Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Inc (QB) (PVCT)

Oral PV-10 Wins. Here’s the Scorecard of Provectus’s Preclinical Bladder Cancer Study
Unfortunately the tables didn't copy in, please see Substack article for tables.

Oral PV-10 produced the strongest anti-tumor signal of any arm in a 45-day bladder cancer mouse study: lower tumor burden, robust tolerability, and a long-term survivor whose bladder appeared at necropsy to be free of tumor.

The intravesical arms of the same study failed on Day 12 because the dosing tested were too high (not because PV-10 doesn’t work in the bladder). That is a fixable problem, but one Provectus is unlikely to prioritize given what the oral data showed and because oral treatment at home, on a quality-of-life scale, is much more preferable to an intravesical treatment in an out-patient, anesthetic-involved, catheter-into-the urethra setting.

The next milestone is FDA acceptance of an expanded Investigational New Drug application covering oral PV-10. This is the regulatory step that converts a preclinical signal into a clinical development program with implications across multiple cancer indications and other diseases.

There is one sentence in the necropsy records of the six-week bladder cancer mouse study that we keep coming back to.

Group 4, Mouse 7, Day 45 — the last day of the study. Long-term survivor. Gross necropsy findings: “textured liver, enlarged, pale spleen, pink stomach, pale lungs.”

No bladder tumor.

Compare that to almost every other animal that reached a similar endpoint in the untreated group. Mouse 7 in Group 1: “multiple masses up to 7x8 mm on liver, small spleen, tumor throughout bladder, 5x6 mm tumor on left ureter, 12x14 mm tumor along urethra, blood in urine.” Mouse 1 in Group 1: “enlarged liver with multiple white foci, cobblestone liver, enlarged kidneys with multiple masses, tumor throughout bladder.”

“tumor throughout bladder.” That phrase appears in the untreated and vehicle-control necropsies with the regularity of a pathology template.

Group 4, Mouse 7 is the only long-term survivor in this study whose necropsy does not contain those words. Group 4 received one thing the controls did not: oral PV-10 (by gavage) on a five-days-on, two-days-off schedule, from Day 10 through study end (Day 45).

That single data point does not prove anything. It has earned follow-on work. Understanding why requires working through what this preclinical study was, what it was designed to test, where it succeeded, where it failed, and what an honest assessment of the results tells you about the development trajectory of oral PV-10 in cancer and for other diseases.

What The Study Was Testing
This research was a 45-day preclinical study run by oncology contract research organization Translational Drug Development (TD2 Oncology) in Scottsdale, Arizona. TD2 Oncology was created from the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGEN) in 2003. TGEN, a precision medicine research organization, is a part of City of Hope, one of the largest cancer research and treatment organizations in the U.S. The cell line was UMUC3-Luc, a luciferase-expressing human non-muscle invasive bladder carcinoma line chosen because the luciferase tag allows tumor burden to be tracked in real time by bioluminescence imaging (BLI) without sacrificing the animals. Higher BLI signal = more tumor. Lower BLI signal = less.

The mice were NOG strain, which means severely immunocompromised, engrafted with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to reconstitute a rudimentary human immune system. The tumor cells were instilled directly into the bladder (orthotopic intravesical implantation), placing the cancer where bladder cancer belongs.

Seven groups were enrolled. One received no treatment and no human immune cells (Group 1); thus, a clean tumor-progression control. The remaining six received human PBMCs; a vehicle control (Group 2) and five active treatments (Groups 3-7).

The active treatments were designed to test two routes for PV-10 (intravesical and oral), with and without an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor analog, and anti-PD-1 alone as a comparator:


Now for the confound you need to understand before you read any of the results.

Graft-versus-host disease. When you engraft human immune cells into an immunocompromised mouse, those cells attack the tumor and eventually attack the mouse itself. Graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is an unavoidable feature of humanized mouse models, and it independently drives morbidity and mortality on its own timeline. The untreated Group 1 animals who received no human PBMCs and no treatment survived longer on average (mean 35.5 days) than most of the PBMC-engrafted treated groups. This occurred because the human immune cells were killing the mice, not because the treatments were harmful.

This is not a flaw in the study design per se. It’s a known tradeoff of the humanized model, which provides a more human-relevant immune environment than syngeneic alternatives. It means every survival comparison in this study carries an asterisk. It also means no single survival number should be interpreted in isolation.

The Intravesical Arms Collapsed on Day 12
Two weeks into the 45-day study, six of the seven animals in Group 3, intravesical PV-10 monotherapy, were dead or sacrificed.

The first intravesical PV-10 dose was administered on Day 10. By Day 12, the group had effectively ceased to exist as an evaluable cohort.

Necropsy findings on the Day 12 animals were consistent, and they were not consistent with tumor burden. The records read: “reddened intestines and bladder, gas-filled stomach.” Multiple animals. Matching pattern. Acute mucosal chemical injury is the most parsimonious explanation.

The parameters are important here: 100 µL of PV-10 at 30 mg/mL, held for 30 minutes in a murine bladder with an anatomical volume of approximately 0.1–0.3 mL. That is a high-dose mucosal contact exposure in a very small space. For reference, BCG, a standard-of-care intravesical therapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, is administered at roughly 5–10 mg/mL. Mitomycin-C at 1 mg/mL. Gemcitabine (chemotherapy) at 2 mg/mL. PV-10 was tested at a dose 3–30 times higher than established clinical intravesical practice.

Group 6, intravesical PV-10 combined with anti-PD-1, suffered the same fate plus additional complications. Three animals died by procedural causes (Found Dead Technical) on Days 12, 17, and 24. One animal was found dead and one moribund sacrifice occurred on Day 12. By Day 23, the group’s evaluable population was effectively two animals; not enough for any group-level inference.

TD2 Oncology recognized the problem mid-study and reduced instillation volume from 100 µL to 50 µL and dwell time from 30 to 15 minutes for subsequent doses. The modification came too late for Group 3, which had no meaningful cohort remaining.

Two things this finding is not: it is not evidence that PV-10 is ineffective in the bladder, and it is not evidence that intravesical PV-10 is an inherently bad idea. One surviving Group 3 animal (Mouse 3, terminated Day 25) did have confirmed bladder tumor at necropsy, but a single animal cannot support efficacy conclusions in either direction.

What this finding is: a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) failure, not a negative efficacy signal. The intravesical route for PV-10 remains scientifically open but should undergo a formal dose-finding study — testing, for example, 1, 3, 5, and 10 mg/mL with 5- and 15-minute dwell times — before any efficacy study of this route of administration should be attempted. That study has not yet been done, and it’s doubtful we would do it.

There is a simpler argument that sits alongside the scientific one. Intravesical administration requires a clinic visit, a catheter, anesthesia in some patients, a mandatory dwell period, and the procedural risks that come with any intervention of the bladder. These are risks serious enough that this preclinical study’s intravesical arms required pre-dose analgesia for every dosing event and still produced procedure-related deaths at the dose tested. An oral dose requires none of that. A patient takes treatment at home. Whatever the eventual efficacy data show, the quality-of-life differential between those two delivery experiences is not trivial, particularly for a disease that already demands frequent cystoscopy, cytology, and clinic visits on its own treatment schedule. If oral PV-10 can reach the bladder at pharmacologically relevant amounts, it would offer anti-tumor activity through a route that imposes essentially no additional procedural burden on patients who are already carrying a significant one.

