No question follows:
I asked....
"Do the purported "constant short and distort attacks" explain why the share price continued downward in spite of today's press release?" on the day that IPIX reported some results on the efficacy of B-OM, asserting that "The commercial potential for Brilacidin-OM in HNC is substantial and untapped".
It wasn't "a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information". It was a serious question about what seemed to be a counter-intuitive market response to good news.
Yesterday's market response seemed similarly counter-intuitive. The Balance Sheet and some of the text in the 10-Q addressed some fairly serious questions about the company's liquidity and one of its drugs yet the share price moved up a bit.
Some may have liked the filing overall, but...
The S-3 issue was raised in some detail, is complicated and still open in at least one critical respect, but this simple non-scientist couldn't help but notice that there was a change in presentation involving Prurisol that may speak to the company's actual assessment of it even in the purported absence of data.
The 12/31 10-Q Clinical Development Programs Section lists the company's compounds like this:
Prurisol
Brilacidin
Kevetrin
The same Section in yesterday's 10-Q lists them like this:
Brilacidin
Kevetrin
Prurisol
I'm not making any BIG claim about that re-sequencing and I have no question to ask you about it, but it's a simple fact and there was no obvious explanation for it. I don't think that it could be called FUD to point that out, but that's not my assessment to make.
Prurisol actually received fewer mentions than Kevetrin in this 10-Q and fewer mentions than it received in the prior 10-Q. Too simplistic? Of course it is. FUD? Can't be....it's true.
"Question #1, do you think the short and distort tactic was and still is being used in IPIX?"
Attributing any of the multi-year downward drift of IPIX's share price to "the short and distort tactic" seems silly and unsupportable to me. I think that the problem was and still is a gradual recognition of the truth.
Next question?
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
