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.
Don’t underestimate the antivax movement. Even if a vaccine proves effective, between antivaxers and multimillion dosing ramp up, it’s unlikely that inoculations will achieve more than 25-30% population coverage in the first six months after approval. There will still be plenty of demand for an effective treatment between now and late 2021 regardless of a vaccine.
More than that, the drug is still preclinical with no human testing yet. Not even animal safety studies.
Injecting synthetic or natural antibody material in human subjects is notoriously fraught with dangerous side effects and bad reactions. Then, they are proposing a “cocktail of antibodies” which to me means their preclinical/pre-in vivo tests are not yet complete. This has “ultimately a failure” written all over it.
Interesting results where hydroxychloroquine was statistically indistinguishable from standard of care patients. That is other than 10% of hydroxychloroquine patients had to discontinue, a finding that confirmed several other studies.
“ Results In the main analysis, 84 patients who received hydroxychloroquine within 48 hours of admission to hospital (treatment group) were compared with 89 patients who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (control group). Eight additional patients received hydroxychloroquine more than 48 hours after admission. In the weighted analyses, the survival rate without transfer to the intensive care unit at day 21 was 76% in the treatment group and 75% in the control group (weighted hazard ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.1). Overall survival at day 21 was 89% in the treatment group and 91% in the control group (1.2, 0.4 to 3.3). Survival without acute respiratory distress syndrome at day 21 was 69% in the treatment group compared with 74% in the control group (1.3, 0.7 to 2.6). At day 21, 82% of patients in the treatment group had been weaned from oxygen compared with 76% in the control group (weighted risk ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.3). Eight patients in the treatment group (10%) experienced electrocardiographic modifications that required discontinuation of treatment.”
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1844
Thanks pipilongstocking!
That’s not how it’s done. You take confirmed cases and confirmed deaths, but you also have to consider both numbers are likely under counts. But, what we do know is there are 1,391,000 confirmed cases and 84,140 confirmed deaths. That’s a mortality rate of 6%. Estimates of Covid-19 mortality range from 1% to 8% depending on the expert and population. Most agree that the USNIAID number of about 1% is low (a smiley pandemic face for the powers that be). Agreement seems to be in the 2% to 3% range, or about 20 to 30 times more deadly than H1N1 flu. But, you won’t here or read any of that on any mainstream media, and certainly not FOX News. You have to go to public health publications by nonprofit organizations who have tracked epidemics and pandemics for 50 years.
The PR you refer stated that the RBL informed them over the weekend that testing had started. So, testing likely started on Friday the 1st or earlier.
Made me waste my precious time. But, here it is. One of the assays for Brilacidin is cytotoxicity. Because total exposure under treatment can be longer than 48 hours, cytotoxicity duration in culture is 6 days or more depending on rate of test drug elimination. Here is a recent paper on plant extract tested for antiviral activity and its cytotoxicity.
Read the protocol, enjoy: https://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjps/v55/1984-8250-bjps-55-e18063.pdf
OMG. The culture was 48 hours. Does that include the confirmation? Is 48 hours the total protocol from initiation to conclusion? Is that what you’ve been pointing to for a 48 hours claim? Surely a doctor must know either how wrong that is or how misleading.
So, you think after 12 days there is a problem because the RBL, as is standard practice, does not report preliminary reports until the protocol is complete and results confirmed. And, your basis for this concern there is a problem is one quick and dirty test that principle investigators reported had results in 48 hours. OK, got it.
Yes, it does sound time consuming, especially if they repeat each test (after results and analysis) to confirm results. Then there are the combination with other antivirals to consider. How many, it doesn’t say.
Yes, they had one data point after 48 hours. IPIX is a much more robust series of assays examining more than just viral particle numbers. The PR has a number of properties of B to be tested. The one I reposted is closer to what the RBL is doing.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s harder.
Posted by: Zdubble17
In reply to: LilKahuna who wrote msg# 296574 Date:5/12/2020 10:22:21 AM
Post #296576 of 296674
“I did see an Interferon test on epithelial lung cells. It was dosed 200,300, and 500 mcg. It took 4 days to saturate and was tested multiple times in the 2 weeks allowed for each dose. Whole test took 8 weeks to complete including the analyzation of results. Would probably put us into June. That being said I would expect to see an update prior to that.”
Someone else posted the timing. I’m not an errand boy to be sent on needless and wasteful “treasure hunts.”
I don’t need references when a time line is totally unrealistic and should be basic assumed knowledge to anyone in the medical field invested in clinical drugs.
