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.
Never thought about that, hope you (I, us) are not grasping at straws. But there is a logic to that, familyman
Nice moves, brad.
It was just mentioned on the board that the cost of the Ph2 was about 30 million (really old news hacked around here many, many times), and IPIX did not have the beans at the time (or now either). As time has passed the potential value for ipix has probably dropped as competition has risen.
Every so often I check on competitive treatments for ABSSSI. I didn't open many, just kind of skimmed through, but it is a growing number. It justifies some deeper dd as many of us have always kept that in reserve, as one of the "good" results we had bagged. It seems to include one hour iv infusions, at least one pill, and more IVs.
Good point, no harm in a failed try, Blzzy. The harm is mainly to our trading line. Oh well, live to trade another day.
I know I may sound like an idiot, especially today, but AlfaSigma is still a real company with real products and a real interest in Brilacidin. And it has not started its studies for the legitimate reasons that covid in northern Italy has been particularly intense and shortages of Brilacidin, for whatever reasons, have been bumps in the road.
Uhhh, for some of us this is part of life, for good or ill.
Be safe out there ROMAD, Nice end statements.
"Why didn't they test it on mild-moderate infected patients , rather than the moderate to severe infected patients??
Makes no sense, even the BP's failed in the moderate to severe patients."
My take was that the IV treatment precluded most non-hospitalized patients. How many mild to moderate, but still bad enough to hospitalize patients, are there? Not so many. Especially after the new anti-viral pills. Leo took a chance, still gets paid half a mil annually. So why not?
is it over for IPIX??.
No, not at all. Just a penny stock with questionable management, no lab or staff to speak of, and a relatively small debt load, but some potentially good to great products. The problem is that it is funded by dilution, and we are never sure if the reason BP does not buy our products (or the whole of IPIX) is because it feels we have unremarkable products, or because our CEO/owner is asking too high a price. But, two or so year ago a good sized company (AlfaSigma) licensed some of the IBD related rights to use of Brilacidin. fwiw, I am not selling at this pps. But looking at my recent track record here, that is not a highly valued endorsement.
"Also, yesterday's dump in the afternoon needs to be investigated"
By who, sure not the SEC.
Don't we all----
I wouldn't go that far, for sure. In fact I thought his treatment long shot on covid and the compassionate treatment were gutsy tries. Really, and I'm not generally a fan of many of Leo's management moves. I felt the lack of news on successful compassionate use was sort of a bad indicator, but our complete lack of solid data put us on the guess track. Should Leo have let us all in on the failure of compassionate use? Would have been good for shareholders to know and allow them to re-evaluate their courses, though it would have probably tanked the stock earlier, not allowing those who wanted to take profits a easy way to the door. Tough call on that one, but something Leo never would have done anyway. At this pps I may get a few more shares, but need some noodle time. I am still hoping for better things out of the IBD as well as other product areas. I would be aware of AflaSigma, I would not be surprised to see them pick up bargain shares. As a mid sized pharma they could spend 5 million and get what, 60 million or so shares. Their purchase of shares would be a good sign, if it occurred. If I said I'm accepting this with grace, I'd be lying.
Oral medications that can treat or prevent COVID-19 may soon be available.
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have been looking for safe, effective and convenient treatments. The most effective treatments—COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir, an antiviral medication—are only available by direct infusion into a vein (intravenous administration) in supervised healthcare settings. That may soon change.
Learn more about prospective oral COVID-19 drugs.
Molnupiravir: Merck’s COVID-19 pill
In October 2021, Merck announced plans to seek emergency use authorization for molnupiravir, an oral antiviral pill, after a phase 3 study found that the medicine cut the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19 in half. The study, with 775 participants, compared the pill’s effectiveness in decreasing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths to placebo treatment in people who had mild to moderate COVID-19 and were at elevated risk of serious disease due to age or other health conditions.
Just 7.3% of study participants receiving molnupiravir were hospitalized, compared to 14.1% of participants who received the placebo. None of the people who received molnupiravir died; eight people who got the placebo did. The difference was so striking that outside monitors recommended stopping the study early.
Molnupiravir interferes with the novel coronavirus’s (SARS-CoV-2) ability to replicate. It rapidly induces random mutations in the virus so the “virus essentially mutates itself to death,” says George Plemper, a virologist quoted in an October 8, 2021 Nature article about COVID-19 drugs.
