which takes lots of money out of U of Penn pocket while IPIX sits back, does nothing, and draws some decent monies.
I don't think IPIX had much of an interest in anti-fungals and it is only right that they allow someone with the expertise and facilities to see this urgently needed area of medicine advance get the rights (and the resulting rewards) to do this vital work.
$40MM+ per year would be nothing to sneeze at for most companies as it is almost like a gift. Some may think me crazy for putting up that $5B/yr amount in sales but if it is indeed a case where current anti-fungals are crap and CTIX-1502 (C4) is the answer then capturing about 30% of the market is realistic. IMO
FCCDC is the junior partner in a licensing agreement with a BP.
As such, they get the agreed upon "royalty" from the BP, which is normally stated as a percentage of TOTAL GROSS SALES. (in our example $5B)
These royalties to FCCDC are the "proceeds" that FCCDC gets from the BP, so in my example that would be the agreed upon 15% of TOTAL SALES, or the "proceeds" equal $750MM.
IPIX has agreed to getting 6% of FCCDC "proceeds" which is the 15% of TOTAL SALES (or royalties) that FCCDC received. 6% of $750MM = $45MM.
Note in my example that FCCDC's royalties are only 15%, or $750MM. If they gave IPIX 6% of total sales (as you are saying IPIX is due), that would mean that they are giving IPIX $300MM. That would be 40% of the total "proceeds" they received from the BP.
Now if the BP is only giving FCCDC 15% for doing all the work of bringing the fungal drug to a state to make it commercial, why would FCCDC give IPIX 40% for doing nothing other than making the drug available to them to bring to commerciality?
Another glitch in the memory bank - PolyMedix did not use the U of Penn Super Computer, they used "Big Ben" at the Pittsburgh SuperComputer Center to do the numbers crunching for the formulation of Brilacidin.
Here is the latest PR from that facility, dtd 9June2020, stating that they received a $5MM grant from the Natl. Science Foundation to build NeoCortex, a unique AI system, to speed AI research.
https://www.psc.edu/
From data acquired from IHUB post 92313, dtd 2/23/15, written by slcimmuno which give TONS of background with references attached, he made the follow ascertains given by PolyMedix founder (and a recognized genius in many fields) Nicholas Landekic.
1) CONNECTION TO U OF PENN - The company (PolyMedix) created its own drugs and polymer biomaterials using a proprietary computational drug design platform developed at and licensed from the University of Pennsylvania.
2)SUPER COMPUTER USE - This comes from justfactsmam per the post attached dtd sometime around Mar of this year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with repeating old news here...many here have never read about the $30M/60,000 super computing time used in formulation Brilacidin, no less the $10's of millions in testing Brilacidin in lab and human trials.
1. Brilacidin was formulated and co-developed by University of Pennsylvania and its Researchers. (not in Leo's garage)
2. The University of Pennsylvania and its Researchers (Founders) formed an entity Polymedix, the original patent filer, which patent was bought by and now owned by IPIX.
3. Among Founders and Originally Advisory Members were, William F. DeGrado PhD., Dr. and Richard Scott, Henry Heine, Phd., Gregory Tew PhD., Henry S. Heine, Ph.D. and others..(see below...and see where they are now!)
4. Founders spent $30M and in 2005 used 60,000 hours of the then NEW Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center's (PSC) "Big Ben",
5. "Big Ben" was built, in part, "to design of new materials, protein dynamics studies that lead to new therapeutic drugs" through which Brilacidin was formulated.
6. Brilacidin is a synthetic molecule targeting bacteria which mimics the activity of antimicrobial proteins that have a natural ability to prevent bacteria from developing resistance.
7. Brilacidin..uses synthetic molecules to mimic the mechanism of these "host defense proteins," which work by rupturing the skin of bacterial cells.
8. Brilacidin, is an ANTIBIOTIC... that directly breaks the bacteria cell membrane very much like a needle going into a balloon...and because of that there's a very low chance the bacteria can develop resistance to it
9. PolyMedix has "... shown that Brilacidin kills more than 80 different strains of bacteria. Actually, we haven't found any strain of bacteria that we haven't been able to kill with these compounds," ... The compounds have been effective on the bio warfare pathogens black plague, tularemia and 12 strains of anthrax. (FUNNY THING...Brilacidin HAS NEVER FAILED A CLINICAL TRIAL UNDER IPIX/CTIX!)
