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 raised the question for myself as a moderator and someone who is supposed to be in a position to determine whether a post should be removed or not. I'd rather not be left to feel like a potted plant but that seems what you are determined to do. It's not reasonable to expect members and moderators to follow and enforce rules that you opt not to make clear.
I read the Moderators Guidelines before I asked the question. Twice. They don't address this:
"If a member has not revealed their position, whether truthfully or otherwise, is their position proper fodder for discussion by other members in the context of why the member might have expressed a particular opinion?"
I'll be deleting the same posts that "violate" this issue that I deleted prior to the effective date of the new rules (without reversals) and have begun a review of the board that I have some responsibility for to re-assess posts that I let stand while trying to get a clear ruling. Any discussion of whether a poster has a holding or not and how that might affect their opinion will be dumped.That is the only context needed to make a decision. In my mind it has never been an appropriate subject for discussion.
If that disqualifies me as a moderator I'll have to live with that.
"In general, I wouldn't consider asking someone if they own shares a violation of privacy."
Thanks for the answer but that wasn't quite the question. I can be longwinded at times....let me edit it down:
Do the new Community Guidelines related to stockboards allow for discussion of a different member's share holding or lack of one?
If a member has not revealed their position, whether truthfully or otherwise, is their position proper fodder for discussion by other members in the context of why the member might have expressed a particular opinion?
Such discussions are happening every day now....occasionally referring to my own personal position or lack of one. This is not a hypothetical question.
"You can't ask Admin,"
I sure hope that you are wrong about that...because that's what I was trying to do. I wasn't asking for pre-approval of a particular post but rather the clarification of a rule. As I said, it's a simple question and I thought the Community and Moderators would benefit from a public answer to it or I would have asked it privately.
I've noted your opinion but it doesn't help me post or moderate. Thanks anyway.
Do the new Community Guidelines related to stockboards allow for discussion of a member's share holding or lack of one? Or do they fall under the following Violation of Privacy?
"Don’t try to dox people in any way. It doesn’t matter if your supposition is right or not, you’re still trying to expose personal information about someone else. You wouldn’t want people doing that to you. Don’t do it to other people, unless they have publicly self-revealed their identity here."
Historically such information has been removed by Moderators.
Does the following Moderator's Guideline "Violation of Privacy" apply?
"Please remove any attempted doxing. It doesn’t matter if the supposition is right or not, the intent is to share private information about another User."
There has been a marked increase since the effective date of the new guidelines in discussion/commentary/conjecture regarding other people's holdings and how it may have affected a given opinion.
How is Ihub using the term "doxing"?
Wikipedia: "Essentially, doxing is revealing and publicizing the records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain."
Oxford: "the action or process of searching for and publishing private or identifying information about a particular individual on the internet, typically with malicious intent."
Given the language of the Community Guideline it seems as if the intended violation refers to personal identification and not stock position: "unless they have publicly self-revealed their identity here".
It's a simple question that needs to be answered simply:
If a member has not revealed their position, whether truthfully or otherwise, is their position proper fodder for discussion by other members in the context of why the member might have expressed a particular opinion?
Asking for a friend.
https://news.yahoo.com/795-000-americans-die-permanently-152426756.html
That's a real peach of a link address. Do I still have a shot at being one of the Americans who DON'T die permanently?
Maybe this IS a relevant article. Are you suggesting that Brilacidin researches have discovered that it POTENTIALLY cures misdiagnosis?
Thanks so much for your constant barrage of crappy news.
You're inferring something that I'm not implying.....or didn't intend to imply. There's no denying that you have been the most outspoken endorser of the AS prospects and I thought that could use some fleshing out. Thank you for finally providing some background support for your assertion regarding Covid in Italy, although you left out a link....I've provided it below.
That said, while there have been multiple delays in AS's development of the proprietary Alfasigma formulation, none of them have been attributed to the pervasiveness of covid in Italy by either of the Companies....you are the primary purveyor of that excuse/explanation. Initially IIRC there were supply issues and the latest story from the IPIX 10Q is:
"In late September 2022, Alfasigma notified the Company that a revised clinical development plan for UP/UPS, incorporating regulatory authority feedback, is being enacted. Alteration to treatment duration requires further preclinical research, and the Company was advised by Alfasigma that its Phase 2 multinational clinical trial conduct was estimated to start in 2H2023. In April 2023, Alfasigma did confirm some delay in the progress of the UP/UPS clinical program, which could move out the trial start beyond end of 2023."