City of Hope and TGEN were insistent on the study investigating the intravesical route of PV-10 for bladder cancer. We got it at the time — we understood our molecule and drug product candidate; they did not.

The Three Arms That Generated Interpretable Data
With the intravesical Groups 3 and 6 effectively disqualified before the second week of treatment, the meaningful results come from the other three active treatment arms: oral PV-10 monotherapy (G4), anti-PD-1 monotherapy (G5), and oral PV-10 plus anti-PD-1 (G7).

To evaluate these arms rigorously, an internal analysis applied a five-domain drug development scoring framework to all seven groups. The framework was designed to mirror how a development-stage company would prioritize follow-on decisions and capital investment: weighting anti-tumor response most heavily, followed by survival benefit and safety (co-equal), with data quality and translational potential as secondary modifiers. See Table 1 below.


Using this framework, the three interpretable active arms scored as follows across the five domains. See Table 2 below.


Here is what the data behind those scores show.

Group 4: Oral PV-10 Monotherapy: The Study’s Best Signal
Day 23 BLI (tumor burden): Group 4 mean was 9.68 × 10¹° photons/second. The vehicle control (Group 2) was 8.32 × 10¹°. In log10 terms, this puts Group 4 at 10.39 versus the vehicle at 10.61, approximately 0.22 log10 units lower. In geometric mean terms, Group 4 carried roughly 40% less tumor burden than the vehicle-control animals at the study’s primary imaging timepoint.

All eight animals were evaluable at Day 23. No animals were lost to procedural causes. Body weight nadir was -1.9% at Day 25; effectively no systemic burden from the treatment. Mean survival was 33.1 days versus the vehicle’s 32.5 days. One long-term survivor reached Day 45.

And then there is Mouse 7’s necropsy.

The honest assessment: 0.22 log10 is a modest but directional tumor burden reduction. The survival advantage over vehicle is clinically unimpressive on its face: 0.6 days. The single necropsy finding is hypothesis-generating. Full group of 8 animals evaluable is a genuine strength. The oral route’s elimination of all procedural risk is meaningful. Taken together across the five scoring domains — anti-tumor response, survival, safety, data quality, translational potential — this arm scored 9.24 out of 10.

Across all five alternative weighting scenarios tested (i.e., base case, safety-first, efficacy-heavy, survival-dominant, and equal weights), Group 4 held the number one ranking with margins ranging from +0.96 to +1.88 (i.e., approximately 10-20%) over the next-best arm.

Group 5: Anti-PD-1 Monotherapy: The Cleanest Data, the Weakest Tumor Signal
Group 5 had the best data integrity in the study. All eight animals enrolled, all eight evaluable at Day 23, all eight reached defined endpoints; no procedural deaths, no ambiguity about cause of death. Mean survival was 34.0 days, the highest of the PBMC-engrafted arm in the study.

But Group 5 had no long-term survivors, no tumor-absent necropsy, and a Day 23 BLI mean (10.53 log10) that was only nominally below the vehicle. Progressive body weight loss from Day 25 onward, a nadir -14.5%, is consistent with anti-PD-1 amplifying GvHD rather than directing anti-tumor immunity. The checkpoint inhibitor used (InVivoSIM anti-human PD-1, a nivolumab biosimilar) was selected in part because nivolumab and pembrolizumab were FDA-approved in bladder cancer. This arm partially validates the model’s immune competence but adds limited new knowledge about PV-10.

Score: 7.26 out of 10. The clean data and established clinical path for anti-PD-1 in this indication are real strengths; the absence of any durable response signal is the limiting factor.

Group 7: Oral PV-10 Plus Anti-PD-1: The Highest Translational Score, the Most Questions
Group 7 also produced a Day 45 long-term survivor: Mouse 8, whose necropsy reads “pink stomach, textured liver, reddened area along right ribcage.” No mention of tumor throughout the bladder. Two long-term survivors across the entire study with no bladder tumor language at necropsy, both in oral PV-10 arms, none in the vehicle or anti-PD-1 control arms.

The combination arm carried the highest translational score in the study (9.0 out of 10) because the clinical rationale is sound: pembrolizumab and nivolumab were registered in bladder cancer, oral PV-10 generating immunogenic cell death should prime the adaptive immune response (it likely stimulates and inhibits many other targets), and PD-1 blockade maintains that response. The mechanistic logic for the combination is legitimate and was established by Provectus clinically in melanoma: We know from the Company’s prior Phase 1b studies of the combination of PV-10 and pembrolizumab for the treatments of checkpoint naïve and refractory Stage IV and checkpoint naïve Stage III melanoma that PV-10 and anti-PD-1 “play well together.”

But the efficacy data do not confirm it. Group 7’s Day 23 BLI mean (10.73 log10) sits above the vehicle, pulled upward by one outlier animal (Mouse 2: 8.66 × 10¹¹ photons/second, roughly an order of magnitude above the next-highest animal in the group). Group 7 mean survival (31.1 days) is below vehicle (32.5 days). Anti-PD-1 is accelerating GvHD and offsetting whatever contribution oral PV-10 is making. Body weight nadir reached -14.4%.

The critical question(s) — does oral PV-10 add anything to anti-PD-1 monotherapy or does anti-PD-1 monotherapy add anything to oral PV-10? — cannot be answered from these data. Groups 5 and 7 are statistically indistinguishable on the metrics that matter. Score: 7.84 out of 10.

The Scoring Tables
The following Tables 3 and 4 present the five-domain framework scores applied to the study’s active arms.



What This Study Cannot Tell Us
Two findings in this study deserve to be called what they are: hypothesis-generating.

The first is the absent-bladder-tumor necropsy finding in Group 4, Mouse 7. One animal. No histopathology; the study collected gross necropsy observations only, not tissue sections. Gross necropsy does not equal confirmed tumor absence. A microscopic examination of bladder wall tissue from Day 45 survivors would materially change the strength of this signal.

The second is the parallel finding in Group 7, Mouse 8. Same caveat. Two animals with an interesting necropsy pattern are the beginning of a scientific question, not the answer to one.

The GvHD confound limits all survival comparisons across engrafted groups. The fact that Group 1 (no PBMCs, no treatment) outlived most treated groups (35.5 days mean) is not an indictment of the treatments. It reflects GvHD compressing survival in every engrafted arm. Disentangling anti-tumor activity from GvHD-driven morbidity would require either a GvHD-mitigation strategy (later PBMC engraftment, lower cell dose, alternative mouse strain) or a syngeneic model.

A powered follow-on study addressing these limitations would need: n≥15 per arm, histopathological endpoints on all animals including long-term survivors, bladder tissue pharmacokinetic sampling to confirm oral PV-10 reaches the bladder at pharmacologically relevant amounts, and GvHD controls baked into the design. This preclinical study was a cost-effective, dose-finding, arm-selection study. It did what dose-finding, arm-selection studies are supposed to do.

