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.
Sure, it was the “abnormal” trading that caused the B-COVID trial to fail and B-ABSSSI / B-OM to stuck at Phase 2 due to no partners.
Leo and Dr. DeGrado knew the rules (tying hands) before entering the ring. Besides, no one forced them to enter the ring.
I actually agree. But instead of looking at the one day chart, try one year or longer instead.
Leo - “Yes, they do.”
Pete, sometimes you said every BP will desire the B platform, sometimes you said BPs are so afraid of B taking away their revenues. I guess whichever fits your narrative at a particular time is the correct one. If you truly believe BPs want to acquire B, common sense says they would allow IPIX to prove it in trials, such as B-COVID.
There’s a COVID variant -> therefore B is needed.
A drug failed the trial -> therefore B is needed.
A treatment has side effect -> therefore B is needed.
This has been the rationale for the last 24 months.
I know a place where criticism of Leo is not tolerated. Only allowing pro-Leo posts and agreeing to each other all the time might be good for one’s ego, but not so much for the wallet.
What’s the difference between Leo Game and Squid Game? The Squid Game actually has a winner.
There were no good options for mild symptom patients when Leo submitted the trial design to the FDA last year.
Thanks for the info! If Alfasigma started a Phase 1 trial for B-UP, Leo would've let the world know. Maybe he did and I missed it since I don't follow IPIX that closely anymore.
COVID could be used as an excuse for trial delay and rightfully so, but Alfasigma started some trials in both 2020 and 2021. B-UP was not one of them, that should tell you their priorities.
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=alfasigma
Pete, I'm still trying to understand the rationale for a possible partnership at this point. Does Leo go to the partner and say I flopped the COVID trial, but you are welcome to run it using your own money and also give me upfront, milestone, and royalty payments?
I did not say I'm smarter than Dr. DeGrado. Those of you who think he's smart enough to know the ideal dosage and patient population should accept B did not work against COVID instead of giving false hope that it might work using higher dosage or in mild symptom patients. That was my point.
An item's value is determined by how much the buyer is willing to pay. So far no buyer for B-ABSSSI after 7 years and for B-OM after 5 years. Alfasigma thought B-UP has some value so they made a deal. Maybe B-UP will work out if Alfasigma decide to start advancing the compound 28 months after acquiring it.
You believe B will be commercialized one day so Leo's shares will worth more than his salary. That I can understand. But what if you are Leo and know B will eventually fail. Don't you want to drag things out by running many mini-trials one at a time before the game is over?
You would think a CEO making half a million can walk and chew gum at the same time by running multiple trials. The stock cratered 80% because there's nothing in the pipeline that can generate revenue or partnership in years.
Some people said B-COVID failed because it targeted the wrong population. Those are the same people who praised how brilliant Dr. DeGrado is. I hope they see the irony. Good luck relying on who you think are "experts" here.
Good post Brad! I had many arguments with SS and TIAB in the past. I would've lost less money had I listened to them sooner, but water under the bridge.
I'm fairly certain that the reason there's no partner for B-ABSSSI is because of the rapid spike in systolic blood pressure. Leo will never tell you what's wrong, but 7 years of no partner after Phase 2b should tell you something's wrong.
As for B-OM, I think the reason is because Phase 2 result is inconclusive. One potential partner signed a term sheet, but backed out after doing DD. BPs have resources to obtain information that us average Joe's don't have. That potential partner backed out because of changing a CEO was clearly a lie.
If B is truly the next Penicillin or Humira, don't you think BPs would have fought themselves to acquire it long time ago? Good luck to you!
Maybe Leo is hiding at his subsidiary office in Ireland. It’s hard to pin him down when IPIX is a multinational company.
When COVID first hit, the US government probably told all biotechs if you have a potential drug, send it our way and we'll test it. In order for the RBLs to receive funding, they need drugs to test so they can bill the government for their work. Part of their work includes writing articles for their finding. As for other viruses, the US government wants to be better prepared for the next pandemic so they are still testing.