Obviously AS has much bigger fish to fry (I don't see any discussion of B on their website). That probably explains most of the delay, not local covid. Certainly NOW that is the more likely explanation.
The complete CNN article for those who are interested:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/italy-travel-covid-19/index.html
Which one of those 9 or 10 things that you have mislabeled as "tranches" has put needed cash in the IPIX coffers?
"Let's hope AS may give bag holders a much needed boost"
Still banging that drum are you? Your Linked-in friends must be very proud.
Have you ever provided any evidence to support the following? Have your friends provided you any?
"Northern Italy had some of the highest Covid rates in the world at the time."
At what time?
"To me, the of leveling accusations about being 'too alias' seems both ridiculous and out of scope."
Who said that ("too alias") and what do you suppose they meant by it?
What does "out of scope" mean?
I am obligated to know the Moderators Guidelines just as you are obligated to know the Community Guidelines.
If you have a problem with me or any other Moderator you need to take it up with Ihub Admin, not air it on the board.
If you feel that ANYONE'S message violates the Guidelines you need to click on More at the bottom of the message and Report it.
Not sure why the current message was sent to me.
Please READ New iHub Community Guidelines as linked at the top of the page, starting with Item 5 under the Don'ts.
A 245 patient trial versus a 17 person trial might explain some of this:
"With these results, why is it so hard for us to move forward?"
Can someone check my math, please?
Does $.0019 x 25,008 = $475.15?
Does $465,850/364 = $1,279.81?
Does the IPIX CEO really pay himself 2.7 times the approximate value of today's trading every single calendar day of the year?
Yes, I did say "pay himself". Per the Company's filings there is no employment contract in effect:
"As previously disclosed, the Compensation Committee and Board approved a new employment agreement between the Company and Mr. Ehrlich on October 10, 2021. However, the parties never entered into the new employment agreement."
Is he paying himself based on the terms of the agreement that the Compensation Committee and Board approved or based on his own assessment of his worth? Why wasn't the approved agreement signed by the parties?
"I'm guessing you are referring to an FDA 3."
It was you who referred to a Phase 3:
"I'd trade it all and more for a single, completed FDA 3."
"my point is that a successful 2b could be done for lots less dollars and patients. and would be a fine pps driver in itself."
IF you had made that point it wouldn't have been a terribly convincing one given the Company's own experience with successful Phase 2s. Eventually they all led to $.017/share.
Maybe you should have stuck with this, which made plenty of sense:
"I'd trade it all and more for a single, completed FDA 3."
Every opportunity for that achievement has been squandered.
Thanks for the thoughts.
re: "presumably 3 in each?"
That's what I presumed, which seemed to me to be too small from which to reach any valuable conclusions, especially in the sick cohorts where it was hoped some efficacy inklings could be gleaned.
Forever the skeptic you know, but I've seen this act before. Design a test that can only be inconclusive, look at the bright side of the scant results, and determine that further testing is justified.....and that more funds will need to be raised.
I'm not sure that this sample will even assure safety.
At least he's giving us stuff to consider.
A few other thoughts:
I have no interest in getting in the middle of this....
"So I guess that is 2 mega-oft-repeated opinions that have been proven wrong so far?"
....but I think some might expect the FDA to be more cautious than the Indian authorities and express opinions based on that thought and the Diwan established failure to have ever sought any FDA protocol approvals.
"So, playing it safe until they show safety, then can include kids, elderly, and sicker subjects."
Ethically that makes sense and you have to start somewhere, but it would require a second Phase 1 test to allow for treatment of those groups and Dingdong says he's gonna fix everybody:
"Thus we believe that NV-CoV-2 will be useable in all segments of patient populations, (i) in age from pediatric to geriatric, with otherwise healthy adults included; (ii) with or without co-morbidities; (iii) with disease manifestation from mild, moderate, severe to hospitalized stage."
We're gonna need a lotta popcorn for this one, even if "Phase 1a is Progressing Rapidly:" and "Phase 1b to Begin Shortly:".
I can see it now: "Based on the end of the Covid pandemic and the recent increase in Malaria cases both in the US and worldwide we have decided that it is in the Company's interest to pivot away from".....etc.
He's pivoted away from EVERYTHING HE HAS EVER STARTED. A Phase 1 in India is only enough to hold him based on the way he structured the latest deal with himself. I hope you can keep me interested based on the science because based on business practices this is only worth watching for the fumbles.