Why Bladder Cancer Matters for the Platform Story
For non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, approximately 80,000 new cases are diagnosed in the United States each year, and the BCG lack of supply (the standard first-line intravesical therapy is a live bacterial product with a constrained manufacturing base) has created genuine unmet need in a disease where the first-line treatment has not fundamentally changed in decades.

More important for Provectus’s platform thesis: urethial carcinoma is a closed visceral compartment. If oral PV-10 can generate an anti-tumor signal in the bladder — meaning the drug, delivered orally, reaches bladder tumor tissue in amounts sufficient to trigger its mechanism of action. That is a materially important datapoint for Provectus’s emerging Universal Mechanism Sequence framework.

Prior Provectus-related oral PV-10 work established proof-of-concept for systemic delivery in hematologic malignancy (the 2025 Sipila STING dimerization data in THP-1 cells). Bladder carcinoma extends that question to solid tumors in a discrete anatomical site. The pharmacokinetic question — does orally-dosed PV-10 accumulate selectively in bladder tumor tissue? — was not answered in this study, but the directional BLI and necropsy signals make it the right question to ask.

For investors: This preclinical study does not establish efficacy. It establishes that oral PV-10 was the only PV-10 administration route that was safe, produced full evaluable data, and generated a tumor burden signal that distinguishes it from vehicle control. That is sufficient justification for a powered follow-on study of one cancer indication or another (based on several determining factors, some science, some business), and not sufficient for any stronger claim in this moment.

What Comes Next
The preclinical work is done for now. The question this study answered — which route and regimen of PV-10 is worth advancing in bladder cancer — has a clear answer: oral monotherapy, with combination potential worth revisiting once the monotherapy signal is confirmed. We expected nothing else. What comes next is not another mouse study; it is a regulatory conversation.

Provectus currently holds an Investigational New Drug (IND) application for PV-10 administered by intratumoral injection. Advancing oral PV-10 into human testing requires FDA acceptance of an expanded IND covering the oral route. The Company is also evaluating intravenous (IV) PV-10, supported by toxicology and pharmacokinetic data already on hand, as another systemic route for potential IND expansion. An expanded IND filing is accordingly the next meaningful milestone. It’s the event that moves oral PV-10 and/or IV PV-10 from a preclinical signal into a clinical development program.

Once that regulatory foundation is in place, the question becomes which indication to pursue first in a Phase 1 cancer study. That decision will be driven by both science and business. On the science side, the mechanism is not bladder cancer-specific: PV-10’s capacity to perturb the tumor microenvironment and initiate an immune response operates upstream of any single indication. On the business side, the right first indication is one where the unmet need is large, the competitive landscape creates room for a novel mechanism, and the regulatory path to a meaningful endpoint is navigable for a company of Provectus’s size and stage. Bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, and glioblastoma are all in that conversation for reasons that go beyond this study alone. The data from this study add oral PV-10 in bladder cancer to the list of scientifically credible options. They do not dictate the choice.

What they do dictate is urgency on the IND. A preclinical signal with no regulatory pathway behind it is a scientific curiosity. A preclinical signal with an IND expansion in motion is the beginning of a development program.

That non-specificity of PV-10, by the way, is the deeper story inside this study. If oral PV-10 reaches the bladder and generates an anti-tumor signal there, it is doing so systemically: traveling through the bloodstream, accumulating selectively in tumor tissue, and initiating the same sequence of events that intralesional (IL) PV-10 has demonstrated in melanoma and cancers metastatic to the liver. The bladder is simply where the tumor happened to be in this study. The larger implication is that any cancer accessible to a systemically circulating drug — which is most of them (all of them?) — is a potential target for oral PV-10, assuming the drug reaches it at pharmacologically relevant amounts. That assumption still needs to be confirmed with tissue pharmacokinetic data.

But the broader point stands: a well-tolerated oral formulation of a drug with a tumor-selective mechanism and a demonstrated capacity to activate innate and adaptive immunity is not a bladder cancer drug. It is potentially a platform — one that could extend to pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, and the long list of solid tumor and blood-borne indications where patients currently have few good options and where a simple oral treatment that recruits the immune system without the toxicity of systemic chemotherapy (or other treatments) or the procedural burden of local delivery would represent something genuinely new.

And, what about other diseases…

An Honest Scorecard
Group 4 (oral PV-10 monotherapy) was the standout result of this preclinical work by any rigorous metric: lowest Day 23 tumor burden of any active arm, perfect safety and tolerability with no procedural deaths and a body weight nadir below 2%, complete data integrity across all eight enrolled animals, and the study’s most arresting single observation: a long-term survivor whose bladder appeared, grossly, to be free of tumor.

The overall framework score was 9.24 out of 10. That score held its number one ranking across all five alternative weighting scenarios tested, with margins of nearly a full point even under the least favorable assumptions.

The intravesical arms failed because the amounts tested were not tolerated, not because PV-10 doesn’t work in the bladder. That failure is fixable with a dose-finding study.

Anti-PD-1 monotherapy performed credibly as a model-validation comparator and less credibly as a tumor control agent, which is roughly what you’d expect from a humanized NOG model where GvHD and anti-tumor immunity are hard to separate.

One mouse with no bladder tumor at necropsy (in the oral PV-10 monotherapy arm) is not a clinical result. It is a finding that earns the next experiment. In preclinical oncology, that is not nothing. It is usually where the important science starts.

VisiRose, Inc. One Treatment Wasn't Enough: What REAGIR Got Right, What It Missed, and What Five ARVO 2026 Abstracts Mean for RB-PDAT's Future

REAGIR’s headline was null. Inside the data, however, the world’s most common fungal eye infection showed a directional signal favoring RB-PDAT over a near 50-year-old standard of care that no therapy has ever beaten in a randomized trial

Four BPEI abstracts presented at ARVO 2026 explain, with mechanistic precision, why a single treatment cycle was insufficient for the most resistant pathogens and what a next-generation protocol needs to look like

VisiRose, Provectus’s ophthalmology subsidiary, is advancing toward the step of a pre-IND meeting with FDA to propose a Phase 2b/3 trial in Fusarium fungal keratitis

This week, five scientific abstracts on rose bengal photodynamic antimicrobial therapy (RB-PDAT) were presented at ARVO 2026, the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, in Denver. Four came from researchers at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (BPEI) at the University of Miami. The fifth came from principal investigators of a 330-patient, NIH-funded, international randomized controlled trial (RCT) named REAGIR (NCT05110001), which compared RB-PDAT with a 50-year old standard of care for fungal and parasitic types of infectious keratitis.

If you follow Provectus (OTCQB: PVCT), you’ve seen the press release. This Substack post is not the press release. It is our attempt to read all five abstracts together with you — carefully and in the context of the science that surrounds them — and share with you our thoughts about what they mean for the clinical and commercial trajectory of RB-PDAT and Provectus’s VisiRose ophthalmology subsidiary.

The short version: REAGIR’s headline result was null. The species-level data inside REAGIR, however, were not. And, the four BPEI preclinical abstracts explain, with mechanistic precision, why and what needs to change in the next study, which is already being designed.

