On the other side of the world.
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.
Ah, that explains the $7 a share claim (down 90%). So the claim is Leo this and Leo that instead of blaming the broker who charged the $3 per share premium over market.
Not down 90%. To be down 90% the all time would have to have been $7. That makes yor year to date number, 60%, very suspicious. 0h, look, close on Jan 3 2017 was 1.19. So, its down ~40% not 60. More exagerration.
People receiving drugs under controlled conditions to study any one or more of its safety, effects, etc., is a real trial.
Not necessarily. Often oral and IV present two sets of efficacy, especially when administered in combination. But, we will see.
That’s a lie. Leo promised nothing. He gave guidance and estimates and has kept investors well-informed. Also, we are just entering the period for results. So, there’s another lie in your post.
They will not drop Kevetrin IV. There will be a bridge study for the pill demonstrating similarity to IV, but if the oral demonstrates similar PK, PD and safety data, both will move forward. Kevetrin IV will only stop after the oral form demonstrates it works equally well in for every indication and combination. In the meantime both will progress in tandem. IMO
Saying we have been hearing results are coming for 3 years is only true to the extent that for 3 years it has been a series of 5 trial results, and indeed they have each come over the course of 3 years. What is different is that these next 3 trials arr all Phase 2 trials and further advance 3 platforms. Whether the trials lead to a partnership or a Phase 3 trial depends on management’s decision based on offers and value, but there will be a partnership, eventually. In the meantime, the truly important thing is trial progression toward approval.
I’ll just say that Pfizer makes more sense than some of your other partner candidates.
I did say It was what i understood. I didnt think it required a reference since no one else was providing SEC sources.
Those are estimates you cite and are clearly opinions. You stated something as factual SEC regulations. As KarinCA pointed out, reporting is unlikely to apply to anything but a tender offer for a buyout. IPIX does not have to report every offer from a potential license or partner until it is a done deal. That is my understanding too. That would include offers that include ownership for less than 50% plus one of all shares. 50% plus one is a takeover offer which then make it a reportable event.
Your post was completely misinformed as I pointed out point-by-point.
Your post is completely unresponsive to the original post, or my reply. Please re-read the thread and then I welcome your informed remarks.
Absolutely not true
"UP is off the book."
UP is merely a study outside the US. It's primary purpose is a proof of concept.
"K is ten patients."
The primary purpose is MoA. That doesn't require a large number.
"Prurisol is 3x as large a trial as OM."
Not even true in its number. It is powered as a continuing escalation and optimization trial from the Phase 2A. It has no relevance to the purpose of the K-oc trial.
What a great call. Lol.
there will be no follow thru today
It is a little challenging keeping up with Aspire sales, but they have been good to me.
Its good for me. I’ve picked up another 15000 shares these past 2 weeks. Oh, these aren’t trading shares.
All time low .10
2009 to 2012 .25-1.05
All time high ~4.90.
Current price .695 with 52 week low .63
this wouldn't be hitting all time lows if...
So, contracted to find a partner. Was it no one wanted it, or no one wanted to pony up its value? Prurisol just completed Phase 2b, so we will see if its a BP error or not.
Also, look at the signatures. George Evans was CEO; that was just before he drove the company into a ditch. Leo was only CFO at the time. Partnership was not his responsibility.
A huge fabrication. Leo has consistently said since 2009 that the business plan was to partner drugs after human trials began, and that the best partnership terms follow Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials. In 2010 there were yet to be any trials, the first of which was Kevetrin Phase 1 started in December 2012.
Leo tried to partner Prurisol back in 2010
This post is precisely my complaint. It ignores all other metrics but the two points on a 3 point graph plus PK assays at 50mg, 100mg, and 200mg. A very, very narrow view of a complex escalation and optimization trial.
BM news? That news is between me and my doctor.
Why can't we all agree on this?
Exactly.
It's not robust, but I see nascent dose dependency, enough to make me hopeful for the 300 and 400mg arms.
The slide decks you are using do not contain all the data released. The chart below is what I was talking about when I said clear indications of a trend when combined with other PK such as assays data.
The reason for small numbers in each arm of a Phase 2 study is precisely to seek trends from both observation and PK data. In a well designed small study, observations and percentages are later replicated in pivotal studies. That is, should 200mg be administered to 500 patients results from the small study are then replicated and confirmed, meaning of 500 patients ~35% (30%-40%) can be expected to show clearing at or above PASI 75. Furthermore, if efficacy trends higher (in all data sets) with dose escalation, then one would expect to see that also confirmed through increased dosage and frequency. As I said the chart below shows early trending in spite of low N. This trend is then confirmed or denied by the escalated Phase 2b, but one can expect a positive confirmation.
Focusing only on one measure and the small population number in a summary data set misrepresents the purpose of a small Phase 2a/b MoA escalation/optimization study. Phase 2b is powered for confirmation, but will still require a pivotal trial further confirming safety and efficacy outcomes.
