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.
Just looking to shove it down before the after Labor Day action kicks in. There is still no effective treatment for SARS-Covid-2. In spite of the push for a vaccine, I doubt there will be a safe one before mid-2021. The key word there is “safe” AND the public trusts it enough to get it.
No it’s not. It’s called profiting by trash-talk and then pumping. It’s called claiming to own from 300,000 to over a million shares all the while trashing the company for 10 years.
“No news yet again today. the pain train goes lower “
And there’s the flip side of “long and strong”
“I am LONG AND STRONG! Will sell a small batch at .30, then .50 and then $1. But keep my core holdings for the grandslam”
What complete bullshit. Just yesterday you talked about what a failure poor little IPIX is. Today it’s a grand slam.
Your numbers are a little high:
Phase 2a ABSSSI trial: BRI Low dose: 1.60 mg/kg over 5 days BRI Med. dose: 2.15 mg/kg over 5 days BRI High dose: 2.40 mg/kg over 5 days
Total 5 day average dose ranged from ~128 mg To ~172 mg. There were side effects and toxicity.
Phase 2b ABSSSI there was a substantial reduction in dosage and an increase in efficacy with almost no side effects.
.6 mg/kg and .8 mg/kg for one day each. There was a 3 day arm at .6 mg/kg per day, but that showed no improvement over the one shot and done, one day course arms. Total IV administered was average ~48 mg and ~64 mg, respectively.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5715352e20c647639137f992/t/583f8286d2b85731b8713a36/1480557192947/A-Randomized-Double-Blind-Study-Comparing-Single-Dose-and-Short-Course-Brilacidin-to-Daptomycin-in-the-Treatment-of-Acute-Bacterial-Skin-Skin-Structure-Infections-ABSSSI1.pdf
The big question in preclinical testing is safety/toxicity. Brilacidin has a large history of proven safety in a range of therapeutic values and across several delivery methods. The preclinical work against CoV is focused on proving efficacy signals before spending large sums of money on human trials.
Correct. Warp speed now refers specifically to vaccines. Trump directed the focus for the program not include therapeutics. This doesn’t mean there’s no money or testing, it only means that the accelerated development is toward an effective vaccine.
That’s why many quietly think there won’t be a vaccine by Christmas, and it’s a mistake to not include therapeutics in the accelerated program.
Vero refers to a culture lineage of a specific cell line. For example kidney or liver culture of cells that are used for testing. So “in vero” simply means a drug is tested for efficacy, toxicity or safety using a specific line of vero cells.
For some reason, this fiction will not die. If you have a cash account without margin, any margin privileges, then placing a GTC order might prevent your brokerage from loaning shares for short trading. However, when you opened your account, there were terms of agreement. In the terms of agreement for discounted trading and zero fee trading there was probably a sentence or two stating that they have the right to loan your shares. This is even true today for most IRA accounts.
So, fact is, nearly all trading accounts include terms that state that from time to time the broker has the right to loan out your shares, even if you place a GTC on them. Certainly, if you have anything in any marginable account, your broker is loaning out your shares “from time to time” regardless of what you do until you actually sell your shares. It’s called “held in street name.”
RP: “Global Antifungal Drugs Market is expected to rise from $13,719 million in 2016 to $17,718 million by 2023. The industry is anticipated to register a CAGR of 3.7%, during the forecast period, 2017 - 2023.”
www.alliedmarketresearch.com/antifungal-drugs-market/amp
Imagine penetration of just 10% of the antifungal market, and 6% of net for that.
“ Global Antifungal Drugs Market is expected to rise from $13,719 million in 2016 to $17,718 million by 2023. The industry is anticipated to register a CAGR of 3.7%, during the forecast period, 2017 - 2023.”
www.alliedmarketresearch.com/antifungal-drugs-market/amp
“ I suspect most of the 309,607 Americans who have contracted cv19 between 7/10 thru 7/15 are still alive and kicking, ...”
It takes about 30 days from diagnosis to hospitalization to death—death lingers for about 2 weeks in ICU— for severe Covid-19 cases. Yes, those who contracted Covid between the 10th and 15th are still alive and kicking. But, ask again in about 30 days.