The Context Every Investor Needs Before Reading the Data

Provectus shareholders are very familiar with synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS), our proprietary drug substance and active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) in Provectus’s clinical-stage investigation drug products PV-10 (intralesional injection for injectable solid tumor cancers) and PH-10 (topical hydrogel for dermatological disorders and diseases). The ophthalmology program operates through VisiRose, Inc. (VisiRose), a privately held clinical-stage subsidiary and biotechnology company that is commercializing RB-PDAT — a combination of Provectus’s pharmaceutical-grade RBS API, formulated as PV-305 for ophthalmic use, with a green LED medical device developed by BPEI’s Ophthalmic Biophysics Center (OBC).

RB-PDAT is not a hypothesis in early-stage testing. It has been evaluated in vitro, in vivo, and clinically by OBC and BPEI for 12-13 years. The first published peer-reviewed medical journal article of their work was in 2014 (Arboleda et. al, Am J Ophthalmol.). The clinical use of RB-PDAT for severe, progressive infectious keratitis began in 2016 (Naranjo et al, Am J Ophthalmol). RB-PDAT has been evaluated in many hundreds of patients across BPEI, LV Prasad Eye Institute and Aravind Eye Hospitals in India, Instituto de Oftalmologia Fundacion Conde de Valenciana IAP in Mexico, and Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) in Brazil. The path to scalable treatment relevancy is RBS API and PV-305, Provectus, and VisiRose.

ARVO is the world’s largest and most prestigious gathering of eye and vision scientists, attracting approximately 12,000 researchers, clinicians, and industry professionals from more than 75 countries each year. The abstracts/posters and their data and conclusions at ARVO 2026 represent a step-change in the sophistication of the scientific questions being asked about RB-PDAT. The field is no longer debating whether RB-PDAT has antimicrobial activity or whether it is a viable treatment for infectious keratitis. It is asking which pathogens respond to a single treatment cycle and which require more, what structural features of pathogens confer resistance, and how the patient’s own corneal biochemistry shapes therapeutic output. Those are questions a maturing therapy generates, not an unproven one.
What REAGIR Was Designed to Do and the Constraints It Operated Under

REAGIR was sponsored by the University of California San Franciso (UCSF) where Thomas Leitman, MD is a big deal, funded by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) National Eye Institute (NEI), and conducted across sites at Aravind Eye Hospitals (Aravind Eye Care System) in India, where the lead principal investigator is Dr. N. Venkatesh Prajna, DO, DNB, FRCOphth. The Federal University of São Paulo in Brazil was a planned site, but enrolment was completed with Indian patients. Another force behind REAGIR is Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer, MD, formerly of UCSF and now at Stanford University. REAGIR enrolled 330 patients with corneal ulcers — fungal and Acanthamoeba keratitis — and randomized them 1:1 to a single RB-PDAT treatment plus standard antimicrobial therapy versus sham plus antimicrobials. The standard of care for fungal eye infection is topical natamycin 5% ophthalmic suspension, which is the only antifungal eye drop approved by the FDA for the treatment of fungal keratitis — an approval granted in 1978, nearly half a century ago, with no new ophthalmic antifungal approved since. The primary endpoint was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at six months; the 12-month outcomes reported at ARVO 2026 were secondary. See Prajna et al, Trials, 2024 for a description and discussion of REAGIR’s clinical protocol and trial design.

Three design decisions shaped everything that followed:

First, REAGIR treated a composite population: 91% fungal keratitis comprised of at least Fusarium (most common fungal pathogen globally) and Aspergillus (next most)¹, 3% Acanthamoeba keratitis, and 6% smear/culture-negative cases. These are biologically distinct infections with different natural histories, different responses to standard-of-care therapy, and as BPEI’s ARVO preclinical data make clear, different responses to RB-PDAT. Pooling them into a single primary analysis was a practical choice given enrollment logistics, but it guaranteed that organism-specific signals would be diluted in the composite result.

Second, and most consequentially, RB-PDAT was administered exactly once. The ~45-minute outpatient procedure — a 30-minute loading dose of topical rose bengal followed by 15 minutes of green light irradiation — was delivered on day two of enrollment and not repeated. Whether one cycle is adequate treatment for the most biologically resistant pathogens is, as the ARVO 2026 data make clear, the central open question in RB-PDAT clinical development. Nevertheless, the precedent experience and literature, as you’ll read below, and perhaps common sense would suggest more treatment. Even natamycin is administered multiple times over multiple weeks.

Third, the smear/culture-negative stratum — 19 patients representing 6% of enrollment — is an inherently heterogeneous group that likely comprises multiple underlying etiologies. Including them was scientifically defensible, and RB-PDAT’s broad-spectrum activity makes it a uniquely logical candidate for this population. But they add noise to any subgroup analysis and cannot be expected to respond uniformly.
The Drug Substance Question Provectus Raised in 2021 and Why It Still Matters

Before REAGIR enrolled its first patient, there was a conversation that has received no public attention. In September 2021, we discussed the grade of rose bengal proposed for use in the trial with Dr. Rose-Nussbaumer.

BPEI had developed RB-PDAT initially using commercially available ophthalmic strips — specifically GloStrips®, a diagnostics-grade rose bengal product marketed by Amcon Labs — as the source of the drug substance for 2016-2018 clinical RB-PDAT treatment in the Naranjo et al clinical pilot study, and later, commercial-grade rose bengal from Sigma Aldrich (now MilliporeSigma). Provectus first reached out to BPEI in 2019 about their therapeutic use of rose bengal. At ARVO 2025, BPEI conclude in one of their RB-PDAT abstracts that “…[rose bengal] strips are not a good source of [rose bengal] for RB-PDAT because they do not release from the strips in a way to deliver the therapeutic concentration.”

Provectus’s position to Dr. Rose-Nussbaumer at the time, stated plainly, was that diagnostics-grade and commercial-grade rose bengal are not viable drug substances for a modern clinical regulatory program.

Our reasons are chemical and specific. Provectus’s manufacturing process yields a drug substance with ~100% dye content, eliminating the transhalogenated substance-related impurities that arise from the historical 19th-century Ghnem synthesis method still employed to produce rose bengal. Ghnem created rose bengal in 1882, with two iodine atoms on the xanthene backbone. Two other iodine atoms were added later. Iodide content is not an incidental specification. The four iodine atoms on the backbone are mechanistically central to its photochemical activity: they mediate intersystem crossing from the singlet to the triplet excited state, which drives production of both singlet oxygen (Type 2) and reactive oxygen species (ROS; Type 1) — the agents responsible for antimicrobial effect. Variable or reduced iodide content means variable, potentially diminished, therapeutic activity.

BPEI had itself reached the same conclusion, recognizing the chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) regulatory hurdles involved after discussions with Provectus that included sharing vials of PV-10 with them for chemical analytical analysis. A university chemistry department’s chemical analytical analysis typically doesn’t match that of a commercial contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO). BPEI pivoted to a collaboration with Provectus to develop a pharmaceutical-grade ophthalmic drug product — what would become PV-305, a 0.1% current Good Manufacturing Practices RBS formulation, made by a quality-by-design manufacturing process, in accordance with International Council on Harmonisation guidelines, and designed for combination with BPEI’s green light medical device, which has been design-iterated by OBC over time and is now on its fifth generation.