When there's money, there's interest.
There's a reason why IPIX did not claim B has antiviral properties from the beginning. I'm sure preclinical studies were done against viruses such as common cold and flu since their market is huge.
IMO Leo knew the B-COVID trial had little chance of success, so he tried to drag it out with moderate to severe patients (much less than mild patients, took longer to enroll) in Russia (average daily cases about 10% of the US, took longer to enroll). If Leo really thought B-COVID had a chance of success, he would have chosen mild to moderate patients (much bigger market, faster to enroll) in the US (much more daily cases, faster to enroll).
COVID happened and Leo took advantage of the situation. Only Leo can drag a trial with Fast Track this long in a pandemic. I'm sorry for those who lost their hard-earned money today.
I agree shareholders deserve to know more, but I doubt Leo will provide it. Some of us are still waiting for Prurisol data analysis.
Leo will say he is “laser-focused” on B-UC. Just watch.
Yes, Leo designed the trial like Prurisol on purpose IMO. Both Phase 2 trials had small patient size that was unlikely to produce statistically significant result. Both trials enrolled the more severe condition patients so Leo had an excuse when they failed. Both trials had numerous delays.
Be very careful when a CEO cherry-picked certain in-vitro data and touted continuously. By now hopefully some realize the human body works very differently than monkey cells in test tubes or how the computer predicts.
I know what you meant, but nothing has changed for Brilacidin in the past two years should ring alarm bells.
1. B-OM - Still no BP is willing to partner despite hiring Locust Walk twice. The BP who signed a term sheet backed out after doing DD.
2. B-ABSSSI - Still no partner despite positive Phase 2b result.
3. B-UP - Alfasigma is in no hurry advancing it.
By shifting shareholder's focus to COVID, Leo wasted another two years of B's patent life. The only thing changed is the total OS has doubled. Leo diluted shareholders from 212M shares in 11/2019 to 437M shares in 11/2021.
I'll repeat for those who's willing to listen. Not able to find a partner for B-ABSSSI and B-OM after all these years is a big red flag.
Fat fingers.
Here's Mo's pulse on the B-COVID trial on 10/17/2020.
Cabel, although I no longer hold any shares, I do hope the result is positive so longs like you can be rewarded for your patience. The more therapeutics against COVID the better. Best of luck!
I did not say IPIX cannot apply for EUA after Phase 2. What I meant was what advantage does IPIX have over Pfizer to bypass Phase 3. Is it based on data of the 60 patients who received B (possibly without statistical significance), or is it because IPIX is a penny stock and not in the FDA's pocket?
I think today's decline is a combination of Pfizer's news and traders taking profit after the stock ran up 100% in one week. Pfizer's competitors such as Merck and Moderna are also down big.
Some said B will get EUA after Phase 2 result. If Pfizer needs data for 1219 patients (Phase 2/3, 3000 planned patients) before applying for EUA, what makes you guys think IPIX can get EUA with 120 patients (Phase 2)?
I believe shareholders want to see performance by Leo, which can be reflected in the market cap and share price. As for incentives, aren’t $475K salary and millions of shares he’s holding enough? Why potentially dilute 225 million shares at shareholders’ expense?
There are better ways for Leo to award himself than potentially diluting shareholders additional 225 million shares.
My guess is Leo will ask shareholders to vote for more authorized shares. Are you going to vote yes to give him millions of shares or vote no to risk losing everything due to IPIX running out of money? Talk about between a rock and a hard place.
If there’s no way to track their activities, then no MM would have be fined or convicted for naked shorting. But that’s not the case.
I agree 100% on your idea of punishment.
Pete, if you Google naked shorting lawsuit, you'll see some have been convicted for such act. Whether you think the punishment is a slap of the wrist by the SEC is another discussion.
Like I said in the previous post, I'm not arguing whether naked shorting exists in IPIX. Some of you claim the amount is massive, but the crime is perfect without any trace of evidence. I'm arguing the latter part.