I had/have plenty, but I thought .3 needed support.
As far as North Shore goes, I’m in a world region that is currently Covid-19 free. NoSho has Covid and its looking like Wave 2 is ramping up. I don’t see leaving here before early 2021.
Picked up .30 to .31 yesterday. Glad I did.
Yes, the control compared to the B showed B with a 95 and 97 percent reduction. The statement only is meant to establish that the control (placebo) had almost none or no reduction in viral particles. Leo’s words are standard expressions in lab reports for control vs. active.
You’re making more out of this than is at all necessary. But, I now understand that is your point: parsing for common/non-science understanding of lab report language, then making a lot out of nothing.
I’ll try this once again: two sets of the same culture in the same nutrient medium. Both are infused with the same number of virus particles. Two treatment solutions are prepared. One is a solution of B at therapeutic concentrations (2 different concentrations). The other, the placebo solution, is the solute medium only. This is not a treatment efficacy comparative study. There is no secret ingredient or known antiviral in the control. It merely establishes that by some miracle the neutral solute didn’t destroy viruses. The B solution reduced the number of virus particles by 95 and 97 percent. The control viral count remained unchanged; therefore, B is responsible for the 95 and 97 percent reduction. Again, the placebo, more accurately the control is not a comparator. It only acts to show that the only difference between the two cultures and treatments was B.
The previous IP holders did early antiviral testing. At the time, the push was for a new generation of antibacterial drugs against resistant strains. The focus (not IPIX/CTIX) became antibacterial development as the (at the time) low hanging fruit. So, there existed evidence of antiviral efficacy before CTIX bid and won the IP.
Now .305 in premarket trading. Filling orders to get a gap. OTC traders are very superstitious about gaps and having to fill them. It’s whatever the open was and all premarket trading doesn’t count because “there is no premarket on the OTC.” Lol
Only 1 drug has shown efficacy in treating severe Covd-19, and that’s a steroid that is only effective in some patients. Also, there are side effects. B is showing a lot of promise here as it has already demonstrated safety and efficacy at low doses against bacterial infections. This newest news shows all similar activities against SARS-CoV-2 infections as it did against infections in phase 2 bacterial trials.
For all those who have wished me “congrats ”, thanks. But, we are not yet vindicated for our long suffering support for science over trolling until human trials begin. That will depend on issuing grants that are controlled by political appointees. Not out of the woods yet, but the path is clear, and open skies are peeking through in the distance.
“What does "reducing viral load" mean? (sorry if I've asked this before) “
This means the number of particles present, including any replicated, new particles. The 95 and 97 percent reduction is from the number of particles initially administered.
“What was the control and wouldn't that be significant enough to mention?”
In this type of study where there is no standard therapeutic, the control is the exact same stuff administered minus Brilacidin. Think of it as B compared to a placebo.
Does "therapeutic concentrations" imply dosages that can be assumed to be safe?
Yes. These are the concentrations expected for human dosing.
Someone should get this to the Tweeter in Chief. He may finally have that miracle drug he's been failing to find and promote. If he jumps on this like he did those ineffective anti-malarial pills, he might actually save the world.
Brilacidin Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) by 97 Percent in a Human Lung Cell Line
Data From Ongoing Testing at U.S. Regional Biocontainment Laboratory
Data adds to growing body of research in both human and animal cell lines supporting Brilacidin’s robust antiviral properties against SARS-CoV-2
Brilacidin is a unique 3-in-1 antiviral, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial COVID-19 drug candidate
WAKEFIELD, MA – June 17, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) Innovation Pharmaceuticals (OTCQB:IPIX) (“the Company”), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, reports today receiving data from ongoing laboratory testing being conducted at a U.S. Regional Biocontainment Laboratory (RBL).
Brilacidin exhibited a statistically significant (p<0.0001) and potent inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, in a human lung epithelial cell line—reducing viral load by 95 percent and by 97 percent, compared to control, at two therapeutic concentrations tested. Based on a CC50 value—the concentration of drug at which 50 percent of cells maintain viability—Brilacidin was also shown to be non-cytotoxic in the lung cell line.
