"It is possible the delay was due to lack of funding."
"IPIX's poor financial status has delayed Kevetrin's development."
That has been the explanation for a lot longer than it has been the truth. Cash plus available financing was $15M at 12/31/14, $33 million at 12/31/15, $23M at 12/31/16 and $29M at 12/31/17.
The lack of funding explanation wasn't appropriate until calendar 2018. The designations that were purportedly "leveraged to expedite development" according to the January 2019 Corporate Overview were granted from December of 2014 through January of 2016.
It's a mystery, that's for sure. But I believe there's an explanation that fits: The way management chose to use the funds that WERE available and the designations that were granted weren't "leveraged to expedite development".
"Now we are awaiting a Kevetrin oral medication."
Earlier I asked you to tell me where you read that but I guess you couldn't do that because now I see you've responded that "I am sure the above is paraphrased in IPIX's documents if you look hard enough."
They paraphrased THEMSELVES somewhere? Nobody knows what that means.
Maybe they did mumble something about a "pivot away from Intravenous therapy to the development of an oral Kevetrin". Frankly it wouldn't surprise me to find that they didn't say anything about moving away from anything but simply announce that they were developing a pill. A little like they announced that they were developing a sachet.
If they are doing that, WHY? It's easy to burn through money when you regularly fund the development of something and then leave it for something "better". Do you not see the pattern?
Have you ever asked yourself why?
The only thing IPIX hasn't put on the shelf is an approved drug.
Maybe AlfaSigma will do that for them.
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