What Provectus asked in 2021 was straightforward: that UCSF seek NEI’s approval to extend the REAGIR grant timeline to allow Provectus to file and achieve FDA acceptance of an IND for PV-305, so that the trial could be conducted with a pharmaceutical-grade API and a pharmaceutical-grade drug product. UCSF declined to pursue the extension. This is understandable. Extending an NIH-funded grant timeline is bureaucratically and practically difficult; there was a December 2021 enrollment target and real institutional pressure to protect the funding already secured. These are ordinary constraints of academic clinical research.

REAGIR was conducted with commercial-grade rose bengal, not with pharmaceutical-grade RBS API. The full clinical implications of that difference remain unquantified. The mechanistic basis for concern is documented. It is one of the reasons that any next-generation VisiRose trial, built on PV-305 and designed with pharmaceutical-grade RBS API, would constitute a materially different and necessary scientific and regulatory endeavor than REAGIR.

We have continued to build our relationship with Dr. Rose-Nussbaumer, seeking her feedback on various topics related to advancing RB-PDAT towards an approval pathway.
What REAGIR Found — The Species-Level Story the Headline Misses

At 12 months, REAGIR found no statistically significant difference between RB-PDAT and sham in BSCVA (difference: 0.01 logMAR; p=0.91), infiltrate/scar size (0.006 mm; p=0.97), or rates of corneal perforation or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (31 vs. 34 events; HR=1.21; p=0.44). The investigators concluded that “adjunctive RB-PDAT does not confer a clear benefit over sham therapy.”

The composite null result is real and was reported as such; however, it does not capture the organism-stratified story within it.

Fungal keratitis comprised 91% of enrollment and Fusarium accounted for roughly 63% of all study patients, making it the numerically dominant subgroup by a substantial margin. Fusarium is also the most common cause of fungal keratitis globally and is responsible for catastrophic outcomes under current standard of care natamycin: the NIH-funded MUTT II trial (involving Prajna, Lietman, and Rose-Nussbaumer) demonstrated a 50% rate of full-thickness corneal perforation or need for therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty in severe filamentous fungal keratitis patients despite maximal medical therapy with topical natamycin, topical voriconazole (not approved for ophthalmic use; extemporaneously compounded), and oral voriconazole (not approved for ophthalmic use; approved for fungal infection).

It bears repeating: natamycin, the only FDA-approved ophthalmic antifungal, was first approved in 1978 and no therapy has since demonstrated a statistically superior clinical outcome versus it in an RCT.

In the Fusarium subgroup, RB-PDAT showed directionally better BSCVA: 0.17 lines better than sham at 12 months (p=0.1). It did not reach statistical significance. But the direction — favoring RB-PDAT over the current standard of care, in the largest subgroup, in the most clinically devastating fungal infection — is a signal that has no precedent in the nearly 50-year history of ophthalmic antifungal development. As a directional finding in a trial not powered for subgroup analysis, it cannot be dismissed or over-interpreted. It is exactly the kind of signal that a properly powered Phase 2b/3 study, stratified by pathogen, given adequate RB-PDAT treatment, should be designed to evaluate definitively.

Aspergillus patients trended in the opposite direction: 0.39 lines worse with RB-PDAT (p=0.07). This is a mechanistic signal that BPEI Abstract #2 at ARVO 2026 explains it directly.

The Acanthamoeba subgroup — only 10 patients, far too small for statistical conclusions — showed 2.5 lines better vision with RB-PDAT at six months and meaningfully smaller scar size. These are impressive directional magnitudes in a pathogen class where standard therapy leaves 40-50% of patients with poor outcomes. The scar size trajectory across the full trial also merits attention: RB-PDAT showed meaningfully smaller scars at three weeks and three months, with convergence to the sham arm only at 12 months. That temporal pattern is consistent with a real but non-sustained biological effect from a single treatment cycle — activity that fades rather than fails.
Four BPEI Abstracts That Explain What REAGIR’s Data Couldn’t Show

The four BPEI posters at ARVO 2026 are not tangential to the REAGIR story. Taken together, they are a mechanistic explanation of it.
Abstract #1: The corneal biochemical environment shapes therapeutic output.

Paudyal et al (Abstract 3529-0112) used an optimized DCFH2 fluorescence assay to measure how endogenous corneal amino acids modulate ROS generation during RB-PDAT. The findings are clinically significant: aromatic amino acids — tyrosine and tryptophan — and histidine markedly increased ROS output. Arginine, through its guanidinium group, strongly suppressed it. Negatively charged and polar neutral amino acids had minimal effect. The implication is that individual variation in corneal amino acid composition, which differs by patient, by disease state, and likely by the stage of infection at time of treatment, could be a primary driver of differential therapeutic response that no uniform dosing protocol currently accounts for. The authors also note that the relationship between Type 1 (ROS) and Type 2 (singlet oxygen) pathways remains unresolved, and determining which dominates antimicrobial efficacy in different pathogen contexts is essential for rational protocol design.
Abstract #2: Aspergillus resists RB-PDAT through melanin.

Sanchez Campo et al (Abstract 4305-0575) investigated why Aspergillus species have consistently shown lower susceptibility to RB-PDAT than other fungal pathogens. The hypothesis: melanin, a high-molecular-weight polymer in the fungal cell wall, may function as a protective shield against the ROS generated by the therapy. The researchers used DHN-pathway and DOPA-pathway melanin inhibitors across four clinical Aspergillus strains. DHN-pathway inhibition produced the most marked depigmentation, particularly in A. fumigatus,but yielded only modest increases in RB-PDAT susceptibility, and only in one of four strains (A. glaucus). The authors propose that melanin may function as an energy sink rather than a conventional antioxidant, absorbing photoenergy before it can be converted into cytotoxic ROS. This is the mechanistic explanation for the unfavorable Aspergillus signal in REAGIR. It also precisely defines what a next-generation combination strategy for Aspergillus keratitis would need to address.
Abstract #3: Rose bengal inhibits MRSA biofilm formation.

Durkee et al (Abstract 4317-0587) exposed six clinical MRSA isolates from infectious keratitis patients at BPEI to rose bengal for 96 hours and quantified biofilm inhibition using an XTT metabolic activity assay. The result: 73.85% ± 3.22% inhibition of biofilm formation across all six strains. Biofilm is one of the primary structural mechanisms by which ocular pathogens evade both antibiotic therapy and host immune clearance. The finding complements Provectus-sponsored work by Kurosu et al (Molecules, 2022), which characterized RBS’s direct antibacterial activity across multiple organisms and growth conditions. The clinical relevance is particularly acute for contact lens-associated keratitis — the most common risk factor identified in BPEI’s Naranjo et al pilot study — where biofilm on lenses and lens cases is a principal driver of recurrent and treatment-refractory infection.
Abstract #4: Repeat and high-fluence RB-PDAT dramatically improve cysticidal activity.

Navia et al (Abstract 3530-0113) may carry the most direct implications for clinical protocol design of any of the four abstracts. The study evaluated Standard (1×), Repeat (2×), and High-Fluence (3×) RB-PDAT in combination with standard anti-amoebic agents — PHMB and chlorhexidine (CHX) — against four Acanthamoeba isolates induced to encyst. Acanthamoeba cysts are the treatment-resistant form of the organism; eliminating them rather than merely suppressing trophozoite growth is the clinically meaningful endpoint.

