SitTight
1 day ago
Another Nature.com article about Brilacidin just dropped:
Screening of the Pandemic Response Box library identified promising compound candidate drug combinations against extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii
Infections caused by antimicrobial-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pose a significant threat to human health, particularly in the context of hospital-acquired infections. As existing antibiotics lose efficacy against Acinetobacter isolates, there is an urgent need for the development of novel antimicrobial agents. In this study, we assessed 400 structurally diverse compounds from the Medicines for Malaria Pandemic Response Box for their activity against two clinical isolates of A. baumannii: A. baumannii 5075, known for its extensive drug resistance, and A. baumannii QS17-1084, obtained from an infected wound in a Thai patient.
[..]
Further investigations involving drug combinations identified five synergistic drug combinations, suggesting potential avenues for therapeutic development. The combination of MUT056399 and brilacidin against A. baumannii QS17-1084 and that of MUT056399 and eravacycline against A. baumannii 5075 showed bactericidal activity. These combinations significantly inhibited biofilm formation produced by both A. baumannii strains. Our findings highlight the drug combinations as promising candidates for further evaluation in murine wound infection models against multidrug-resistant A. baumannii. These compounds hold potential for addressing the critical need for effective antibiotics in the face of rising antimicrobial resistance.
[..]
We have identified 7 drug candidates that significantly suppressed the growth of the extensively drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii 5075 and QS17-1084 strains. We also found three pairs and two pairs of two drug combinations that exhibited toward synergistic effect against Acinetobacter baumannii 5075 and QS17-1084, respectively. These combinations arose from brilacidin, eravacycline and two triclosan derivatives, including MMV1580854 and MUT056399. Regards to time-kill and biofilm assays, the combinations of MUT056399 and brilacidin or eravacycline will be selected for the efficacy test in the chronic wound infection mice model.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-72603-9
Published: 17 September 2024
CallMeCrazy
1 day ago
BARDA looking for new antifungals/antibacterials in AMR fight
the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) within the US Department of Health and Human Services, has awarded Basilea an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)...
Under the terms of the OTA, BARDA will support the development of designated novel, first-in-class antifungals and antibacterials in Basilea’s portfolio with a total potential non-dilutive funding of up to approximately USD 268 million over up to twelve years
[/qAbout invasive mold infections
Invasive aspergillosis and invasive infections with rare molds (e.g., Fusarium spp., Scedosporium spp., and Mucorales fungi) are life-threatening infections that predominantly affect immunocompromised patients, including patients with hematologic malignancies (blood cancer), transplant patients, or patients with other immunodeficiency disorders. These infections are associated with high morbidity and mortality.8, 9
About invasive candidiasis
Invasive candidiasis, including deep-seated tissue candidiasis and candidemia, is an increasingly important nosocomial infection, especially in patients hospitalized in intensive care units. Candida species are ranked as the fourth main cause of bloodstream infections in hospitals in the US.10 The prognosis of invasive candidiasis remains difficult, with a reported mortality rate for invasive candidiasis as high as 40%, even when patients receive antifungal therapy.11
https://www.basilea.com/news#news_1514
In pre-clinical studies, Brilacidin shown to synergize with marketed antifungals against pathogenic species of aspergillosis, candidiasis, cryptococcosis and mucormycosis, and further exhibited potent stand-alone efficacy against Cryptococcus neoformans
· These data suggest Brilacidin has potential as a novel antifungal agent..
...the global antifungal drugs market estimated at $14.8 billion in 2021 and expected to reach $20.5 billion by 2030.
https://www.ipharminc.com/press-release/2022/10/3/innovation-pharmaceuticals-announces-publication-of-scientific-article-on-the-antifungal-activity-of-brilacidin
The search for antifungals seems to be heating-up. If IPIX can hold on this market seems to be heading toward Brilacidin.
CallMeCrazy
2 days ago
Antimicrobial resistance deaths could reach 39M 2025-2050
Doctors, scientists and public health experts have long warned of the potential consequences of worsening antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. It occurs when bacteria, fungi and pathogens evolve to withstand existing medications, including antibiotics, making them harder to kill...