The new lung cell line data reinforce previous testing conducted at the RBL, in VERO cells, where Brilacidin showed a similar robust inhibition, of 75 percent, against SARS-CoV-2 compared to control. Brilacidin has also been shown, in testing at the RBL, to be non-cytotoxic in VERO cells.
Additional details on the Brilacidin anti-SARS-CoV-2 testing being conducted at the RBL are planned to be submitted for publication upon completion.
“Brilacidin has now demonstrated potent inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 in human lung and kidney cell lines, and in VERO cells, in laboratory testing conducted by independent academic researchers at two institutions, both of whom plan to submit their findings for peer-review publication,” said Leo Ehrlich, Chief Executive Officer at Innovation Pharmaceuticals. “The antiviral data we are compiling provides compelling proof of Brilacidin’s impressive ability to inhibit the novel coronavirus, toward initiating a clinical study of Brilacidin for COVID-19.”
Testing results observed to date formed the basis for a federal grant application that was submitted last week by the RBL, in collaboration with the Company, proposing to evaluate Brilacidin’s potential as a pan-coronavirus therapeutic, with possible extension into other viruses. The Company is in the process of manufacturing Brilacidin for intravenous (IV) dosing and will be seeking FDA guidance for a planned COVID-19 clinical study.
Innovation Pharmaceuticals’ Brilacidin Inhibits SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) by 97 Percent in a Human Lung Cell Line
Data From Ongoing Testing at U.S. Regional Biocontainment Laboratory
Data adds to growing body of research in both human and animal cell lines supporting Brilacidin’s robust antiviral properties against SARS-CoV-2
Brilacidin is a unique 3-in-1 antiviral, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial COVID-19 drug candidate
WAKEFIELD, MA – June 17, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) Innovation Pharmaceuticals (OTCQB:IPIX) (“the Company”), a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, reports today receiving data from ongoing laboratory testing being conducted at a U.S. Regional Biocontainment Laboratory (RBL).
Brilacidin exhibited a statistically significant (p<0.0001) and potent inhibitory effect on SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, in a human lung epithelial cell line—reducing viral load by 95 percent and by 97 percent, compared to control, at two therapeutic concentrations tested. Based on a CC50 value—the concentration of drug at which 50 percent of cells maintain viability—Brilacidin was also shown to be non-cytotoxic in the lung cell line.
The new lung cell line data reinforce previous testing conducted at the RBL, in VERO cells, where Brilacidin showed a similar robust inhibition, of 75 percent, against SARS-CoV-2 compared to control. Brilacidin has also been shown, in testing at the RBL, to be non-cytotoxic in VERO cells.
Additional details on the Brilacidin anti-SARS-CoV-2 testing being conducted at the RBL are planned to be submitted for publication upon completion.
“Brilacidin has now demonstrated potent inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 in human lung and kidney cell lines, and in VERO cells, in laboratory testing conducted by independent academic researchers at two institutions, both of whom plan to submit their findings for peer-review publication,” said Leo Ehrlich, Chief Executive Officer at Innovation Pharmaceuticals. “The antiviral data we are compiling provides compelling proof of Brilacidin’s impressive ability to inhibit the novel coronavirus, toward initiating a clinical study of Brilacidin for COVID-19.”
Testing results observed to date formed the basis for a federal grant application that was submitted last week by the RBL, in collaboration with the Company, proposing to evaluate Brilacidin’s potential as a pan-coronavirus therapeutic, with possible extension into other viruses. The Company is in the process of manufacturing Brilacidin for intravenous (IV) dosing and will be seeking FDA guidance for a planned COVID-19 clinical study.
Because someone posted on this board that they know someone whose cousin’s brother has a girlfriend with a roommate that used to work in a lab as a wrangler. She said data could be available in 48 hours or a week, whichever came first.
That information was published way back and is equally hard to locate now that I don’t have access to a university collection of journals. From what I recall, seems 100ug/ml is at the high end of previous dose ranges and probably enters the area of blood pressure adverse effects. In severe to critical SARS-CoV-2 cases there is already strong evidence that increased pressure against swollen alveoli causes oxygen/co2 transfer to drop. So, I strongly doubt that the highest concentrations will be used in critical care.