Standard single-cycle RB-PDAT was insufficient: trophozoite regrowth was observed at 24 hours across all isolates. Repeat and High-Fluence RB-PDAT combined with either PHMB or CHX achieved 100% inhibition at 24 hours and maintained 50% cysticidal activity at 21 days. Anti-amoebic monotherapy produced only transient suppression, with regrowth by 21 days. Critically, both PHMB and CHX retained full chemical stability under all RB-PDAT exposure conditions, confirming that the combination is pharmacologically compatible, not merely clinically intuitive.

The parallel to REAGIR is exact: one treatment cycle, one opportunity for biological effect, against one of the most resistant pathogen forms in ocular infection. The BPEI data show that two or three cycles, combined with standard anti-amoebic agents, fundamentally change the outcome.
What “Adequate Treatment” Actually Means and Why It’s the Central Variable

The phrase “adequate treatment” resolves the apparent contradiction between what RB-PDAT does in vitro, what it achieved in the Naranjo et al clinical pilot study, and what REAGIR’s composite null result found.

Consider the external literature. Bagga et al (Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection, 2025) from LV Prasad Eye Institute in India treated 14 Acanthamoeba keratitis patients refractory to standard therapy with two cycles of RB-PDAT in conjunction with anti-amoebic agents. Clinical resolution was achieved in 86% of cases. The Naranjo et al 2019 BPEI pilot study treated 18 patients with severe, progressive bacterial, fungal, and parasitic keratitis: nine patients received one RB-PDAT treatment (67% success); nine received two or three treatments (78% success). The REAGIR investigators themselves, in their conclusion, acknowledged that “there may be value in assessing alternative…treatment algorithms.”

BPEI Abstract #4 is not a general suggestion in favor of more treatment. It is a specific in vitro demonstration that 1× RB-PDAT is mechanistically insufficient to achieve sustained cyst inhibition in Acanthamoeba, and that 2× or 3× dosing changes the biological outcome categorically. That is a protocol design finding, stated in precise terms.
What Comes Next for VisiRose

VisiRose intends to pursue a pre-IND meeting with FDA, using the cumulative body of BPEI and associated global medical community in vitro, in vivo, and clinical evidence to propose a Phase 2b/3 clinical trial.

That trial would differ from REAGIR in the ways that matter most:

pharmaceutical-grade RBS as the API,

PV-305 as the drug product,

Fusarium fungal keratitis as the lead indication, and

multiple RB-PDAT treatment cycles.

Other structural aspects of REAGIR — primary and secondary endpoints, the sham-controlled design, the treatment and control arms — remain sound and should carry forward.

OBC’s green LED medical device is sound, well-designed, user-friendly, and, simply functional. The regulatory device question has been resolved: VisiRose’s regulatory consultants (including ophthalmic product developers from a medical device design company) have determined that OBC’s green light device is a Group 1 instrument with no potential light hazard. Because the device will only be used in combination with PV-305, no pre-IDE Q-Submission is required — the device regulatory discussion can be incorporated into the pre-IND submission package.

One significant open question for FDA is trial demographics. There are 15 to 200 times more cases each year of Fusarium fungal keratitis in India than in the United States. Whether and how FDA weighs that geographic reality in evaluating a registration trial, and whether a predominantly or substantial Indian patient population can support a U.S. drug approval, will be a central topic of the pre-IND conversation.

A successful pre-IND meeting, and eventual IND acceptance, would be an important regulatory milestone for VisiRose, and a meaningful one for majority owner Provectus too. Fusarium fungal keratitis is the lead indication, and the foot in the door. Label expansion to additional fungal, parasitic, and bacterial pathogens is the logical path that follows.

Meanwhile, the broader RB-PDAT clinical ecosystem continues to advance independently. The REAGIR investigators filed a second trial (NCT06271772) in 2024, REAGIR II, a 60-patient study comparing RB-PDAT + moxifloxacin (antimicrobial) difluprednate (steroid) against antimicrobial and steroid alone in bacterial keratitis. The trial has completed enrollment at Aravind. Results are expected to be communicated this summer. Collaborators are UCSF, Stanford, Aravind, and UNIFESP.

Separately, Dr. Rose-Nussbaumer has secured funding for a follow-on study to REAGIR I that would apply multiple RB-PDAT treatment cycles to Fusarium fungal keratitis specifically. These are the two most consequential design changes the REAGIR data argue for, now being pursued by the same independent investigators who ran REAGIR. This is a meaningful signal about where the field’s principal investigators believe the evidence points.

The five ARVO 2026 abstracts do not prove that RB-PDAT will succeed in a properly designed Phase 2b/3 trial. What they do is establish that the scientific foundation for that trial is more complete than it has ever been, and that the questions worth asking are now defined with a precision the field has not previously had.

We will continue to share updates with shareholders as appropriate as the work progresses.

NEWS -- Bascom Palmer Eye Institute Presents Four Posters on Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy at ARVO 2026, Advancing the Clinical Case for Provectus’s VisiRose Subsidiary and Rose Bengal Sodium in Infectious Keratitis

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing proprietary synthetic small molecule rose bengal sodium (“RBS”)-based medicines, notes that researchers from Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (“BPEI”) at the University of Miami will present four posters on rose bengal photodynamic antimicrobial therapy (“RB-PDAT”) at the 2026 Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (“ARVO”), to be held May 3–7 in Denver, Colorado.

Provectus’s subsidiary VisiRose, Inc. (“VisiRose”), a private clinical-stage biotechnology company, is commercializing RB-PDAT for the treatment of infectious keratitis (“IK”) and other eye infections, such as infectious scleritis. RB-PDAT is an innovative, investigational, non-invasive treatment developed by the Ophthalmic Biophysics Center (“OBC”) at BPEI. It combines PV-305, a formulation of Provectus’s pharmaceutical-grade active pharmaceutical ingredient RBS, and OBC’s green light medical device to treat eye infections caused by bacteria, fungi, and parasites, including multidrug-resistant strains.

A fifth abstract will be presented by domestic and international principal investigators and medical centers who sponsored and conducted a randomized controlled trial (“RCT”) named REAGIR. REAGIR compared one RB-PDAT treatment — an approximately 45-minute outpatient procedure — against natamycin, the standard of care (“SOC”) administered topically over multiple weeks. BPEI donated RB-PDAT devices and provided technical support.

Taken together, the abstracts reflect the progression of RB-PDAT well beyond proof of concept. The questions being asked at ARVO 2026 — How many treatment cycles are needed? How does the corneal biochemical environment shape therapeutic outcome? What structural features of pathogens confer resistance? — are questions of a therapy approaching maturity of clinical understanding.

Abstract A: REAGIR 12-Month Outcomes — A Signal About Protocol, Not Potential

Bernard et al. “Rose Bengal Electromagnetic Activation with Green Light for Infection Reduction (REAGIR): Twelve month outcomes from sham-controlled, masked, randomized trial.” Abstract 3527-0110.