They analyzed 520 million records from 204 countries and territories, including death certificates, hospital discharge documents and insurance claims. Then, they used statistical modeling to calculate deaths related to antimicrobial resistance from 1990 to 2021. They also made projections about how antimicrobial resistance would affect fatalities in the future...
Developing new antibiotics will help tackle the problem, potentially averting millions of deaths, per the paper.
We urgently need new strategies to decrease the risk of severe infections through vaccines, new drugs, improved health care, better access to existing antibiotics and guidance on how to use them most effectively
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/deaths-from-antibiotic-resistant-infections-could-reach-39-million-by-2050-study-suggests-180985095/
loanranger
4 days ago
re: The Brilacidin license.
Termination by Penn. Penn may terminate this Agreement on written notice to Licensee if any of the following events of default (“Default”) occur:
".25.1 If Licensee: becomes insolvent, bankrupt or generally fails to pay its debts as such debts become due; is adjudicated insolvent or bankrupt; admits in writing its inability to pay its debts; or shall suffer a custodian, receiver or trustee for it or substantially all of its property to be appointed and, if appointed without its consent, not be discharged within sixty (60) days; makes an assignment of all or substantially all of its assets for the benefit of creditors; or suffers proceedings under any law related to bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation or the reorganization, readjustment or the release of debtors to be instituted against it and, if contested by it, not dismissed or stayed within thirty (30) days; "
Loss of the appeal will trigger the above unless the Company can find $1.4M between the cushions of the couch it doesn't have.
TheHound
5 days ago
People try to educate those defending worthless stocks because of the psychological and financial risks involved. When someone defends a bad investment, they might be experiencing cognitive biases, such as *loss aversion* or the *sunk cost fallacy*. These biases cause people to hold onto losing investments because they don't want to admit failure or accept the loss.
Educating them can help provide a clearer perspective, encouraging more rational decision-making and protecting them from further financial damage. The goal is often to foster critical thinking, prevent emotional decision-making, promote healthier investment strategies in the future, and alerting others to stock scams. Reference https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171556989
When people defend stocks that have become worthless, it can be tied to emotional attachment, pride, or the psychological discomfort of acknowledging a loss. Here are several reasons why others try to educate them:
1. **Cognitive Biases**: As mentioned, biases like the *sunk cost fallacy* (holding onto something because they've already invested a lot) or *confirmation bias* (seeking information that supports their belief) cloud judgment. Educators aim to counteract these biases, helping investors recognize the reality of their situation.
2. **Avoiding Further Loss**: By educating them, people hope to prevent further bad decisions. Defending a worthless stock can lead to additional investments in the same failing asset or similar risky ventures, increasing financial losses. Teaching sound investing principles, like cutting losses, can save future wealth.
3. **Emotional Well-being**: Losing money in stocks can trigger denial, anxiety, or frustration. Those defending their bad investment may feel isolated or judged, so education is often an attempt to offer support, helping them understand that poor investments happen to everyone. It provides an opportunity for personal growth and emotional resilience.
4. **Encouraging Financial Literacy**: Many people defending bad investments may not have a strong background in financial literacy. Educators see this as a chance to help them understand market risks, diversification, proper research, and risk management strategies to make more informed decisions next time.
5. **Avoiding Scams and Manipulation**: In some cases, stocks become worthless due to pump-and-dump schemes, where individuals are misled into buying overhyped stocks. Education is a way to protect people from falling into these traps again by teaching them how to spot fraudulent practices.
6. **Long-term Thinking**: Helping someone understand why defending a worthless stock may be harmful is often an attempt to instill long-term investment thinking. Shifting from short-term emotional reactions to a disciplined, researched approach can set up the individual for better financial health in the future.
7. **Social Responsibility**: In some cases, those defending worthless stocks may share their beliefs with others, spreading misinformation or misguided optimism. Educators often intervene to prevent this cycle, ensuring that others don't fall into the same trap.
