Replies to post #384214 on Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[zandant]

I kick myself for picking up this garbage in the first place. But yes, .50 would have been a good exit point, one that most likely will not resurface. Hoping for .20 may be asking too much.

[1oldprof]

I wouldn’t say dead, after all some in the organization are benefiting quite nicely from it! Chant after me: LEO MUST RESIGN, LEO MUST RESIGN

[olden_grumpini]

I agree. I sold some in the $0.50s then had a major f-up when the IPIX PR came out telling us of the brilacidin face-plant.

When I saw the PR I immediately put in an order to sell my remaining shares then watched the price decline without my order executing. I checked my order and saw I had entered a limit order! Frantic, I entered a market order, but that was rejected because I hadn’t cancelled the limit order. So more time was lost cancelling the limit order and re-entering a market order. At this point the price was around $0.12. I did sell 1/3 of my holdings.

That the trial failed is really no surprise. Several posters, including myself, pointed out months ago why this trial was likely to fail. The GMU data told us it would fail and that data also strongly suggests that the treatment of mild COVID will fail as well. Here’s a bit of a post of mine from June 4th:

1. Strong GMU in vitro data was based on virus being preincubated with brilacidin in advance of the virus being introduced to the cells. Not possible in trial. The trial patients have been overrun by the virus and their immune system is destroying their tissues to fight the virus.
2. The GMU in vitro data compared brilacidin to remdesivir and showed that remdesivir was more effective at inhibiting the virus. Remdesivir inhibited 99% vs brilacidin 90% (with preincubation). If remdesivir failed in this population why would brilacidin succeed?
3. To achieve the concentrations of the GMU in vitro data would require dosing brilacidin at much higher levels than what was used in 3-day ABSSSI P2 dosing regime (0.6 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg). That 3-day dosing regime in ABSSSI P2 trial had 92% TRAE including 26% with hypertension. Patients in ABSSSI trial were otherwise healthy whereas the hospitalized COVID patients are very ill and weak.
4. Fact that the dose was increased from 3 to 5 days in clinical trial suggests a very low dose is being used. I don’t think they would authorize the dosing increase unless the TRAE were much less than what was seen in the ABSSSI P2. So the dose is quite low and without preincubation has modest antiviral effects based upon the in vitro data presented by GMU. By modest I mean a concentration of 2.5 µM of brilacidin (an 0.2 mg/kg dose) might kill 8% of the virus over a 24 hour period. The virus replicates every 9 hours. Keep in mind that the half-life of brilacidin is about 16 hours which means you need to give a higher initial dose to achieve a specific concentration (the trial indicated people would be dosed 1x day).

I don’t blame Leo for this trial. Time is running out for brilacidin and the opportunity to hit a home run presented itself.

What I do blame Leo for is issuing several misleading PRs, especially this one:
Laboratory Testing of Brilacidin for COVID-19 in Combination with Remdesivir Reduces Viral Load by Nearly 100 Percent

If you read the PR you would never suspect that remdesivir represented 99% of the 99.85% reduction in viral load. And even if you noticed the remdesivir part in the preprint paper you still wouldn’t understand how misleading the PR was (remember, the testing by the RBL was a black box type affair).

It wasn’t until I read the “Author Contributions” in the peer-reviewed paper in viruses and saw that IPIX was involved in data curation that I realized how misleading this PR was designed to be. Why? IPIX knew that remdesivir represented 99% when the PR was written. The RBL was not “independent” testing. IPIX fingerprints are on all phases of trial design, management, and publication. This was a PR that was intentionally misleading imo.