Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[loanranger]

I believe this topic came up when someone expressed some let's call it anguish that a deal had yet to be struck for B-OM, saying this:
"There is a real need for an effective mucositis drug. IP went to the FDA and we have seen no deal in 18 months and the BTD failed." They went on to opine that "It means(IMO) there is a problem somewhere that we are not told about. I think it means the data are not as good as they have presented them to be."

Coincidentally the same person that expressed those opinions made similar comments about Prurisol, comments that were generally poo-pooed, which proved to be prescient.

But it was pointed out that this sentence might have combining distinctly different time frames..."IP went to the FDA and we have seen no deal in 18 months and the BTD failed". The P2 study was completed on 11/22/17.
The Company published two press releases during the following month with promising headlines.
On 12/11/17:
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS REPORTS POSITIVE TOPLINE RESULTS FROM PHASE 2 PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL OF BRILACIDIN FOR THE PREVENTION OF ORAL MUCOSITIS IN HEAD AND NECK CANCER PATIENTS

On 12/18/17:
INNOVATION PHARMACEUTICALS BRILACIDIN ORAL MUCOSITIS PROGRAM MOVING FORWARD BASED UPON POSITIVE ANCHORING PHASE 2 RESULTS AND INCREASED BRILACIDIN FRANCHISE VALUE

But well before that, on 8/7/17, the Company produced a blog that included the following:
"The Brilacidin-OM trial has completed full patient enrollment, having earlier achieved highly encouraging interim results. Severe OM was experienced by only 22.2 percent of Brilacidin-treated patients compared to 70 percent in the placebo group. This suggests Brilacidin has strong potential in preventing severe OM."
http://www.ipharminc.com/new-blog/2017/8/7/brilacidin-for-oral-mucositis


Obviously the issue of when a BP might have been expected to make an offer that justified acceptance by IPIX's controlling persons is subjective. Some responses to the issue that was raised....
"How did you come up with 18 months since FDA was presented w/ OM data?
The EOP2 meeting was only held in Dec 2018...."
"The Brilacidin OM data analysis wasn't announced as completed until May 2018. I would think anyone in serious negotiations or discussions would have wanted that."
....and let's not forget "Complete rubbish."
Someone else actually shared the original poster's concern:
"January 3, 2018 — The record is clear. We are over 16 months and counting of Ipix having enough OM results to presents them publicly and to potential partners."

Rather than commenting on what event might have represented the point at which one might have reasonably expected a potential partner to make an acceptable offer you chose to correct that person's math:
"Your time line is inaccurate. Since January 2018 is not “close to 2 years.” It’s barely close to 17 months. "


But once upon a time you DID make a noteworthy comment on the issue itself. At what point in the process might a BP first be expected to acquire a license for a drug under development?
From 8/13/17, the week after the issuance of the blog quoted earlier that touted "highly encouraging interim results" in its Phase 2 study:
"BP has been shelling out 10s of millions up front and hundreds of millions in milestones for preclinical stage drugs for several years now. There is no reason they won't do the same even for a small PoC trial like OM. Thinking otherwise has no evidence."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133796827&txt2find=deal


If you were right about that...and the underlying premise regarding the history of preclinical licensing/acquisitions is undeniable...the person that started this line of inquiry obviously has a point that deserves consideration regardless of the math.