For anyone to suggest B caused a majority of trial participants sae’s is disingenuous at best. These people know better but won’t stop telling this none truth.
Sorry if the facts don't suit you, but there's not one part of my post which is even slightly false, let alone "completely false" as you completely falsely claim::
Here's what I said:
"The majority of the few hundred patients treated with brilacidin so far experienced adverse events, some of them serious.
If brilacidin ever gets used in a few thousand patients, then we'll have a better idea of its safety profile, but it doesn't look good so far.
In the meantime there's no Phase III data to show it even works."
Do the majority of brilacidin patients experience side effects?
Clearly they do according to the company's own data.
For example, in the oral mucositis study, literally 100%, that is 29 out of 29 patients had at least one adverse event.
In fact this group experienced 129 AEs in total, that is 4.4 AEs each.
The placebo group also had a high number of AEs, 107 among the 30 patient group or 3.6e each.
That's still an excess of almost one AE per patient. And again every single patient had an AE.
28% of the brilacidin group had a Serious AE. That's just another fact.
Then in the Acute Bacterial Skin Infections (ABSSSI) Caused by Staphylococcus Aureus study, as you can see below, once again between 70% and 90% of subjects taking brilacidin experienced at least one treatment emergent side effect.
Even IPIX fans have to admit that's a majority of patients.
There were six serious AEs among the brilacidin treated patients. That's another fact.
Finally there have been no Phase III trials with brilacidin at all, so my last statement is clearly true as well.
Glad I could clear that all up, and I hope the untrue claim that my entirely factual post was false will not be repeated.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
