Replies to post #341534 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[sunspotter]

"Laboratory testing has shown the drug to be 97% effective in killing the Sars Cov 2 virus while maintaining a very high safety profile."

Laboratory testing - by which I assume from the context you mean in vitro testing - tells us little or nothing about the safety profile of a drug in vivo.

In reality we know from the limited information released from Phase II studies that even topically applied brilacidin is associated with some serious adverse events (see here, for example: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02324335?term=brilacidin&draw=2&rank=1).

I suspect a full tabulation of the Adverse Events associated with brilacidin in all the human studies to date would be surprising to those who claim (in the face of the already available evidence to the contrary) that brilacidin is completely safe.

I also suspect that's one of the reasons that a deep-pocketed pharma company hasn't already snapped up what otherwise, from the little information in the public domain, looks like a very promising candidate.

If brilacidin were all Ehrlich claims, then there's any number of companies who would pay hundreds of millions upfront with more hundreds of millions in milestones.

Why haven't they?

[LilyGDog]

Thanks to the both of you. I will post a Brilacidin question too.

Go Leo & IPIX!

My question to the panel:

There is a Covid-19 phase 2 trial starting soon for a therapeutic drug from Innovation Pharmaceuticals called Brilacidin. Laboratory testing has shown the drug to be 97% effective in killing the Sars Cov 2 virus while maintaining a very high safety profile. If that trial proves successful, will you work in conjunction with the FDAs fast tract designation of Brilacidin to get this drug to the people who need it most by granting doctors the ability to use it for compassionate use?