Complete bullshit. Give it 2 weeks before you start the end times countdown and declaring “from this day forward, the news can only be worse.” I mean allow time to gather and analyze the 4 outcomes.
It’s been only a little more than a week. I don’t know where you did preclinical research, but even culture studies take more than 15 days to complete and determine outcomes. So, would you mind not making claims of no news after a single week without an update.
Well, this particular moment of wait has been one week. Saying “no news is not good news...” ignores the lag between PRs has been 7 days, not enough to even complete testing protocol much less any data collection. It’s really pretty much fugazi.
Regarding IPIX and other pandemic visions and prognosticators: last night there were signs I saw at dinner. I saw Jesus and Mary in my mash potatoes; then seated-prosperity Buddha was clearly in my banh mi. Allah was in my chick pea soup, I didn’t see Allah but felt the presence. Then in the curry sat Zarathustra, while in my favorite noodles were Zeus and Thor (neither looking like their Hollywood incarnations). Finally, in the pudding, vanilla coconut, sat Brahma and Vishnu accompanied by Krishna (maybe Krishna was just a lump of tapioca). None of the holy folk spoke (though custard often speaks to me), but I was left with a strong impression: IPIX will get news this week...or next.
Wrong. A PR last week stated that over the weekend the RBL announced they had started testing. It’s most likely that the testing began on Friday the 1st of May.
Wasn’t a 16hr point a 60% reduction in active virus? If so, that doesn’t sound very weak when combined with Brilacidin being an immunomodulator and anti-inflammatory. As studies gather more information about SARS-CoV-2, it seems to be inflammation and immune response that kills people, not to mention secondary infections. Oh, isn’t B’s strongest attribute it being antibacterial?
The government has a billion dollars to ramp up trials and distribution after approval. If proof in the early, limited trials of clear efficacy improved over that Remdesivir, a BP would have to be.... well you get the picture when up to a billion dollars is available for development and deployment.
Thanks for this. I’ve been trying to explain these things to my family and friends and they’ve treated me as Cassandra.
I’m currently in one of the first countries to outbreak after Wuhan, China. Since then, the country has had only 288 cases and no deaths. This in a country about the same size as California but 3 times the population. What did this country do that my home country hasn’t? Well, first, the leadership hadn’t disbanded the President’s pandemic panel that had all the emergency protocols. Second, they started taking the Coronavirus seriously from day one and immediately began assessing the country’s strategic biomedical stockpile, before the first case was detected within the borders.
Nonetheless, outbreaks will continue until there is a vaccine. The country has told us that.
1) I didn’t read in that article anyone calling Fauci a worm
2) the article seems to voice objection to coronavirus study in a Chinese lab. Epidemiologists are mostly in agreement that East Asia and Southeast Asia are incubation environments for cross-species strains and animal to human transmissions that become pandemic threats. Wet markets are only a small source of those transmissions, as most mutations and shifts take place in the wild. Most of the world’s emergent diseases incubate in East Asia and Africa due to annual migration patterns. Because so many migratory birds interact with both domestic and wild species while in China, there is a great need for study in China that can’t be done in the US.
3) the article doesn’t address the need for studying pandemic diseases in China, nor does it talk about how little money $3 million is over 5 years and how little research that buys. Instead of cutting funding the US should be increasing it 100 fold and using that to buy lab space to work with and oversee Chinese researchers and experts.
Much better already. The only lingering thing is the morning congestion from deep in the lungs. My only point was regarding the severity spectrum that so many pass off as only old people affected. Well if you’re under 30 then I guess 45 is old. But, thirty year olds are dying of clotting, strokes and kidney failure not previously connected or attributed to Covid-19.
Nonetheless, 80 percent of cases show symptoms. About 20 percent show severe symptoms and respiratory distress. Of all confirmed US cases, there has been a 6% mortality, but that number is now getting revised upward. Of those put on respirators, a previously unheard of 80% have died.
As I said, I didn’t have a severe case. I took only 1 day off during the peak illness.
Possibly, if I could get some here it might alleviate some lingering symptoms. But, where I am it’s a moot point.
I know I’m late to the conversation. And, I talked about this last month. I’m currently expat in Southeast Asia. Last November, I came down with what I think was CoV caused Covid-19 symptoms. Yes, it took 3 weeks to subside and 3 months of congestion. Still, every morning I wake up and cough up congestion I didn’t have before the infection. Nasty business and I don’t think I had severe symptoms that 20% of patients suffer.
