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.
The total number of shares purchased and currently held exceed not only the float, but also the outstanding, by a wide margin. And its only getting wider.
A short sale is not a sell.
Thank you for sharing this. To see Brilacidin being mentioned in nature.com, a premier science publication, is a milestone in itself!
I suspect there may be money coming into IPIX shortly, either from Alfasigma or some other source. Accrued losses can be written off against the income to save on taxes. That is the only reason I can think off for writing off the patent expenses at this time.
The money spent on obtaining a patent are not expensed in the year of spend. Instead, they are capitalized and appear on the asset side of the balance sheet, and carried forward amortizing it equally over the life of the patent. Writing off means, expensing (or amortizing) the full value carried on the balance sheet, thereby reducing your profits (or increasing your losses). The losses in turn are reduced from the Capital on your balance sheet. In short, minus on the asset side and minus on the liabilities side, thus balancing your balance sheet.
This is purely, an accounting treatment. Writing off has no impact on the ownership of the patent which continues to reside with the patent holder. Moreover, no one else can file for a patent for the same product because it will be treated as prior art, which is disallowed under the patent rules.
I am curious too. It must have been a good amount, otherwise investing 4M would have depleted our cash balance by almost 40%...quite risky considering we have no other means of raising capital at this point.
So are you saying that the trial could not have failed because the results were not statistically significant?
People who ask others to "do some research" seldom do any themselves.
It could mean that Russia has a SOC that is more effective than the one administered here.
Per the 10-Q, OM P3 is next on tap. We don't have the resources for an ABSSSI P3.
The study wasn't inconclusive. It failed.
I still feel this is a good investment, considering that I first invested for the bacterial indications of Brilacidin. The anti-viral attempt just happened to come around considering the emergency.
We need just one break to unlock value, and so we wait for what the OM trial will bring.
Hindsight is always 20/20. We were not the only ones that attempted the moderate-to-severe cohort. But, at least, we tried. If we had succeeded it would have been good not only for IPIX but for humankind in general, and future pandemics, the next one likely round the corner.
You never know if you don't try.
The Brilacidin arm and the placebo arm had 60 patients each. 2/3rd (40 patients) in the Brilacidin arm received a 5-day course, and 1/3rd (20 patients) a 3-day course (this was announced previously). 4 in the Brilacidin arm died, and ditto in the placebo arm. That's the reason for the conclusion that there was no change in mortality.
The way the PR is worded is a little confusing.
For the sake of the patient, it is better to follow the rules.
Can you point to a rule or regulation where you need a minimum number of patients to get an EUA?
The question will not be relevant if you assume that everyone who gets infected will run to a doctor for a prescription. But that is not the case. We have seen that with the vaccines. People choose, for whatever reason, to wait it out. That's where a therapy for moderate to severally ill patients will come into play. So, no, it's not that simple.
Can you name one therapy that is effective for moderate to severely ill patients?
The NRx PR announcing the results does not say:
1. It was a double-blind study.
2. It followed the 29-day protocol expected of such studies.
Moreover, the admission process goes something like, and I quote "Assignment to ZYESAMI in the trial was based on the specific medical team which admitted the patient to the intensive care unit (ICU)". Does this give you sufficient confidence that the admission process was unbiased? Could these be the reasons why FDA was skeptical?
Isn't this a lot different from how IPIX conducted its trial?
Is it time to bring out your "Phosp...", whatever you mentioned before, out of the quiver and regurgitate it?
https://www.nrxpharma.com/nrx-pharmaceuticals-announces-improved-survival-at-one-year-in-highly-comorbid-covid-19-patients-treated-with-zyesami-aviptadil/
I asked another poster this and I would like to know your thoughts. If they actually DO do what you think they would do, and the stock goes to zero, what would the net result be? Would they be holding 225M of zeroes?
It's a stock compensation agreement. If the stock goes to zero, 225M multiplied by zero is ? Would you like to enlighten this board with the result of the above computation?
In 2018, Tesla Motors came up with a similar compensation agreement with Elon Musk and his cronies.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/tesla-shareholders-approve-elon-musks-multibilion-dollar-compensation-plan.html
This was the time when TSLA was the most shorted stock in the world and every hedge fund manager worth his salt was in the news warning TSLA investors of its imminent demise.
I see parallels here...do you? Looks like IPIX's demise is imminent just like TSLA's. Any thoughts?
Interesting, if you replace ABEO with CTIX/IPIX, this would very well read like our story.
