Replies to post #99278 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[MinnieM]

The majority of posters aren't physicians. Physicians on the board are most valuable when they interpret the results for the lay people. Both, the good and the bad. Singling out just the bad is of no value when ignoring the good.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but, you need to recognize the audience.

[biodoc]

To infinity- yes, Pseudomonas coverage is very important. It'd be great if CC-1807 covered Pseudomonas. It doesn't. Maybe an analogue will cover Pseudomonas. You might want to read the rest of the slide and look at some of the other compounds in Cellceutix's library. CC-1807 looks really good against E. coli, K. pneumoniae and E. cloacae, including MDR CRE strains. You don't like that? Look at the MICs for CC-1807 for ndm-1 Klebsiella compared to the big guns. You don't like that? I won't repeat the data for you.

As far as CC-1807 not being valuable or commercially viable without Pseudomonas coverage, you don't have much of an argument. Take a look at Merck's Invanz. It's broad spectrum (mostly gram negative) but doesn't cover Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter. And you can tell me about Invanz's gram positive coverage but, as you may know, it's limited. 2012 Sales for Invanz: 445 million.

Yes, and as you say, the positive data is there for all to read. Clearly, we read it differently.