Doctors are recommending a stop to hydroxychloroquine. Test after test against CoV-2, there is very little to no benefit compared to patients not receiving. Also, Covid-19 infections seem to cause changes to blood and promote clotting as well as inflame alveoli and pulmonary system. These and other properties of CoV-2 appear to increase patient sensitivity to the drug’s side effects.
Laura Ingraham wouldn’t know a transport vesicle from a town car.
He doesn’t need anything but the drug and a large scale manufacturer. He’s got both. Uncle Sam will take care of the rest, and if not Uncle Sam then a partner.
No trials?
Trials: preclinical trials at two sites. If/when Brilacidin shows 60% efficacy against Coronavirus in lung tissue plus solid evidence of anti-inflammatory and immunomodulation, clinical Phase 2 trials will start up. That could be as soon as June. So far, every candidate has failed against CoV, including remdesivir with their “hand-crafted” trials with no control group, and the Orange One’s touted miracle cure.
Currently, B has a very low bar to clear.
The PR answers some questions asked yesterday and last week.
—B will enter the second study using human lung tissue probably by Monday. The study should take about 2 weeks like the previous.
—the PR references an article from a reliable 3rd party explaining B should advance to human treats based on all current data. Nonetheless, the lung tissue study will go forward, ands in the meantime IPIX is looking at study sites. The article also puts forward that data justifies government funding from the Covid emergency funds.
—this isn’t fluff. It’s confirmation and update.
Not a pink. It’s OTC, fully reporting.
Also, IB trades OTC premarket. Rare, but they trade. These past few weeks there have been premarket trades.
Here is what was said about the drug: “ The early signs come from a small study of just 125 infected patients at a Chicago hospital, part of a broader trial for the Gilead Science drug. Of those patients, 113 had severe complications, STAT News reported. Most of the patients have been discharged, although two people died, according to STAT News.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/17/coronavirus-latest-news/#link-JHB4BKUBLNHRLNTBGOPPZBFJWU
125 patients, 2 died. Isn’t that (~2%) the mortality rate for patients with symptoms? Other issues, we don’t know the selection criteria for the study. The report doesn’t state a control or comparison group. Was there a control? This Gilead study has all the earmarks and flags that those hydroxychloroquine studies have.
Go IPIX.
There are only 13000 deaths because there are shelter in place orders. Doing nothing, business as usual, would have been on the path to far worse. New Zealand stopped the virus by shutting down the entire country for what will be 2 full 14 day coronavirus cycles. They will begin returning to normal a week after Easter. The country I’m in has a nationwide social distancing order. It’s about the same population and size as California and the first cases were about the same week. This country has 250 cases while California has thousands. This country plans to restart at the end of April, California is looking at rapid increases in infections spreading to its rural areas.
For the US, 13000 dead and it is still experiencing only the first wave. Japan’s second wave is just starting.
You don’t know what your talking about.
I contracted a coronavirus last November. It was going around the center where I work. It hit children and adults. The virus had all the same symptoms of Covid-19, but I don’t think it was SARS-CoV-2. All of us recovered, but even younger people between 25 and 40, healthy people, took 4 to 6 weeks to recover. It wasn’t fun and was far worse than any common flu, except maybe an H5N1 or that Swine crap that went around a decade ago.
Current mortality for Covid-19 in the US is 3.2%. That’s 32 times as deadly as common influenza at 0.1%.
My initial answer was wrong. After reading a second time I finally got it right. KMBJN did a much better job of explaining.
I read the protocol again. They were only trying to show antiviral activity. In cell culture studies the fastest and easiest way to do that is pretreatment followed by exposure to a viral load. They then measure the reduction. If there was no measurable reduction, no antiviral activity, then B would be abandoned. It’s rapid screening.
It’ll be interesting to see what they do with human cell culture. Let’s not be surprised at pretreatment. It’s fast, but yields fairly narrow information for analysis.
Because if you are trying to show something is an effective treatment you don’t pretreat the subject. The test wasn’t to show B is an effective prophylaxis; it was to show it was effective against infected cells. B doesn’t stay in the system long enough to be a useful prophylaxis. That’s the domain of a vaccine or anti-malarial like a quinine-based drug. B would be useful for post-exposure, almost certainly not before. The drug it was tested against has a known measure of anti-SARS-CoV activity in pre-treatment. They used it as a comparator rather than a zero treatment control.
hydroxychloroquine sucked all the oxygen out of the room last week and earlier this week. Reports are now showing why 15 years after it showed efficacy in culture against SARS-CoV it still isn’t any kind of viral infection standard of care. B should get better attention this week.