“My only reason for mentioning NNVC at this point was to note that that Company was talking about developing treatments for Ebola, Marburg and West Nile viruses (which never saw a clinical trial, btw) while Ehrlich was CFO and now those same viruses have popped up as targets for IPIX research. People can decide for themselves whether that is at all meaningful.”
The main difference between NNVC and IPIX is that a nanoviricide has never advanced to any clinical study, not even a phase 1. Unspoken in 16 years of preclinical testing is that animals have repeatedly shown inflammation following any application and even topical applications pass through the space between cells and enter the circulatory system.
Brilacidin, on the other hand, has gone through phase 1 and 2 trials both before and after purchase by IPIX/CTIX. Safety issues have been successfully resolved. The question left is whether or not Brilacidin can be an effective antiviral treatment. That question will be answered shortly.
No, it isn't at all meaningful. That was an entirely different company and Leo wasn't the decision maker as the CFO. And they had not achieved anything like the successes Leo has achieved as CEO of IPIX nor did they have any drugs that could begin to compare to Kevetrin and Brilacidin.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