I guess this news explains your return from a 3 year hiatus to make a few points, some of which I agree with.
"Your start with relatively health people "
No, you start with HEALTHY people in the Phase 1a.
"Phase II will expand the demographics."
Not necessarily. If there is a Phase 2 it will recruit a much larger group of patients and they won't be healthy.
"Your questions will become OBE with all the positive outcomes."
OBE? Help me out here:
https://www.acronymfinder.com/OBE.html
My questions related to sample sizes, inclusion/exclusion criteria and fuzzy language. I thought they were decent questions and I know there's at least one person here who can either address them or tell me they're inconsequential. I think that would better be done BEFORE all the positive outcomes are revealed since the answers may have a bearing on how those outcomes are interpreted.
Even school kids should be able to see past that cheap lottery ticket stuff.
Someone who bought 1,000 shares back when they were selling for $4.80 and held those shares....I'll bet a few are reading this....saw the market value of their holdings go from $4,800 to $18.
And yet some of those people think that those $18 worth of shares hold some promise. They thought the same thing when they were worth $4,800.
"You may as well hold on" isn't a very smart strategy if it's based entirely on a cheap share price. It's cheap for a reason....multiple reasons.
I'm sorry.
Just a few questions based on some of the info received to date:
1. How will the patient population be allocated between the cohorts in 1a and 1b?
Total Sample Size="72"
Intervention A. NV-CoV-2 Oral Gummy (Chewable gel):
Single dose(Phase 1a) once only in three cohorts of 500mg, 1000mg and 2000mg for oral administration via sub lingual route
Multi-dose (phase1b) once every alternate day for five dosing days once in day in three cohorts of 500mg, 1000mg and 2000mg for oral administration via sub lingual route
Intervention B. NV-CoV-2 Oral Syrup
Single dose (phase 1a) once only for oral administration in three cohorts of 10mg/kg; 20mg/kg and 40mg/kg.
Multi dose (phase 1b) once every alternate day for five dosing days by oral administration in three cohorts of 10mg/kg; 20mg/kg and 40mg/kg.
IF I understand the process (a big IF) each cohort will involve dosing at least one unique individual ( in other words the Single dose 1a requires at least 3 individuals, 1 for each dosage). There are 12 total cohorts in the two trials.
If one were to assume that the cohorts include an equal number of individuals the total sample size of 72 would include 6 patients in each cohort. Is that adequate to "Evaluate Both Safety and Initial Efficacy Indications in COVID patients" (as described in the Company's press release) to any degree of medical certainty?
2. Exactly how is the mild to moderate/severe population defined?
"Phase 1b to Begin Shortly:
In Phase 1b, healthy persons will be dosed with multiple doses of the Oral Syrup and separately, Oral Gummies to study Safety and Tolerability.
Additionally, in Phase 1b, in separate cohorts, patients with mild to moderate/severe COVID-19 shall be enrolled to assess indication of efficacy. Patients deemed by the physician to be likely to require hospitalization within 48 hrs of screening will be excluded."
The last sentence alters the terms of the study to be patients with mild to moderate/severe COVID-19 that aren't likely to be hospitalized in the next 48 hours, eliminating a chunk of the moderate/severe population. It also differs slightly from the actual exclusion criteria, which says:
"Likely need for hospital admission within 24 to 48 hrs of randomization as per the assessment of the physician. (SpO2- <94%)"
3. Inclusion criteria:
Age From 18.00 Year(s)
Age To 60.00 Year(s)
Obviously a decision was made to exclude the over 60 group, which is known to be the high risk age group. Why?
It may be a reasonable criteria to include, but it seems as if the trial wasn't exactly designed in a way that is consistent with the Diwan promotional effort.
From the press release:
"Thus we believe that NV-CoV-2 will be useable in all segments of patient populations, (i) in age from pediatric to geriatric, with otherwise healthy adults included; (ii) with or without co-morbidities; (iii) with disease manifestation from mild, moderate, severe to hospitalized stage.
In contrast, existing COVID therapeutics are limited in the treatable segment(s) of population; thus, Remdesivir is indicated for hospitalized patients only; Molnupiravir and Paxlovid are both indicated for patients over 65 years of age with co-morbidities that are not taking other drugs that would cause interactions. This leaves a large patient population that is unserved. "
What a pair of balls. He excludes the same or similar groups from the current 1a and 1b tests that he accuses existing treatments of failing to serve while saying "we believe that NV-CoV-2 will be useable in all segments of patient populations".