Unlike dark matter, there are previous evidence of people being convicted for naked shorting. My point is if other lawyers were able to find evidence of naked shorting, why can't Leo find a lawyer to do the same?
There are three powerful forces against IPIX, according to some here.
1. Unlimited naked shorting. Alan and Mo said more than 400 millions shares have been naked shorted. The SEC will not do anything because they are in the MM's pocket.
2. BP collusion. BPs are so threatened by Brilacidin taking profits away from their current drugs that they work together to suppress IPIX's stock for years. They hope one of them can be lucky enough to be chosen by Leo for the right of the next Penicillin or Humira, while other BPs are happy to help their competitors out.
3. FDA corruption. The FDA is in BP's pocket to protect their vaccine profits. Leo had to run the majority of trial in Russia, but hopes to be approved by the FDA despite the apparent corruption.
Just like you said, if people truly believe them, why are they still holding the stock? IMO they are simply preemptive strikes. Since they won't blame Leo if their IPIX investment fails, they'll say they are just unlucky to have three powerful forces against them.
I'm not debating whether naked shorting exists or doesn't exist in IPIX. Since you guarantee it has happened, please show when and how many shares backed by creditable sources.
Someone mentioned a recent lawsuit on naked shorting. I haven't read it, but logic would suggest that the plaintiff's lawyer should have some creditable evidence to support their claim. If Leo's lawyer goes to court and argues that because naked shorting exists and has happened to other companies, therefore it must have happened to IPIX, they will be laughed out of the court.
If lawyers of other companies found evidence of naked shorting, why can't Leo hire a lawyer to do the same? If it really exists in IPIX, Leo could win and receive a big compensation.
Your last bold sentence is exactly what I've been saying. I wonder why Pfizer did not try to suppress BioNTech's stock price for years until they are desperate to deal, just like what some claim is happening to IPIX. Instead, Pfizer thought the mRNA vaccine is a winner so they made a competitive offer early and is making lots of money right now. Most importantly, Pfizer prevented their competitors from acquiring the vaccine.
Using this example, if B-ABSSSI and B-OM are winners, why no BPs have done what Pfizer did?
I see what you disagree with. My claim probably can't be proven until 5 to 10 years later, so let's revisit that down the road. If I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it. =)
Pete, I respect your opinion. I’ve said it many times both publicly and privately. What I’ve learned over the years is that when someone can’t refute your post with facts and logic, that person usually insults you or changes topic.
My argument was that BPs would rather offer market value for B years ago and have billions of revenue now than continue to suppress the stock for years and hope they are the lucky BP Leo chooses to sell below market value one day. I know you disagree and it’ll be great to hear your argument.
Common sense says BPs are not in cahoots to keep the stock down so one of them can acquire B for cheap and the others are happy to help their competitor out. Leo has shown he's willing to dilute shareholders into oblivion. When the OS reaches 600 million, he's going to ask for another 600 million. He knows shareholders will vote yes. Voting no means IPIX will bankrupt and shareholders will lose everything. That should keep the lights on for 6 more years. Then Leo will rinse and repeat to keep his $600K salary coming.
If you are a BP CEO, you should know the playbook. Suppressing the stock until B's patent expires or IPIX bankrupts makes no sense. Leo's ex-employer is still going despite no clinical trials for more than 10 years. So it'll be a long time before Leo becomes "desperate". If Leo knows what he owns then there was no need to hire Locust Walk to find a partner. If B is a real winner, you make an offer Leo can't refuse. Otherwise your competitors might beat you to it.
Snayeman, I think you miss my point. I was not asking what would Leo do or why IPIX has not found a real BP. Some keep claiming BPs have kept the stock down for years. I made up a hypothetical scenario and asked what would you do as a BP CEO. Looks like you are leaning toward option #2 since you said BP made an offer. That means you tried to acquire B instead of option #1.