The drug was well-tolerated in clinical studies. Drug-related adverse events were no more common in people who took the drug than in those who received the placebo. Researchers not involved in the study are reviewing the drug’s safety and effectiveness against COVID-19.
In early October 2021, Indian researchers studying a generic version of molnupiravir said they’d found “no significant efficacy” for the medication in people with moderate COVID-19 but have noted some success with mild cases of COVID-19. Antiviral medications are generally most effective early in the disease process. Variation among the U.S. and Indian studies could be related to differences in how each country defines mild, moderate and severe COVID-19.
Merck has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve the drug for emergency use for adults with COVID-19 who are at high risk of complications. The company is also evaluating the drug in clinical trials to see if it can decrease the likelihood of individuals getting sick after exposure to the novel coronavirus.
If the FDA authorizes the COVID-19 pill, doctors could prescribe molnupiravir for individuals to take at home.
Pfizer, Roche, and Atea Pharmaceuticals also testing COVID-19 pills
Pfizer, the biopharmaceutical company that produced the first authorized COVID-19 vaccine with BioNTech, is also working on a COVID-19 pill. The company is collaborating with Roche Pharmaceuticals to assess a medication currently known as PF-07321332, a drug that blocks an enzyme SARS-CoV-2 needs to multiply. Phase 1 studies showed that the drug is safe and well tolerated by humans, so the companies are now testing the drug to see if it can prevent COVID-19 infections from becoming serious and prevent COVID-19 infections in people exposed to COVID-19.
Healthcare professionals would prescribe PF-07321332 with ritonavir, another oral antiviral drug that is often used to treat HIV infection.
Roche is also working with Atea Pharmaceuticals on an oral antiviral drug that shows promise against COVID-19. Phase 2 studies found that the drug, currently known as AT-527, cleared COVID-19 infection from 47% of study participants within two weeks. For comparison, 22% of those treated with a placebo cleared their infections within two weeks. Additional clinical trials are underway.
A pill version of remdesivir?
Remdesivir was the first antiviral medication with FDA approval to treat COVID-19. However, a healthcare professional must administer the drug directly into the bloodstream through a vein, so it’s not convenient or practical for widespread use. A team of researchers at the University of California – San Diego are currently working on a pill version of the drug, and the National Institutes of Health has approved funding for further investigation.
Soon, oral medication for COVID-19 may be a reality.
For more information about COVID-19 treatment, read How Hospitals Treat COVID-19 Patients.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGlkjjMDQXcMppGVDtlQJJSmCJK
try left clicking and going down to https:
Strange, works for me each time.
"Scoff" what a great word, ROMAD.
"I expect to hold a lot of my Ipix for 2 or 3 years after the virus test results. It is the same if the results are poor or only okay or super good."
Me too, fwiw. I wish the payback period for noncovid successes were shorter, but so much depends on potential capital from a successful covid, Leo's skills, etc. As you said, Frenchie, maybe 2-3 years, that seems reasonable, but still a hard pull for long term longs (about 7 years for me, so I am a mid, long term long).
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGlkjjMDQXcMppGVDtlQJJSmCJK
This was the original healthgrade cite, showing the new anti-viral pills for covid. Hope this works
Attached is a discussion of 5 antiviral treatments for covid just approved or still being studied. A remdesivir pill is one of the treatments discussed. Brilacidin is not among them, as this is pretty much a BP show. Interesting stuff, none the less. Would be great if a little pharma (IPIX) joined the party.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGlkjjMDQXcMppGVDtlQJJSmCJK
Great post. Many thanks.
A comment poster, dlp, mentioned IPIX. I also just commented, why not lots of us here give a comment about IPIX. The article was very good, though it was educated conjecture, without any backing. However, I found it compelling and apparently true and wise. fwiw.
And, if we use the traditional public health definition of related deaths, as the Economist magazine (and some others) do, our US death rate is closer to 2% or more. In other words comparing adjusted mortality rates, by year instead of relying on weak data from medical reports of death from harried hospitals and traditionally understaffed departments of public health. But your point is strong, regardless of which rate is used. Both are horrendous.
"I agree. This Pfizer news is short lived."