KEY NOW...will Covid-19 "treatment" test show that Brilacidin "breaks the Covid-19 (and maybe many virus's) cell membrane very much like a needle going into a balloon????
Key players in the development of Brilacidin:
William F. "Bill" DeGrado, Ph.D., is the Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) where he is the Director of DeGrado Lab research Laboratory and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
He received a B.S. (chemistry) from Kalamazoo College and a Ph.D. (Chemistry) from the University of Chicago in 1977 working with Emil T. Kaiser and F. Kezdy. His graduate work focused on the design of the oxime resin for solid-phase synthesis, which was used for synthesis of protected peptides and is still in use for various types of combinatorial chemistry today. He also used peptide design to demonstrate that melittin adopts an amphiphilic helical structure, which is responsible for its membrane-disrupting activity.
He first held an industrial position at DuPont Central Research & Development (later DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company). He transitioned to academia in 1996, joining the University of Pennsylvania as the George W. Raiziss professor of biochemistry and biophysics and then moved to UCSF in 2011.
Dr. DeGrado was one of the original scientists involved, while at the University of Pennsylvania, in the discovery and subsequent development (see recent mechanistic studies) of Brilacidin and the larger Innovation Pharmaceuticals’ (patent successor to PolyMedix) Host Defense Protein (HDP)-mimetic platform.
Dr. DeGrado’s work laid the foundations for PolyMedix’s core lead drug development programs and product candidates. Both PMX-30063 antibiotic, the world’s first small molecule mimetic of host defense proteins intended for systemic use, and PMX-60056 heptagonist, a new reversing agent for heparin and Low Molecular Weight Heparins, are based on pioneering discoveries originally made by Dr. DeGrado.
He was the scientific founder of and Chief Scientific Advisor for PolyMedix, an emerging biotechnology company at the time developing new therapeutic drugs for serious, life-threatening acute cardiovascular and infectious disease. He was a Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia, PA, and a member of the National Acad
Based on his work at PolyMedix, he was named the 2008 recipient of the prestigious Ralph F. Hirschmann Award in Peptide Chemistry. The award recognizes a person who has made outstanding contributions in the chemistry, biochemistry, or biophysics of peptides.
His published research includes contributions to the fields of protein design, synthesis of peptidomimetics, and characterization of membrane-active peptides and proteins, most notably the M2 protein.
The M2 proton channel from Influenza A virus. DeGrado’s early work with the groups of Robert Lamb and Larry Pinto established the overall structure and mechanism of the M2 proton channel, which is the target of the anti-influenza drugs, amantadine and rimantadine. A decade later their crystallographic, and NMR structures defined the fine details of the binding site for these drugs and explained the mechanism of the growing problem of amantadine-resistance. With Michael Klein, Robert Lamb and Larry Pinto, DeGrado extensively characterized the physiological properties of many drug-resistant mutants of the channel, identified those most likely to lead to resistance, and designed new drugs to address the problem of drug-resistant forms of influenza A virus.
Dr. DeGrado was one of the original scientists involved, while at the University of Pennsylvania, in the discovery and subsequent development (see recent mechanistic studies) of Brilacidin and the larger Innovation Pharmaceuticals’ (patent successor to PolyMedix) Host Defense Protein (HDP)-mimetic platform.
In 2017, at a lecture, Dr DeGrado has referred to Brilacidin, a promising immunomodulatory drug candidate currently being evaluated in mid-stage clinical trials. Brilacidin, based on insights gleaned from frog peptides, is a successful example of de novo protein design, described as: "the process of using peptide sequences that are not existent in, but inspired by nature" to build molecules as potential innovative therapeutics with novel attributes and applications. As to drug development, such novel synthetic design strategies of proteins ("the workhorses of all living creatures" allow for improved pharmacokinetic properties and enhanced target specificity.