Read the underlined passage above and compare it to the following Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria from the current trial:
Inclusions: Age From 18.00 Year(s)/Age To 60.00 Year(s)
Exclusions: 1-Any medical or surgical condition, which might significantly interfere with the functioning of the gastrointestinal tract or blood-forming organs.
2-History or presence of gastric or duodenal ulcer or GI bleeding or blood in stools anytime in the past.
3-History of severe infection or major surgery in the past 6 months.
I'm not saying that the trial inclusion/exclusion criteria are unreasonable....they aren't. What is unreasonable is the promotion of a treatment as being "useable in all segments of patient populations, (i) in age from pediatric to geriatric, with otherwise healthy adults included; (ii) with or without co-morbidities; (iii) with disease manifestation from mild, moderate, severe to hospitalized stage" in a press release about a clinical trial that has been designed to avoid those issues without any mention of that fact while at the same time taking note of the failures of existing treatments.
It's shady and it's no surprise.
edit: Please consider adding the Clinical Trial registry as a Sticky: https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=67454&EncHid=&userName=Karveer Meditech
That's encouraging. It's comforting to know that no humans were injured in that testing.
Have any clinical trials been scheduled?
It would be helpful to know the source of this:
"the researchers are now looking for a Brazilian company that can license the medicine in the country and carry out the clinical tests, necessary to prove the effects in humans and, in case of successfully make the drug available on the market"
Have the researchers ("researchers from the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Ribeirão Preto (FCFRP-USP), in the interior of São Paulo, supported by FAPESP") themselves publicly made that statement? It's not in the Nature Communications article that the authors used for the linked article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37573-y
Has IPIX made such a statement? Maybe I missed it.
If that was Heddle cashing in $2 worth of chips we should see a Form 4 by Friday.
Once again confusion reigns.
You're measuring neoLaser's "1 years time progress" based on the dates of IPIX press releases, as if the measures represented activity over the years ending on the PR dates. We don't know that to be the case.
And do you find these things to be consistent?
The neoLaser website says these things RIGHT NOW:
1.
>750 Systems placed
>40Countries
>100,000 Surgeries performed
2. "The neoV platform, launched in 2013, has achieved phenomenal growth and acceptance on a global scale. Today, it is the tool of choice in over 700 hospitals, surgical centers, and clinics, in over 40 countries, having been used in over 100,000 medical interventions to date with a growth rate of 35-40% every year."
The IPIX June 2022 release said:
Laser had "a 43% CAGR on its way to more than 1200 global installations and performing 50,000+ surgeries annually in over 30 countries".
The June 2023 release says:
Laser had "a 43% CAGR on its way to more than 1500 global installations and performing 70,000+ surgeries annually in over 30 countries".
They can't all be right, can they?
Perhaps more importantly, because neoLaser is privately held there's no way to know whether any of these activities are being conducted profitably.
"And as such, virtually worthless."
They can assess safety without a comparator, can't they?
"OK,... sudden decent volume and up ~18%? What's up today?"
Looks like you have your answer....somebody got a heads up.
"Mr. Market - he was apparently not at all impressed that Anil finally got something started."
And I suspect that that same somebody flipped back out.
Not a lot of money either day. If Diwan had any credibility left there would have been. The smart money may recognize this to be what it is, another Diwan deal with Diwan.
That said, it's news and you're right about this: Mr. Market - he was apparently not at all impressed.
"Would be good to see the trial endpoints besides safety, plus the size of the study, duration, etc... I imagine this will be a small, short safety trial, possibly with ascending doses? Likely to be randomized and placebo controlled? "
https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=67454&EncHid=&userName=Karveer Meditech
Registered on: 18/04/2023
Date of First Enrollment (India) 01/05/2023
Estimated Duration of Trial Years="0"Months="1"Days="5"
Total Sample Size="72"
Randomized, no comparator....I take that to mean no placebo..
Secondary Outcome
To evaluate the Pharmacokinetic (for healthy subjects only) and Pharmacodynamic nature (for Covid-19 patients only) of NV-CoV-2.
- To obtain an early measurement of drug activity in mild/moderate COVID-19 patients.
From the press release:
"The Single Dosing of Healthy Volunteers portion of the Phase 1a began with the dosing of a first set of volunteers on June 17, 2023. This set of volunteers was successfully discharged after a 48 hours in-hospital stay for observation, and will be further assessed in a final out-person visit as per the protocol. Further recruitments and dosings are scheduled as per the protocol."
