The Preprint highlights the dire need to have an effective therapeutic to treat CV19. The Pandemic is not going away anytime soon and many countries are currently seeing record cases. Vaccines and therapeutics are needed weapons to combat CV19.
There are multiple vaccine offerings in development and we will probably see at least one of these offerings for CV19 sometime in 2021. There are always questions regarding effectiveness, short term safety and long term impacts to consider. IF these issues are all addressed there is still at least half of the population that will choose to avoid vaccination. If you use optimistic safety projections and believe a vaccine developer could hit a 50% effectiveness threshold, it would equate to 75% of the population that would still be at risk. Therapeutics will be needed for the foreseeable future for CV19 and there is an ongoing need to treat a plethora of other viruses and potential future pandemics.
There are multiple strategies that are being used for CV19 therapeutics. One of the major strategies is to develop synthetic or artificial antibodies to fight the virus. Two of the major players in this market are Regeneron and Eli Lilly, both of whom have had major safety issues in their perspective human trials. The latest Regeneron efficacy results with their REGN-COV2 cocktail reduced medical visits by 57% by day 29. The efficacy profile for antibody treatments appears to have the greatest impact early in the disease and less so as the disease progresses. IMO Brilacidin has a huge advantage from a safety perspective over these antibody cocktail approaches and should also blow away these approaches from an efficacy perspective if the outstanding Brilacidin RBL lab results carry forward into human trials.
The other major group of CV19 therapeutics are classic antiviral treatments. Most of these offerings are repurposed drugs that were originally developed for other viruses and have very mixed results for treating CV19. The common theme with these repurposed antivirals is that they are also more effective in the very early stages of disease exposure to limit viral replication. As the disease progresses these antivirals become less effective in treating the disease as most do not have a virucidal mechanism of action design.
The lead antiviral to treat CV19 is Gilead’s Remdesivir drug. Hangout post #66978 has an article that discusses what I consider the current low bar set by Remdesivir as a CV19 treatment.
The following is from farrell’s post # 66281
“Brilacidin's triple MOAs are unparalleled. Remdesivir prevents viral replication. Regeneron's monoclonal antibodies prevents viral cell wall penetration. Brilacidin prevents viral replication,viral penetration into the cell plus destroys the virus by opening the viral outer coating .
The opening of the viral coat allows Brilacidin to quickly kill the virus before it enters the cell. This virucidal MOA should allow Brilacidin to quickly lower the viral load which is likely to reduce morbidity and mortality. The 3 MOA's make resistance and the development of resistant mutations less likely.”
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=588...z6chq1Bz4U
Brilacidin has a much stronger safety and overall efficacy profile and should prove to be a superior stand-alone treatment in comparison to Remdesivir as a CV19 treatment. The Preprint highlights that Brilacidin also has unique synergistic capabilities that elevate Brilacidin from a 90% effectiveness in viral reduction to near 100% when combined with Remdesivir. These 2 drugs actually have complimentary mechanisms of action and when combined become a more effective treatment than either of them are individually as stand-alone treatments.
If you were the Gilead CEO and had an approved drug that was worth billions in addressing a worldwide pandemic, what would you do if you became aware of a superior competitive offering that could actually make your lead drug drastically more effective? If I was in this position I would look at one of 3 approaches; buy it, bury it or partner with it. With the Preprint available, IND approval and human trails being initiated in the next few weeks the “bury it” option is too late. That leaves the 2 options of “buy it” or “partner with it”. My guess is that we will soon see a 2nd B-CV19 human trial as a combination trial with Remdesivir. Gilead needs IPIX more than IPIX needs Gilead IMO. If this trial does indeed take place, my guess is that it would be at little to no expense to IPIX. If a combo human trial matched the near 100% lab success we could potentially see a competitive drug called Remdesivir Plus that will sell for a very high premium and IPIX would get a windfall of revenue as the “Plus” is where the secret sauce has a majority of the benefit.
Now put your Leo CEO hat on for a moment. You have weathered criminal attacks on your company for years that have slowed down your mission of science advancement and shareholder maximization. (Look at 4kids post # 67073 for how the criminals are desperately attempting to continue the compression of IPIX SP). You own what appears to soon be the Gold Standard treatment for a worldwide pandemic. Success in B-CV19 Human Trials will confirm Brilacidin as a new class treatment that will generate billions as a franchise drug for treating many diseases and create huge shareholder wealth. If I were in Leo’s shoes I would personally keep my options open but stay focused on getting the B-CV19 trials successfully completed knowing that my hand is finally and increasingly becoming very strong and that I will very soon be negotiating from a position of absolute strength. There are many options of how this could unfold. The bashers continue to criticize my sticky post # 65303 where I lay out a case for the long term value proposition of Brilacidin. If you notice they have not refuted any of my assumptions in that post as part of the foundation for the value of Brilacidin. What they attack is the actual share price (SP) result of those assumptions. That is the last thing that the criminals can build their false narratives around as SP is the last thing they can control. Soon the criminals will lose control of SP which will happen increasingly with each IPIX milestone met.
