Replies to post #384117 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[KMBJN]

Yes, saw the FDA definitions, which are different apparently from the ASGCT definitions of gene therapy.

What did you make of the ASGCT calling the mRNA Covid vaccines gene therapy?

Are they wrong?

Sounds like you are sticking to a strict definition that only DNA based therapies can be called gene therapy, which is different from what ASGCT and others use, such as in Europe (as you noted).

So you would call the mRNA Covid vaccines not gene therapy, but the DNA based ones from J&J and AZ gene therapy, correct?

If so, is this distinction really useful, since both insert genetic material into human cells so that humans produce the spike antigen and thus develop immunity to it?

Yes I read the editorial about the paper. The paper describes the evolution of mRNA gene therapies, with stabilization of the mRNA using base substitution, and a new method of manufacture without base substitution. The goal is to make the mRNA less immunogenic. My point is that many scientists and pharmaceutical executives and European regulators refer to mRNA vaccines as gene therapies.

The first line of my link says:

In vitro–transcribed mRNA (IVT mRNA) is emerging as a new class of drug that has the potential to play a role in gene therapy that once was envisioned for DNA.

They define both mRNA and DNA based therapies as gene therapies, since both are genetic material.

Did you read the papers and articles I linked? What did you think of them?

Glad to have your expertise on board here. I likewise have a PhD in the biomedical sciences.

What do you think of brilacidin and kevetrin's prospects going forward here?