Not so sure on this one. The new med is a pill and keeps 89% of those afflicted with covid from being hospitalized or from dying (if administered 3-5 days after symptoms have been recognized). This is still big time news, look what it did to our (and other covid treatments) pps. I don't mean to say the IPIX IV treatment is a nonstarter, but it just raises the need for a very effective showing, and one that probably also uses more practical methods of treatment than an iv. Of course the absorbability issue will need to be dealt with in a manner that assures an effective amount of Brilacidin can be administered sublingually, by injection, by aerosol, by patch (I have real reservations about the amount of product that could be administered and absorbed) but regardless, it seems any these requires more testing, assuming the present testing turns of very, very well. And more time.... And more money.... That all said, my money is still on the IBD, OM, ABSSSI, Kevetrin avenues.
Apologies if this has been posted before and I missed it; I thought in September it was demonstrated that ivermectin was not effective in its use in India.
https://www.indiatoday.in/coronavirus-outbreak/story/why-hcq-ivermectin-dropped-india-covid-treatment-protocol-1857306-2021-09-26
Wow, what an embarrassment of riches (I mean the wide array of wise and knowledgeable posters, most holders, some not). GLTThem and TA
Mine, too, Lemon. The issue I have is a hard trading choice (we longs all have the same choice)s. If a long term long sold now and expected a drop next week, or, gawd forbid, if the covid test is not so hot, the pps will crash quickly. Stop losses rarely work here, as the MMs just hold that things went too fast and blew by your stops. They might be right, who know, the SEC sure does not have the staff or the interest to find out (Wish that weren't so). It is possible, for me, for example, to go from 6 figures to lots less. Will I feel like a jerk for not acting, though I probably won't. If the test is successful, however we measure that, the pps will likely be lots better than two quarters. So, once again, who knows?
Yes, you are right on all counts. If our BPs would have let Africa, India and other poor places license their products for a year or two the world would be much more vaccinated and we in the US would not be constantly looking out of the corner of our eyes for new variants. Greed is greed, and Pfizer, Moderna, etc. are infected with it. Oh, and our drug prices are still double what is paid in the rest of the advanced word, despite NIH's having funded most of the basic research that put the BPs on the course to develop all these great products. Great at drug development, but heartless and short sighted. And this is the pond IPIX swims in, with Leo as our captain. But just maybe...one or more of our ships will come in.
Wow, what a history lesson. Impressive work, as always.
Thanks, I will. Great catch.
I appreciate the detailed response, loanranger. There is so much riding on this, as I've no doubt too often observed.
I don't know which search term to use, none of my attempts worked. Hoping our board word maven could come up with one.
This may help. It also has been pointed out to me by a wise poster who does not want to enter this conversation, that the failure to provide Brilacidin to AF to start the study may have been due to supply chain issues, which are widespread. Would have been nice for Leo to point this out, but no matter. I may have jumped the gun on my criticism, and maybe I didn't.
https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/
In order to look for a study, click on “Home & Search”. Users are reminded that phase 1 trials, conducted solely in adults and which are not part of an agreed PIP, are not public in the EU CTR. Please refer to European Guidance 2008/C 168/02 Art. 3 para 2 .
Thanks for the find, zandant. Agree lots, maybe the new guy will put a push on. Covid is a real chance, but imo this is where the money tree will start, giving IPIX the ability to finish the rest of its unfinished business, regardless of how successful B for covid is.
Thanks for the find, zandant. Agree lots, maybe the new guy will put a push on. Covid is a real chance, but imo this is where the money tree will start, giving IPIX the ability to finish the rest of its unfinished business.
"ps Have been long for 7 years and hope the PII trial is a whopping success"
Me too, now also a 7 year holder and hoping for a whopping success. GLTY
"It's "a Phase 2 multinational clinical trial"."
I can not find any information on any of the AlfaSigma sites, and nothing has appeared on the clinic.gov site. Where did you find this out? I much appreciate your dd. As an aside I feel the lack of progress by IPIX in supplying product for this study is foolish beyond belief. I hope I am missing something.
"Certainly no shortage of investment capital over in that neck of the woods."
And no shortage of sharp customers trying to drive a hard bargain. A group I contract with once in a while is still f'n with a few hundred thousand dollar contract in an "enlightened" Middle Eastern kingdom, for redoing some manuals. Not a few million. Like dealing with a bunch of used car salesman (no offense to the car salesmen). They did not get the capital by being easy sells. Not looking for much out of the whole crew. Just sayin'
Yes. it is a silly number, Frenchie, but $4.282925 is not.
Great stuff, now to hire more SEC agents and get some new SEC members.