Dr. DeGrado has co-authored over 370 articles (list of publications), holds more than 25 patents, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, elected in 1999. In 2003, he was presented (pdf) with the Merrifield Award by the American Peptide Society. He received The Protein Society's Stein and Moore Award in 2015 and, most recently, was presented with the 2017 Biopolymers Murray Goodman Memorial Prize.
Michael L. Klein, is Laura H. Carnell Professor of Science, Director of the Institute for Computational Molecular Science, and Dean of the College of Science and Technology at Temple University in Philadelphia, USA.
He was previously the Hepburn Professor of Physical Science in the Center for Molecular Modeling at the University of Pennsylvania and worked with PolyMedix and instrumental in PolyMedix obtaining the patent titled, "Facially Amphiphilic Polymers as Anti-infective Agents" (developed into Brilacidin) allows compositions of matter and uses for a number of series of antimicrobial compounds for antibiotic and other anti-infective applications. to develop acute care products for drug resistant bacteria and acute cardiovascular disorders based on biomimetics - novel non-peptide small molecule drugs that mimic the activity of proteins. PolyMedix’s compounds are designed with a proprietary computational drug design technology licensed from the University of Pennsylvania, and are based on the work of Drs. William DeGrado, Michael Klein, and Gregory Tew.
PolyMedix has developed novel small molecule antibiotic drug candidates by mimicking the activity of the host defense proteins, one of the oldest and most effective antimicrobial defense systems present in virtually all living creatures. Unlike many antibiotic drugs which act on biochemical targets and to which bacterial resistance readily develops, PolyMedix’s antimicrobial compounds have the potential to be rapid acting broad-spectrum antibiotic drugs because they appear to work biophysically by a novel mechanism that targets and disrupts bacterial cell membranes. These new antibiotics compounds are active against Gram-positive, Gram-negative and drug-resistant bacteria, as well as have antifungal and antiviral properties. Laboratory testing has shown their mechanism of action is associated with a low incidence for the development of resistance.
I have deleted backgrounds on the other founders as though they were important they are not that germane to this post.
I have to believe someone put their "short" computer algorithms regarding IPIX on auto pilot and went out for a year long vacation.
What they are currently doing makes no sense. I do not believe any decent amount of shares are being sold by longs so it is the traders pool of shares that get moved day by day by day and IMO the volume is made up to a LARGE degree by selling between MMs to make volume look much larger than it really is.
Everyday more and more shares go into strong long hands IMO. Thus, the other side is going to have to come to terms one day, they see the IPIX program appears likely to be successful, so why keep shooting a dead horse and putting yourself in a deeper and deeper hole when there are obviously much easier targets to go after in the market?
Strange - unless the hole they are in is cataclysmic-ally deeper than one would realize.
Strange, also(or not), that the last trade of the day is always timed to the tenth of a second to make sure price drops precipitously.
Such is the market, like it or not. Guess the MMs are lucky traders cannot put in a time to execute the trade besides a price and quantity. That would make for quite a spectacle I am sure.
I have copied below directly from the PR IPIX put out yesterday:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Under the amended terms, and in exchange for a six (6) percent fee tied to all potential future proceeds—including upfront payments, milestone payments and royalties—the Company is granting FCCDC all discovery, intellectual property and commercialization rights related to its share of their joint antifungal drug program."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no mention of sales, what is stated is "proceeds" to include upfront and milestone payments and royalties - that is exactly what a biotech gets when partnering with a BP.
So if FCCDC partners with a BP, they would get the same "proceeds" and IPIX would get 6% of that, not total sales.
Anyway, that is how I read it.
I think someone pointed out yesterday that FCCDC is located at the U of Penn as was Polymedix.
The agreement we learned of yesterday will allow FCCDC and U of Penn to reap the lion's share of any revenues received from Brilacidin-based fungal commercial products should they decide to take such products to commercialization themselves. IPIX shareholders should be praying for this but IMO not a realistic option.
If one assumes they partner with a BP to bring the fungal products to commercialization and they get a deal that pays them say 15% royalties (they should get a good royalty rate IMO as Brilacidin will be already proved safe so they could go right to a PII trial and both the PII and PIII shouldn't be that large for the same reason). They pay IPIX 6% so their net is 9% of sales and in a market of 17B/yr or so without that much competition that would result in extremely nice income for them. Not sure how any revenues or payments are aligned between FCCDC and U of Penn but I am sure both will win.