The REAGIR trial (NCT05110001) was a 330-patient, multi-center, international, double-masked, sham-controlled RCT reporting 12-month outcomes for adjunctive RB-PDAT versus sham in fungal, Acanthamoeba, and smear/culture-negative keratitis. The protocol administered a single RB-PDAT treatment. At 12 months, no statistically significant difference was observed between arms for best-corrected visual acuity, infiltrate/scar size, or rates of corneal perforation or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty. Abstract authors are from the University of California San Francisco (trial sponsor), Stanford University, Aravind Eye Care System (India; primary clinical sites), and Federal University of São Paulo (Brazil).

Interpreting these data requires understanding the REAGIR trial design and its patient strata. Species-level results tell a differentiated story.

Fungal keratitis (“FK”) comprised 91% of enrollment.
Fusarium, the most prevalent cause of FK globally, was 63% of all study patients. This Fusarium subgroup showed directionally better visual acuity with RB-PDAT than with SOC alone (0.17 lines better, p=0.1), marking the first time that a therapy has demonstrated a favorable directional signal versus natamycin in an RCT.
Topically applied natamycin, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1978, remains the only ophthalmic drug approved for FK.
Aspergillus FK patients trended in the opposite direction (0.39 lines worse, p=0.07), a divergence that connects directly to the melanin-mediated resistance mechanism investigated in BPEI Abstract 2.

Acanthamoeba (parasitic) keratitis accounted for 3% of patients. In this cohort, too small for statistical conclusions, RB-PDAT showed 2.5 lines better vision and smaller scar size at six months, a directional signal consistent with the literature on Acanthamoeba keratitis and treatment repetition discussed below. Scar size data further support this interpretation: RB-PDAT showed meaningfully smaller scars at three weeks and three months, converging with the sham arm only at 12 months — a temporal pattern consistent with real but not sustained biological activity from a single RB-PDAT treatment.The REAGIR trial design, first listed on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2021, administered RB-PDAT only once. Bagga et al. (Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection, 2025) (LV Prasad Eye Institute, India) treated 14 Acanthamoeba keratitis patients with two cycles of RB-PDAT in conjunction with standard anti-amoebic therapy, demonstrating clinical resolution in cases refractory to standard therapy alone (86% success). Separately, BPEI’s Naranjo et al. (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2019) treated 18 patients with severe, progressive bacterial, fungal, and parasitic keratitis: nine patients received one RB-PDAT treatment (67% success) and nine received two or three (78% success). The REAGIR principal investigators concluded that “there may be value in assessing alternative…treatment algorithms.” BPEI Abstract 4 below provides direct in vitro evidence for why treatment repetition may be decisive in the most challenging pathogen class.

The REAGIR trial was designed and conducted by independent clinical investigators. Based on the ophthalmic RB-PDAT biomedical literature and Provectus’s experience developing RBS across multiple disease areas, the Company believes that adequate treatment is a meaningful variable in determining patient outcomes. This is a hypothesis that mechanistic data in BPEI Abstracts 1 and 4 below directly support.

BPEI Abstract 1: The Corneal Biochemical Environment Actively Shapes RB-PDAT Output

Paudyal et al. “Amino Acid Modulation of Reactive Oxygen Species Generation in Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy.” Abstract 3529-0112.

RB-PDAT generates reactive oxygen species (“ROS”) upon green light activation of rose bengal. This in vitro study examined how endogenous corneal amino acids modulate that ROS output. Using an optimized DCFH2 fluorescence assay, BPEI found that aromatic amino acids (tyrosine and tryptophan) and histidine markedly increased ROS generation, while arginine strongly suppressed it, likely through guanidinium group-mediated quenching of reactive intermediates. Negatively charged and polar neutral amino acids had minimal effect.

The clinical implication is significant: a patient’s individual corneal amino acid profile could modulate therapeutic response to RB-PDAT in ways not captured by standard dosing protocols. The authors note that the relationship between Type 1 (ROS) and Type 2 (singlet oxygen) pathways requires further investigation to determine which dominates antimicrobial efficacy, a question with direct bearing on rational clinical protocol design.

BPEI Abstract 2: Melanin as a Resistance Mechanism in Aspergillus Keratitis

Sanchez Campo et al. “Impact of Melanin on Antifungal Efficacy of Rose Bengal Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy in Clinical Aspergillus Isolates.” Abstract 4305-0575.

RB-PDAT has demonstrated consistent antifungal efficacy across multiple pathogen classes, but the Aspergillus species has remained a relative exception. This study investigated whether melanin, a known antioxidant polymer in fungal cell walls, may function as a protective shield against ROS generated by RB-PDAT. Using DHN- and DOPA-pathway melanin inhibitors across four clinical Aspergillus strains, the authors found that DHN-pathway inhibition produced the most marked depigmentation, particularly in A. fumigatus, but yielded only modest increases in RB-PDAT susceptibility and only in one of four strains (A. glaucus).

The authors propose that melanin may act as an energy sink rather than a conventional antioxidant, a distinction with practical implications for how combination strategies targeting Aspergillus keratitis should be designed.

BPEI Abstract 3: Rose Bengal Inhibits Biofilm Formation in Clinical MRSA Isolates

Durkee et al. “Inhibition of Biofilm Formation of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates with Rose Bengal.” Abstract 4317-0587.

Biofilms represent one of the primary structural mechanisms by which ocular pathogens evade both antibiotic therapy and host immune clearance. The authors exposed six clinical methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”) isolates from IK patients to rose bengal for 96 hours and quantified biofilm formation using an XTT metabolic activity assay. Rose bengal inhibited biofilm formation by 74% across all six strains.

This finding complements and extends research published by the University of Tennessee Health Science Center and sponsored by Provectus on RBS’s antibacterial properties, Kurosu et al. (Molecules, 2022), which characterized RBS’s direct antibacterial activity across multiple organisms and growth conditions, including biofilms. BPEI biofilm data add an important structural dimension: rose bengal does not merely kill planktonic organisms; it may also prevent the architectural reorganization that renders infections refractory to treatment. The clinical implications are particularly relevant for contact lens-associated keratitis, which was the most common risk factor in BPEI’s Naranjo et al. noted above.

BPEI Abstract 4: Repeat and High-Fluence RB-PDAT Substantially Enhance Cysticidal Activity

Navia JC, et al. “RB-PDAT Enhances Cysticidal Efficacy Without Altering the Stability of Standard Antiamoebic Agents.” Abstract 3530-0113.

This abstract may carry the most direct implications for clinical protocol development. The study evaluated Standard (1×), Repeat (2×), and High-Fluence (3×) RB-PDAT in combination with standard anti-amoebic agents (PHMB and chlorhexidine) against four Acanthamoeba isolates induced to encyst.

Standard RB-PDAT alone was insufficient to achieve sustained cyst inhibition, with trophozoite regrowth observed at 24 hours. Repeat and High-Fluence RB-PDAT, in combination with either PHMB or chlorhexidine, achieved 100% inhibition at 24 hours and maintained 50% cysticidal activity at 21 days. Anti-amoebic monotherapy produced only transient suppression, with regrowth by 21 days. Critically, PHMB and chlorhexidine retained full chemical stability under all RB-PDAT exposure conditions, confirming their compatibility for concurrent use.