Ultimately, the goal of educating such individuals is to foster financial discipline, rational decision-making, and self-awareness, which are crucial for sustainable wealth building.
TheHound
5 days ago
People who defend stocks that become worthless after investing in them may do so for several reasons, ranging from psychological to financial motivations. Here are some common factors:
1. **Cognitive Dissonance**: Once people have invested in a stock, especially if they've invested heavily, admitting it's a bad or fraudulent investment conflicts with their belief that they made a wise choice. To reduce this discomfort, they rationalize or defend the investment.
2. **Sunk Cost Fallacy**: Investors often feel that because they’ve already spent money, time, or effort, they should continue defending their choice, even when new information shows the stock is crooked or failing. They believe they can eventually recover losses or even make a profit.
3. **Emotional Attachment**: People often get emotionally attached to their investments. After putting faith in a company, they might overlook red flags because they’ve tied their self-worth or financial hopes to the success of that stock.
4. **Fear of Financial Loss**: Investors might defend a crooked stock out of fear that negative publicity could drive prices down even further, leading to additional losses. In defending it, they may hope to stabilize its value or delay an inevitable decline.
5. **Influence of Community or Social Pressure**: If the stock is part of a broader "meme stock" trend or has an active online following, investors might feel pressured by that community to defend the stock, even when it’s failing or embroiled in controversy.
6. **Overconfidence**: Some investors might believe they know more than others and that the market or regulators have misunderstood the stock. They could convince themselves that they see the “real value” while others are too cautious or uninformed.
7. **Misinformation or Denial**: In some cases, investors may not fully understand that the stock is involved in fraudulent activities or poor practices. They may believe false narratives, often spread by company insiders or promoters, that the stock is misunderstood or unfairly attacked.
While defending a stock may feel like protecting one's investment, it often blinds investors to risks and realities, potentially leading to greater losses in the long run.
sunspotter
1 week ago
Good news for the litigious!
In his misleading PRs IPIX’ CEO always includes a “safe harbor” statement:
“ This press release contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 including, without limitation, statements concerning future product development plans, including with respect to specific indications; statements regarding the therapeutic potential and capabilities of the StingRay System; future regulatory developments; and any other statements which are other than statements of historical fact. These statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results and experience to differ materially from anticipated results and expectations expressed in these forward-looking statements. The Company has in some cases identified forward-looking statements by using words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “hopes,” “estimates,” “looks,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “goal,” “potential,” “may,” “suggest,” and similar expressions. Among other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements are risks related to conducting pre-clinical studies and clinical trials and seeking regulatory and licensing approvals in the United States and other jurisdictions, including without limitation that compounds and devices may not successfully complete pre-clinical or clinical testing, or be granted regulatory approval to be sold and marketed in the United States or elsewhere; prior test results may not be replicated in future studies and trials; the Company’s need for, and the availability of, substantial capital in the future to fund its operations and research and development, including the amount and timing of the sale of shares of common stock under securities purchase agreements; and the Company’s licensee(s) may not successfully complete pre-clinical or clinical testing and the Company will not receive milestone payments. A more complete description of these and other risk factors is included in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Many of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions are beyond the Company’s ability to control or predict. You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements speak only as of the information currently available to the Company on the date they are made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to release publicly the results of any revisions to any such forward-looking statements that may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by applicable law or regulation.”
Looks comprehensive, no?
Just one problem for crooked Leo Ehrlich: the PSLRA does not apply to issuers of penny stocks, which of course Is the category that IPIX falls within.
So disgruntled shareholders should feel free to sue Ehrlich for his many misrepresentations and lies. While it is unlikely that IPIX has any D&O insurance or if it does that it would cover the kind of fraud Ehrlich has committed, as a Director he would be personally liable. And Leo himself has lots of money even though IPIX has none (I wonder how that works?).
Time for this blot on the escutcheon of the American capital markets to be erased for once and for all.
News
Market Data
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
williamssc
13 hours ago