So if sales are $5B /yr FCCDC gets $5B x .15 = $750MM from BP
FCCDC pays $750MM x .06 = $45MM to IPIX
IPIX pays $45MM x .1 = $4.5MM to U of Penn
IPIX nets $ 40.5MM Not bad for doing nothing
It appears IPIX will net 5.4% royalties for the fungal products per the below that was provided to me by a friend who is a lot sharper on these matters than me. Pretty sure the referenced 10K was for the fiscal year that ended June 2013. Also note that FCCDC is a sub licensee:
On the same page 12 of the annual 10k page 12. If I am reading this right IPIX would pay U of Penn 10% of whatever license fees that IPIX gets. I am speculating that this would be 10% of the 6% that we get from FCCDC which would equate to IPIX netting 5.4% royalty after paying U of Penn .6% (6 tenths of a percent).
===================
In September 2013, the Company acquired substantially all of the assets of Polymedix Inc, and Polymedix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, “Polymedix”), including Polymedix’s rights to Brilacidin under a patent license agreement with the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (“Penn”). Under the terms of the patent license agreement, the Company will pay to Penn a royalty on gross sales of the compounds licensed thereunder ranging from 0.5% to 3.0%, plus certain other payments as provided therein. In addition, the Company will pay Penn 10% of all consideration received from sublicensees.
Found out that my recollection as to the payments IPIX owes U of Penn for various products produced from Polymedix acquisition was in error. IPIX at the max only has to pay U of Penn a 3% royalty for pharma products and lesser rates for other items as noted.
The following is an excerpt from a letter that CTIX made to the SEC dtd 3/4/14 to clarify their 10K submitted in Sept 2013.
“In partial consideration of the license, Licensee shall pay to Penn a royalty of 1) 3.0% on gross sales of a pharmaceutical product, 2) 1.5% of gross-sales of a medical devise or other products approved by a 510(k) regulatory filing or 3) 0.5% on all other gross sales for Penn Licensed Products sold by Licensed Products sold by Licensee, its Affiliates and/or its Sublicensees”
Thank you for that great background into B fungal progress.
If the MMs want to take it down at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what retail does in terms of buying - the MM just puts in his trade at the last second. No reason to try and stop it as in the long run it means nothing.
Polymedix was formed by the U of Penn and the doctors/scientists that came up with the idea for Brilacidin. The doctors/scientists provided the genius and the U of P provided the money (mainly supercomputer time).
When Polymedix went bankrupt, the doctors/scientists lost everything (just like all other stockholders lost everything) as there was no value left in P after the Cellceutix money was distributed to debtors. The buyout contained a clause that the U of P would retain a 5% royalty on any revenues generating from the Polymedix stable of products.
Nobody really knows if U of P is going to give any royalty money to the doctors/scientists or if they signed anything that legally makes it mandatory for them to pay these folks. IMO the U of P will keep all funds for themselves as payment for the costs owed them for computer time. Bottom line: developers of Brilacidin sadly get nothing.
You have to look at the IPIX situation as a war and not a battle.
The war looks like IPIX is going to succeed on a grand scale.
But prior to the final outcome, there will be many feints, attacks, retreats, and manipulation of information. Everyone involved is trying to maximize their own returns and thus not all investors, MMs, hedge funds, etc are geared towards the same outcome.
There are major players that will want to establish large holdings in the future, shorts trying to keep price down until they cover, traders trying to suck newbies into buying/selling based on false information such as financial message board postings, etc.
That is why so many profess that all investors have to know what you own. If you really believe in the science, hold it, and if you don't, trade it or sell it. There are many ways to make money on IPIX.
Considering that I heard the inventors of Brilacidin would be not receiving any monies even if/when Brilacidin becomes a monster drug (the 5% royalties are paid to the U of Penn, not the doctors and medical scientists that had the original idea of the drug) then I am quite happy to hear that one of the fathers of the drug would benefit down the road from a product that came into being due to his vision.