All that said, and I’m spitballing here, the safe Brilacidin IV for ABSSSI was .6 and .8 mg/kg body weight, using .6 mg/kg times 62 kg average human, equals ~49 mg/l, or ~49 ug/ml (physics and chem folk I am not accounting for mass and don’t know if I need to). So, like I said 100 ug/ml is about 1.5 times to double a safe total dose. This assumes no adjustment/conversion for vero to human use. Again, all that said, the .6 ml/kg dose was as effective as the .8 mg/kg, and more effective than the double-that (1.2 mg/kg) dose which caused the minor, but concerning, bp side effects.
I have no idea other than shareholder alerts don’t cost anything, other than a possible filing fee to EDGAR. PRs are not free, as some seem to think (not referring to you). The greater the distribution the more they cost. This platform charges a lot to distribute PRs, independent of mainstream business pubs.
Still, minimum distribution wouldn’t cost much. So, who knows why.
Yes, it’s virucidal properties are not 100% death to CoV. As noted, it reduces viral load by up to 85% at the highest concentration without risking damage to culture cells. But, it disrupts the viral envelope which essentially kills it.
There are several reasons for this type of hedging, reasons based on science of living things. Viruses are somewhere on the edges of life, not really alive though they exhibit some of life’s qualities. Between replications, virus particles are essentially crystalline structures, though organized into an envelope, outer protein structures for cell entry, and DNA/RNA that upon cell entry separate from the envelope and head into the cell’s reproductive apparatus. At no point do viruses take in energy and give off waste. Viruses do not meet the definition for a living thing. So, how does one “kill” that which is not alive in the first place.
As far as I know, and I can’t recall any data supporting Brilacidin and cell entry, Brilacidin acts entirely outside the cell. Outside the cell it blocks receptors that allow viral entry and disrupts the viral envelope prior to cell attachment. An mRNA vaccine or drug treatment enters the cell and affects cellular response that allows or blocks viral entry, or even prevents viral DNA/RNA from hijacking cellular replication apparatus.
Might be wrong, but I don’t think so.
It means taken in total. Both tests examined and demonstrated virucidal action, and the kidney tissue test showed (in addition) inhibitory properties. Moreover, each test examined other properties not covered by its counterpart and all data is cumulative, meaning one does not exclude the other and neither should be viewed as existing in isolation of the other.
My home is on Oahu, but I’ve been in Southeast Asia for 3 years now. We had a lockdown at 17 Covid-19 cases. The country began slowly opening when new cases were zero for one week. Most of the country reopened a month ago, and schools returned 2 weeks ago. Only 18 new cases this past month in a country of 100 million people. Oahu had 18 new cases in an island of 900k, just yesterday and they are reopening.
This country had a protocol in place from experience with MERS, SARS and H5N1 Birdflu. Contact tracing began with the first case a month after Wuhan reported cases. The magic number here was 20 cases of Covid-19 to execute distancing and 30 cases for an economic shutdown. Total cases after 3 months are about 275 with no fatalities.
I’ll be here another year (unplanned), meanwhile my country (USA) will experience a second wave starting in 10 days to 2 weeks from Memorial Day.
Sorry, haven’t found that data yet, again. Clearance was reported back around 2015 or -16. A lot of digging that I don’t yet have time to do. Hoping to get the time shortly.
Yes, good catch. There is a difference. In the monkey cell line B directly inhibited SARS-CoV through disruption of the viral envelope. In today’s kidney cell line, the report stated B prevents cell entry “ by blocking the SARS-CoV-2 Spike 1 (S1).”
However, it goes on to say “We now have preliminary in vitro data from two separate independent laboratories that, cumulatively, support Brilacidin’s ability to act directly on the novel coronavirus, as a virucidal agent, and prevent viral binding to host cells.“
So, the report confirms two actions of B, it is both inhibitory and virucidal.
It means Brilacidin inhibits entry to kidney cells and reduces SARS-CoV by up to 85%. It means Brilacidin is a promising antiviral for one of SARS-CoV targets, the kidneys. It means Brilacidin will continue to advance if it demonstrates similar results in lung tissue cultures to the now two preclinical tests.