Thank you for posting the summary.
But one has the risk of growing a tail...I'll let you guess which one that would be. But I agree, either one is better than horsing around.
Merck may know how to game the system, but FDA would be cautious this time around after the blowback they received for approving the Alzheimer's drug, whether fair or not. CNN had a screaming headline just a week or two ago.
No one would want to hastily approve a drug that could turn a person into a fly, ala Jeff Goldblum.
What about the 50% that get hospitalized? They would need something, wouldn't they?
We are still far away from claiming the pandemic is over. Brilacidin will have its place.
Could underreporting of deaths in India be a factor?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-has-undercounted-covid-19-deaths-by-hundreds-of-thousands-families-and-experts-say-11624795202
The virus does not discriminate.
There are hundreds of trials going on. If the physicians apply on behalf of the patients, I wonder where and how they heard about Brilacidin, and what made them pick Brilacidin, a drug by a small and unknown OTC company, hardly known outside of this board. Logic would dictate they pick a compassionate use drug from Big Pharma, and yet they chose Brilacidin. Interesting thing to think about.
Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures.
Since the physicians need permission from the FDA, once can surmise that data would flow from the former to the latter regarding the efficacy. That data would also come into play when it comes to EUA.
If Brilacidin shows a reduction in mortality, wouldn't you agree that would be as good as raising someone from the dead?
As for the other issues you mention, those are all logistical. We are in a pandemic, logistics are the least of our concerns.
The trial results will be out any day now. Why not just wait and see how this unfolds?
Brilacidin's mechanism is three pronged unlike Remdesivir.
As Farrell and KMBJN succintly discussed at length here recently, the mechanism by which Brilacidin disrupts the viral membrane is unique and is extra-cellular, whereas Remdesivir is intra-cellular which itself presents a problem. Moreover, Brilacidin is anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial, something that Remdesivir lacks.
A high SI of Remdesivir did enable it to succeed in-vivo and receive an EUA (though the extent of its success is under debate). Isn't there a higher probability for Brilacidin to succeed?
Note: I am not in the bio-medical field, so I used layman's terms to express my understanding. But the gentlemen I referred to above have explained it beautifully elsewhere.
I am waiting to see where you got the completely false statement theoretically.
In fact it is true...
The selectivity index (SI) is a ratio that measures the window between cytotoxicity and antiviral activity by dividing the given AVA value into the TOX value (AVA/TOX). The higher the SI ratio, the theoretically more effective and safe a drug would be during in vivo treatment for a given viral infection.
See the section on viral infections:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/selectivity-index
It's too late in the day to be debating about the topic you insist. Some may have tingling, some numbness, and other may feel orgasmic, though the latter may encourage repeat visits, Covid or not. But we would know for certain in a few weeks whether Brilacidin prevailed or not. So hang in there.
No one invests in a startup Biotech as a conservative financial investment. Either they misunderstand what conservative means, or they regret making the investment.
Any investor worth his/her salt would know that an investment such as this has a very high chance of failure. So accepting such a risk also means that in the event of success, the returns are commensurate with the risk taken. Anything less than 1000x would not cut it.
For conservative investors a bank stock would be a better deal, where they can go giddy in an annual return of 5%. To suggest that we accept a low ball deal just because some "conservative" investors "want" it, is not fair for most who have taken the risk for an outsized return.
I don't understand why you harp on the 5 million that was paid for Brilacidin for making the case that 600M would be a good return. What if this was invented by IPIX? How would you price it then? We have a formidable asset and should not be given away at throwaway valuation. If someone can't stomach the risk, again, a bank stock would be a better investment next time.
Perception matters a lot more than the value of the product that's hawked. We are on OTC with a stock hovering at 20 cents. No pharma worth its salt is going to believe we have something to clamor for.
A recent example would be Tesla Motors (TSLA). How many car companies do you think were falling over themselves to acquire it in its infancy? Did anyone believe it would be successful, or had anything of value. Now its market cap is worth more than all the car companies combined.
The vaccine debate (or misinformation) on this board is another example. We are just a little over a month away from the trial results. Perception would not matter then because the product would speak for itself. I would be happy to have the conversation then.
Was an autopsy done to rule out other causes? Even the article quotes the department stating “While we don’t know [the cause] with 100% certainty..."
I guess whatever fits my world view, come and paste it on this board.
Tom Brady was the 199th overall pick in the draft. And we all know how that went.