How long do you think it would take to assess safety before dosing the 1b patients?
Why did it apparently take 5 months to scrape together 36 healthy volunteers? Been a long time coming.....seems a little patience is finally justifiable but I'm itching to see where this goes.
Moderating should be a lot easier with the new "almost anything goes" personal attack and off-topic approaches.
"You aren't even a shareholder, ya miserable SOB!" sounds like it gets a bye, even if that's the whole message.
I know it would on the boards you are losing members to based on FOMO (Fear of Moderation).
Some people came here to avoid the actions that your new rules will allow. The result is that Ihub will reward bad behavior by allowing it and lose conscientious, topic-focused members.
That's business and I'm sure that was the result when Ihub ran the numbers. Thanks for asking.
"Good and valuable drugs take time for return to investors. It is not easy. I first invest in Ipix also 8 years ago."
Sounds like you wouldn't mind waiting another 8 years because that's what your example suggests:
If you want to promote a small biotech company like Ipix you must start with one question. Is the company science good or not good? If the science is good the job is easy.
But it doesn't seem to be easy here, does it?
Your job is made more difficult when the situation requires the CEO to publish these truths in his quarterly report to the public:
[
"My question is who wrote that?"
Wish I knew. I read it here and it wasn't sourced:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172182128
I'm not sure how the issue of whether Bril is a arylamide or not matters.
The patent application, which appears to only require a fee in order to be granted, is well over my scientifically challenged head to understand It offers this abstract:
"The present disclosure provides methods for treating or preventing a viral infection with one or more arylamide compounds, or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof, or compositions comprising the same, and pharmaceutical compositions comprising one or more arylamide compounds and at least one antiviral agent."
Dr. Leo is listed as an inventor. That fact probably accounts for the unique promotional tone to the Background section of the patent and I suspect that that was the extent of his contribution.
But seriously, whether b is an arylamide or a shmarylamide doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference without a clinical trial establishing its safety and efficacy in treating a viral infection that leads to a sale/license or an approval.
I didn't and wouldn't question whether b is an an arylamide foldamer (I don't even know what that means) but rather the wisdom of your reliance on Wikipedia for this:
"Brilacidin, a non-peptide chemical mimic, is an arylamide foldamer designed to replicate the amphiphilic properties of antimicrobial peptides while solving the problems encountered by peptide-based antimicrobials."
It's a sourcing issue.
And now you're quoting from a source discussing pre-clinical results that predate the known clinical results of the Covid trial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7916214/
This didn't come from you, did it?
"The application appears to describe a group of compounds called arylamides, which are claimed to have potential for treating viral infections. The patent application likely includes detailed descriptions of the arylamide compounds, their composition, methods of synthesis, and their use in combating viral infections."
It expresses some questions about things that the application clearly answers.
Per Wikipedia? I like Wikipedia but because of its design it isn't always right:
"Brilacidin (formerly PMX-30063[2]), an investigational new drug (IND), is a polymer-based antibiotic currently in human clinical trials"
...for instance.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?intr=brilacidin
Did you ask whoever provided this to you if they read the application? It doesn't sound like they did:
"The application appears to describe a group of compounds called arylamides, which are claimed to have potential for treating viral infections. The patent application likely includes detailed descriptions of the arylamide compounds, their composition, methods of synthesis, and their use in combating viral infections. "
"The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) announced on Sunday "the launch of a commercial-scale contract development and manufacturing organization, Lifera, to help boost the local biopharmaceutical industry.""
"I don't know that there are direct opportunities for small Amercian biotechs but I suspect there may be a review of some of the FDA's monolithic practices."
What do the purported FDA's monolithic practices have to do with the local Saudi American biopharmaceutical industry?
Can you not make ANY real connections involving IPIX to justify discussing this announcement?
Should CEO Leo open up shop in Saudi Arabia in order to take advantage of their program "to help boost the local biopharmaceutical industry"?
If not, what's the connection?
I don't know any deep dark secrets about him. The colorful stuff is public and wasn't that hard to find. People who make the effort to find it can decide for themselves whether it's relevant or not.
With a colorful past.
I didn't see a response to this: "when you say "talk to the company" who speaks for them nowadays?"
Statements like this should be accompanied by a source:
"I was also told a major financial institution is behind this deal....so that is good."
Did you talk to Robert Yrshus?
https://vitalpointtech.com/leadership/
Dollar Volume ( https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OZMXOfyndiw ) ...........$821!
MMs?