My take is that since lungs are a main concern and main point of inflammation, the initial testing is much more complicated and detailed than what is described today. Lung results this week or next.
Read through highlights of the Remdesivir published results and it sets a very low bar for the next treatments. Some takeaways from the summary data:
Brilacidin. 1) the total data was a little more robust and conclusive than I had thought a few weeks back. Looks like good data. 2) Remdesivir is clearly better than nothing and certainly better than hydroxychloroquine (which doesn’t do a dam thing against Covid-19 except the possibility of making things worse). 3) Remdesivir’s numbers show a reduction in severe illness time of 3-4 days (15 day average to 11 days). 4) those patients diagnosed early in the infection cycle almost none developed into severe cases. (the numbers here appear to be massaged and manipulated for best outcome based on subgroups. TIAB’s main complaint about B-OM data). 4) Remdesivir as a treatment does not destroy the virus, it merely blocks it from entering cells to replicate. Whence, the reduction in viral load is a product of reduced replicated particles over time rather than reduced particle load from direct destruction. 5) although Gilead originally characterized the response as “robust” even with scant preliminary data, the published data shows very marginal results. Still, touting by the current administration and Gilead has reduced urgency for a treatment. This obviously slows the development of new therapies as agencies will now feel free to take more time for analysis of new candidates. Gilead will benefit greatly from this slowing. 6) nonetheless, B as an antiviral has a very low bar to clear. It now only has to show efficacy better than 3 to 4 days reduced infection time and reduction in symptom severity within 24 hours. Remdesivir fails to do the latter.
Moderna’s claim of favorable results in its vaccine trial is an example of ‘publication by press release’
The case is more nuanced for the vaccine developed by the Jenner Institute at Oxford University, though the mileposts remain the same: It started with a public pronouncement of favorable results from an early study, this time in monkeys, well before any data was publicly released. An NIH scientist working on a trial of the Oxford vaccine gave an interview to the New York Times, claiming the drug was a success.
But the data, released as a prepublication version more than two weeks after the story ran, didn’t quite live up to the early claim. All of the vaccinated monkeys became infected when introduced to the virus. Though there was some reduction in the amount of viral RNA detected in the lungs, there was no reduction in the nasal secretions in the vaccinated monkeys. So the positive result reported by the Oxford group turned out not to be protection from infection at all, something most would agree is what a successful vaccine would do. Instead, it lowered only the amount of virus recoverable from the vaccinated monkey’s lung.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/19/rush-share-good-news-covid-19-drugs-is-undermining-science/
The problem with vaccines is they have to be given well in advance of an epidemic. Takes time to safely generate an antibody response without causing fever, blotches, headaches, body aches, etc. The advantage to a drug like B is that it can be administered days ahead of the leading edge of infections. Whereas a vaccine, like the one Moderna is developing often requires 3 weeks to a month, or more. The Moderna drug will require two injections a month apart.
“ Two shots, four weeks apart, are likely to be needed, meaning that however many doses are produced, only half that number of people can be vaccinated.” — https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/health/coronavirus-vaccine-moderna.html
The virus was in a liquid to which Brilacidin was added. It was then added to the VERO cells for incubation. Infection into the cells was greatly reduced at incubation. That is a prophylactic acting virucide.
I need to look up the clearance for Brilacidin to see how far in advance of a breakout it can be applied. What they are probably looking for is something that can be given at the leading edge of an infection wave to stop the early outbreak. If B remains in the system for several days, it can be used as a prophylaxis. I’d read they were looking at that aspect, but these results are surprising.
Falcon74: Trump's newly appointed coronavirus czar, Moncef Slaoui, will divest his $10 million in Moderna stock options after initially claiming there was no conflict of interest
https://www.google.com.vn/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-tsar-divest-his-10-million-in-stocks-from-moderna-2020-5%3famp
Of course they were healthy. The Moderna tests were only to exam safety and generation of antibodies. The next test will prove interesting as the current Covid-19 czar has $10 million in stock options for the company. Talk about a conflict of interest.