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.
98.6% chance of more meaningless fluff.
"I'm guessing we should have an update from Leo one day next week!!!!!!"
Severe Covid-19. Well, that's that:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/experimental-covid-drug-successful-shutting-193544401.html
As if they haven't been trying for many different partnerships for many years....
The prospect of dealing with this management "team", probably turns many away.
Beyond weird given current cash position, share price, and need to push forward existing development.
5-10 Years?
Try there is only enough cash for 5-10 months and half a trial.
Downside is no more cash, no more trails, and a zero.
As it currently sits, a very real possibility.
"I too have faith in Brilacidin, Kevetrin, and Leo."
Kevetrin- No patent life left, forget it.
Brilacidin- No money to do anything.
Leo- No money (except personal salary), no board, not exactly a stellar track record.
Agreed. Liquidity, and lack thereof, is the most important driver of all outcomes and discussion right now. Everything else is noise.
Liquity, Liquity, Liquity.
That's fine. You think the CEO is so busy doing trail data analysis?
The CEO's job is strategy, investor relations, partnerships and board recruitment.
.
Liquidity is something that absolutely needs to be addressed to shareholders and is the single biggest driver right now behind all outcomes.
I don't necessarily need a meeting (although that's the correct way to handle this (management can screen questions during a shareholder meeting so it's not a fry-fest FYI). Short of that, a deck or a recorded phone call will be just fine.
This critical information and commentary is absolutely necessary at this juncture and standard accountability. If you think it's a burden on the hard working management, something is fishy.
DEMAND A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING.
Investors need clear answers on the most important topic of all–– liquidity. It's on the brink, and short the rabbit out of a hat promise of a government grant, there is not enough left to do anything. One more slight misstep turns it into a zero based on cash.
Also, would like to know who is being recruited to bring in a real board of directors––not some dudes from the local bridge game, it's ridiculous–– people with real ability and the capital connections necessary to move forward quickly in conjunction with new management.
Apparently not.
I am not Just-the Facts Man, but the fact is that there is only enough $$ in the bank for 1 trial, and financing at this point is going to non-existent to beyond punitive–– that one trial, whatever it is, has to be the absolute safest bet of all the indications and deliveries in order to fight another day and keep afloat.
What a drag this thing is.
Totally irrelevant in respect to an artificially depressed and very poorly managed asset from a capital and governance perspective.
If it turns out that there is gold here, it's worth gold, and the current price is effectively irrelevant in a bidding war to acquire said asset. Why sell yourself short on the outcome based on premium comps. If you think like this, we should all pray that you aren't Leo!
No Doubt. People are pretty funny with their reverse inside out double golden crosses and candlestick nanny parades. Not to mention the constant play-by-play drama of .01 moves in either direction–––but whatever entertains the brain.
Does the Company have a product or not? Let's Go!
Indeed. Hopefully this doesn't severely muddy the waters and create another protracted mess that requires a re-trial. IPIX needs clean headlines and the heparin factor (assuming it is one), won't help anything.
If that's the case, the trial results will most likely be Crap with this caveat in play.
Hopefully the timely publication of this article isn't designed as the scapegoat.
Diligence: help with shortcuts to the following?
1) Short overview of current Brilacidin patent portfolio. Remaining term (s) on any granted patents per indication.
2) Both AI power and cost reductions are flying at warp speed versus 20 years ago. Can new, superior Brilacidin competitors be developed now with more sophistication, accuracy and efficacy given current AI, or is it moot given strong and broad existing patent protection (a tributary of question #1)?
Thanks!