Another very well thought out post by Pete!!
I may be biased because I agree with almost all that Pete stated and also consider him to be a very intelligent, thoughtful person who I consider as a very good friend! If you take just one thing away from Pete's post about the economic possibilities for IPIX, is to have PATIENCE!!! It has certainly been a long journey for investors in IPIX and I can understand why many are frustrated. I believe that Leo, the largest shareholder, has been doing everything he can to move the drugs forward while keeping the company afloat. Like Pete, I think we are getting very close to seeing the success that many of us have hoped for. I believe this Christmas will be the best Christmas we will ever have (financially).
Here is Pete's post......
To give a value of IPIX, I must explain my view as to the changing paradigm in regards to BPs and startup biotechs with emerging drugs.
20 years ago + BPs had gigantic labs trying to come up with the next great drug, had large organizational costs, and invested pretty early in the development process so that they could lead the drug development to their liking. For this purpose, they gave the startup usually a small fee to reward their idea/creation and threw them a bone with a meager royalty so that if the drug became a big winner the startup did get a decent return on their creation.
Today, though, a number of BPs don't even have labs or are that engaged in trying to develop new drug ideas, lot less cost of doing business, and they prefer to buy their new products. Their main advantage now is distribution in that many have customers (healthcare concerns, doctors, hospitals, etc) who they pay in one way or another to use their patented products. The risk is now much, much lower than before, the development costs again greatly discounted, and the startup in many instances (as with IPIX) has shouldered 100% of the risk right thru Phase II trials or beyond.
Due to the above, the same old rules from 20 years ago don't apply any longer. In the case of IPIX, no BP has shouldered one penny to develop our drugs (I don't consider AS a contributor to proctitis yet), perfect the delivery systems, enhance their safety, or any other factor whatsoever. So why should the old 85%-15% or worse split still apply to BP/startup deals? IMO IPIX should start their royalty request at 50% or more. Sounds insane, I know, but so did the motorized vehicle when it was first suggested to replace horses.
I believe IPIX can bring their drugs to commercial readiness and partner with a worldwide rep/logistics company/etc to aid with the distribution and with the monies involved I believe this could be done at a payout of 20% or less to the dist. partner. Even if we got taken to the cleaners, we should still retain at least a 60% share of the revenues or higher IMO. To be clear, I believe CV19 and possibly the whole PAN-CORONA spectrum fits the bill for this and possibly OM. All other indications I would partner out at very very good terms for IPIX as to royalties.
I believe IPIX can do this with both Brilacidin and Kevetrin because both should be first in class medical treatments across a broad spectrum of medicine that has total revenues in the hundreds of billions per year. I believe Brilacidin is going to surpass Humira as the largest grossing drug of all time and on a yearly basis for quite a number of years.
I do not make the statement above lightly. Look at our targets for Brilacidin, consider the possibility that we have only scratched the surface of the entire spectrum of Brilacidin indications, and read what Dr. DeGrado and others have said about AMPs and how this new arm of medicine could alter so many areas. It is beyond most people's ability to grasp the value of B/K IMO.
With the advent of AI aided drugs and the safety profiles of both B and K, I cannot see the FDA standing in the way of progress in a very swift manner for all indications of both drugs. FDA has many good people, I don't mean to slur their name, but the FDA is stuck in the past and its time of effectiveness is LONG SINCE PASSED IMO.
I find the current halt to some CV19 trials because in a trial of thousands of patients ONE patient had a bad experience as insane. How many people will die from CV19 due to this halt compared to the handful of patients that might incur some problem? As I have stated many times before, sometimes a few have to be sacrificed for the benefit of the vast majority. This belief is so strong in me that no one will ever be able to shake it, though I know it is anathema to many.
From the above, one can see that I put the value of IPIX in the triple digits (and not necessarily in the low triple digits). Brilacidin is a given blockbuster IMO, Kevetrin to date has also shown potential to be extremely wonderful. Biggest problem for Kevetrin? IMO it is that if it does what we think it can do it would put a LARGE LARGE number of cancer researchers out of work and affect a large part of the GDP to a point that might scare politicians.
Don't expect many to agree with me here as to the value of IPIX, but this should give many something to think about.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