There are multiple vaccine offerings in development and we will probably see at least one of these offerings for CV19 sometime in 2021. There are always questions regarding effectiveness, short term safety and long term impacts to consider. IF these issues are all addressed there is still at least half of the population that will choose to avoid vaccination. If you use optimistic safety projections and believe a vaccine developer could hit a 50% effectiveness threshold, it would equate to 75% of the population that would still be at risk. Therapeutics will be needed for the foreseeable future for CV19 and there is an ongoing need to treat a plethora of other viruses and potential future pandemics.
There are multiple strategies that are being used for CV19 therapeutics. One of the major strategies is to develop synthetic or artificial antibodies to fight the virus. Two of the major players in this market are Regeneron and Eli Lilly, both of whom have had major safety issues in their perspective human trials. The latest Regeneron efficacy results with their REGN-COV2 cocktail reduced medical visits by 57% by day 29. The efficacy profile for antibody treatments appears to have the greatest impact early in the disease and less so as the disease progresses. IMO Brilacidin has a huge advantage from a safety perspective over these antibody cocktail approaches and should also blow away these approaches from an efficacy perspective if the outstanding Brilacidin RBL lab results carry forward into human trials.
The other major group of CV19 therapeutics are classic antiviral treatments. Most of these offerings are repurposed drugs that were originally developed for other viruses and have very mixed results for treating CV19. The common theme with these repurposed antivirals is that they are also more effective in the very early stages of disease exposure to limit viral replication. As the disease progresses these antivirals become less effective in treating the disease as most do not have a virucidal mechanism of action design.
The lead antiviral to treat CV19 is Gilead’s Remdesivir drug. Hangout post #66978 has an article that discusses what I consider the current low bar set by Remdesivir as a CV19 treatment.
The following is from farrell’s post # 66281
“Brilacidin's triple MOAs are unparalleled. Remdesivir prevents viral replication. Regeneron's monoclonal antibodies prevents viral cell wall penetration. Brilacidin prevents viral replication,viral penetration into the cell plus destroys the virus by opening the viral outer coating .
The opening of the viral coat allows Brilacidin to quickly kill the virus before it enters the cell. This virucidal MOA should allow Brilacidin to quickly lower the viral load which is likely to reduce morbidity and mortality. The 3 MOA's make resistance and the development of resistant mutations less likely.”
Read More: https://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=588...z6chq1Bz4U
Brilacidin has a much stronger safety and overall efficacy profile and should prove to be a superior stand-alone treatment in comparison to Remdesivir as a CV19 treatment. The Preprint highlights that Brilacidin also has unique synergistic capabilities that elevate Brilacidin from a 90% effectiveness in viral reduction to near 100% when combined with Remdesivir. These 2 drugs actually have complimentary mechanisms of action and when combined become a more effective treatment than either of them are individually as stand-alone treatments.
If you were the Gilead CEO and had an approved drug that was worth billions in addressing a worldwide pandemic, what would you do if you became aware of a superior competitive offering that could actually make your lead drug drastically more effective? If I was in this position I would look at one of 3 approaches; buy it, bury it or partner with it. With the Preprint available, IND approval and human trails being initiated in the next few weeks the “bury it” option is too late. That leaves the 2 options of “buy it” or “partner with it”. My guess is that we will soon see a 2nd B-CV19 human trial as a combination trial with Remdesivir. Gilead needs IPIX more than IPIX needs Gilead IMO. If this trial does indeed take place, my guess is that it would be at little to no expense to IPIX. If a combo human trial matched the near 100% lab success we could potentially see a competitive drug called Remdesivir Plus that will sell for a very high premium and IPIX would get a windfall of revenue as the “Plus” is where the secret sauce has a majority of the benefit.
Now put your Leo CEO hat on for a moment. You have weathered criminal attacks on your company for years that have slowed down your mission of science advancement and shareholder maximization. (Look at 4kids post # 67073 for how the criminals are desperately attempting to continue the compression of IPIX SP). You own what appears to soon be the Gold Standard treatment for a worldwide pandemic. Success in B-CV19 Human Trials will confirm Brilacidin as a new class treatment that will generate billions as a franchise drug for treating many diseases and create huge shareholder wealth. If I were in Leo’s shoes I would personally keep my options open but stay focused on getting the B-CV19 trials successfully completed knowing that my hand is finally and increasingly becoming very strong and that I will very soon be negotiating from a position of absolute strength. There are many options of how this could unfold. The bashers continue to criticize my sticky post # 65303 where I lay out a case for the long term value proposition of Brilacidin. If you notice they have not refuted any of my assumptions in that post as part of the foundation for the value of Brilacidin. What they attack is the actual share price (SP) result of those assumptions. That is the last thing that the criminals can build their false narratives around as SP is the last thing they can control. Soon the criminals will lose control of SP which will happen increasingly with each IPIX milestone met.
22