Also, one shouldn’t hold a single metric in isolation. For example, response showed a clear dose dependence from lowest to highest where the lowest was in line with placebo, middle dose showed response signals, and the highest administered dose was clearly superior to the placebo. Yes, the trial wasn’t powered as a pivotal study (sarcastic “no shit” here), but three points on a graph are sufficient to see a very promising dose dependent efficacy curve.
One can’t and shouldnt ignore all other data and only focus on the low subject numbers.
I’m buying, not crying. We are still 10 cents above recent lows before this latest run. That we gave back all last week’s gains is a complete fabrication. It ain’t true!
I just pulled my bid and watched .735 fill as a paint job. That ain’t gonna happen again today.
No, I enjoy, and continue to enjoy, unrealized gains. For example, anyone buying those .64-.65 i recommended 2 weeks ago is still up. I’m still up.
I’m a shareholder and I’m not destroyed. What is complete is the constant exaggeration in your posts.
5 drugs in 8 completed trials in 5 years. Lol
...for doing next to nothing
Nonsense! Unblinding and analyzing can be done in as few as 2 or 3 weeks. Top line results can be ready in a as little as a week. Final analysis of MoA and other metrics can take several months, but none of that has to do with the big E question, efficacy. E as an outcome, especially a primary outcome, is a top line metric and easily readied.
A total disconnect between clinical progress and market cap.
IPIX Clinical Trial Timelines
2012
1. Kevetrin (Phase 1)
2013
1. Kevetrin (Phase 1)
2014
1. Kevetrin (Phase 1)
2. Brilacidin-ABSSSI (Phase 2b)
3. Prurisol (Phase 1)
2015
1. Kevetrin (Phase 1)
2. Brilacidin-ABSSSI (Phase 2b, Successful)
3. Prurisol (Phase 1, Successful)
4. Brilacidin-OM (Phase 2)
5. Prurisol (Phase 2a)
2016
1. Kevetrin (Phase 1, Successful)
2. Brilacidin-ABSSSI (Phase 2b, Successful)
3. Prurisol (Phase 1, Successful)
4. Brilacidin-OM (Phase 2)
5. Prurisol (Phase 2a, Successful)
6. Brilacidin-UP (Phase 2 POC)
7. Prurisol (Phase 2b)
2017
1. Kevetrin (Phase 1, Successful)
2. Brilacidin-ABSSSI (Phase 2b, Successful)
3. Prurisol (Phase 1, Successful)
4. Brilacidin-OM (Phase 2)
5. Prurisol (Phase 2a, Successful)
6. Brilacidin-UP (Phase 2 POC, Successful)
7. Prurisol (Phase 2b)
8. Kevetrin-OC (Phase 2a)
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=cellceutix&Search=Search
If they hold less than 5% of the o/s, then they can have up to ~6 million shares. That’s a bit more than 5% of the 50 million they’ve purchased. Some might even say substantially more.
What I said:
For the record, I picked up a few thousand more shares yesterday. I recommend picking up what you can afford this week. Those looking for lower than .60 are flat wrong. I doubt it breaches .65. Any PR this week takes the price back to >.70.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=135455373
The daily volume only exceeded 4 million shares once and 3 million shares twice. The heaviest volume days during the two months it ran from 3.40 to 4.40 were between 1.5 and 2.0 million shares. The typical trading was still less than 1 million shares a day. So, the entire run from 3.0 to 4.8 was on a daily volume of less than 5% of the o/s and 10% of the float.
I have an alternative take: how about Prurisol finished enrollment a few days before August 28. As stated in the PR and protocol, the treatment plus follow up takes 16 weeks total. Maybe, just maybe, there is nothing to report until the trial ends? The next PR for Prurisol would be announcing the close of the trial and collection of final data. That can’t be before the second week of December. Just a WAG.
Agree on all, except that last part. For Dr Menon it’s a lot of trial and very little error.
It's very trial and error.
Just another “friendly” reminder that the machines are still off and the low bid and gap is due to MM log-outs and not reflective of actual premarket since there is none. That .625 bid is meaningless.
And my point is we don’t know if the additional data answers issues the FDA brought up regarding the SPA application. But, certainly, the additional data and findings will be included in the response and next draft. It’s not a question whether or not it can be because all safety and MoA data should be included provided the active drug (API) remains unchanged.
If one omits everything else that has happened as well as been said, yours becomes a reasonable interpretation. The problem is that 1) there are 2 more trials now completed that demonstrate anti-inflammatory properties of B; 2) the trials further demonstrate a broader range of MoA; 3) the OM and UP expand on both safety and efficacy for B the platform and low systemic dosage; and, 4) all this new data can be included in the next draft for the FDA submission. Furthermore, there is now a much better chance of a BP carrying the water for the entire platform development for some serious upfront money and profit sharing/royalties including a costly Phase 3 trial.