Dominic Rodrigues, Provectus’s President and Vice Chairman of its Board of Directors and Acting Chief Executive Officer of VisiRose, said, “The body of science presented at ARVO 2026 tells us what Provectus has come to understand deeply from years of work with this molecule in different diseases: rose bengal sodium is a potent, biologically active, versatile agent whose full therapeutic potential is realized when adequate treatment is given.”

He added, “In the REAGIR trial, a single RB-PDAT treatment cycle was a starting point. This independently conducted international study has advanced the ophthalmology field’s clinical understanding of RB-PDAT considerably, including the first directionally favorable signal versus natamycin, the standard of care in fungal keratitis, in nearly 50 years.”

Mr. Rodrigues concluded, “The REAGIR trial identified the next important question for advancing this investigational ophthalmic treatment for infectious keratitis: what can RB-PDAT achieve when clinical protocol matches biology? We intend to begin answering that question with a proposed Phase 2b/3 clinical trial following VisiRose’s pre-Investigational New Drug Application meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

About VisiRose

VisiRose is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on commercializing Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy (RB-PDAT), an innovative ocular therapy developed at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute's Ophthalmic Biophysics Center at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, which ranked No. 1 in ophthalmology in the United States 24 times (U.S. News & World Report, 2025-2026 Best Hospitals rankings). RB-PDAT leverages the inherent anti-pathogenic properties of RBS, combined with light activation, with the potential to deliver safe, effective, broad-spectrum, and non-invasive treatment for infectious keratitis and other serious eye infections. RB-PDAT has been clinically validated across hundreds of patients at leading medical centers in the United States, India, Brazil, and Mexico.

For more information, visit https://www.visirose.com.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of immunotherapy medicines based on rose bengal sodium, a synthetic small molecule from the halogenated xanthene family. The Company’s clinical programs span oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology, with additional proof-of-concept programs in hematology, wound healing, infectious diseases, and tissue repair.

For more information, visit https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those described in Item 1A of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2025.

Contacts:
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
mailto://hraines@pvct.com
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
Susan Xu
mailto://sxu@allianceadvisors.com
(778) 323-0959

From Interest to Investigation: Provectus’s Intratumoral Cancer Immunotherapy Drug Development Program
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals
Apr 30, 2026
We know what we inherited and what was missing. We now have the right mechanistic framework. We are trying to add the right institutional partners. We are endeavoring to build toward credible, capital-efficient, potential drug approval pathways in three complementary IL PV-10 settings, while we try to develop oral PV-10 in the wings as the much larger prize.
1. Introduction
For the reasons, settings, and circumstances we discuss below, the drug development program for intralesional (IL) PV-10 (rose bengal sodium [RBS]) currently comprises the pursuit of up to three injectable solid tumor indications. A strong clinical, economic, and capital-efficient development case can be made for each distinct regulatory pathway, total addressable market (TAM), and strategic rationale:
• Pre-operative penile squamous cell carcinoma (pSCC)1, a superficial tumor with an annual U.S. incidence of ~2,000–2,200 and a U.S. prevalence of ~7,000–10,000),
• Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)2, a visceral tumor; ~35,000–40,000 annual U.S. incidence and ~80,000–100,000 U.S. prevalence, and
• An ultra-rare pediatric cancer indication3 that presents both superficially and viscerally: ~70–100 annual U.S. incidence and ~400–600 U.S. prevalence.
Our aim for this Substack post is to discuss prospective development collaborators, with varying measures of “skin in the game,” for HCC (see Sections 3–4 below) and pediatric cancer (see Section 6).These potential collaborations represent a different model of institutional engagement and source of potential capital efficiency for shareholders.
2. Relevant History
Understanding where Provectus is going requires understanding where it has been. The Company’s cancer drug development program started in the mid- to late-2000s as an intratumoral one with IL PV-10’s first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trials:
• 2005: metastatic melanoma,
• 2005: recurrent breast cancer, and
• 2009: cancers of the liver: HCC (primary liver cancer) and cancers metastatic to the liver, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), pancreatic, several other tumor types, and metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM).
IL PV-10’s original clinical rationale was direct cytotoxicity to the injected tumor in a rapid fashion that was well-proven in murine flank models. The possibility of abscopal or “bystander” effect, where non-injected tumors shrink or disappear, emerged clinically in Phase 2 for melanoma (2007). Abscopal effect was subsequentially shown in late-Phase 1 work for mUM (2018-2023).4
Thinking back to the 2010s, when Provectus leadership — Ed Pershing, Executive Chairman and CEO and Dominic Rodrigues, President — were shareholders of the Company, a reasonable estimate for TAMs could have been:
• Near-term: Melanoma: $1–3 billion in the U.S., $3–10 billion globally,
• Medium-term: HCC and hepatic metastases: $4–10 billion, $12–35 billion, and
• Long-term: Systemic IO adjunct for injectable solid tumors: $15-40 billion, $50-120 billion.
Lots of assumptions go into building TAM estimates. To serve the purpose of this Substack post, we let AI create the above illustrative TAMs. A lot of work, capital, and above all, clinical success are required to try to achieve these TAMs.
IL PV-10’s melanoma program advanced from Phase 1 to a supposed Phase 3 registration study (2014) focused on, we later surmised, the clinically and unofficially rare disease of in-transit melanoma (ITM). We made an informal decision in 2017, after we arrived at Provectus, and a formal one in 2018 to terminate the study because we determined enrolment could not be achieved in a capital-efficient manner. Prior leadership’s trial enrolment assumption was based on the incidence of Stage IIIB-IV M1a melanoma5 (non-metastatic disease), not incidence for ITM, a subset of Stage IIIB-C (locally advanced disease). ITM was ~5–7.5% of the original estimate, a fatal mismatch between assumption and reality.
Provectus chose not to pursue breast cancer, despite its Phase 1 trial showing no damage to perilesional breast tissue at evaluated doses, compatibility with subsequent breast surgery, measurable anti-tumor activity, and a compelling clinical rationale for patients (i.e., reduce or eliminate surgery).
Clinical melanoma data were regularly presented at major medical conferences (i.e., ASCO, ESMO, SMR) and published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Phase 1 liver cancer data was presented only in 2015 and early-2017. We were able to accomplish publishing of remarkable, updated survival data in HCC and mCRC in 2020. Through the efforts of the mUM principal investigator, mUM clinical data were accepted for presentation at seven conferences from 2018–2023. By this point, Provectus’s cancer drug development program for IL PV-10 had a cancer immunotherapy drug development program.
IL PV-10 remains a very clinically and economically promising drug product candidate. The question has always been how to customarily pursue it most efficiently, which brings us to where we are today.
Had we the opportunity, we would have pursued oral PV-10 over IL PV-10, with the clinical rationale being that systemic administration of PV-10 is a game changer for all cancers and for many other diseases. If we did pursue IL PV-10, we would have chosen:
• Breast cancer over melanoma: a clinical rationale of fully harnessing IL PV-10’s superpowers of rapid complete response, injection site healing, and immune activation, and
• HCC over melanoma: a clinical rationale of when cancer starts in or spreads to the liver, prognosis worsens significantly and effective local-regional treatment options remain limited.
For IL PV-10, this would have meant working closely with surgical oncologists in breast cancer and interventional radiologists (interventional oncologists) in HCC. IL PV-10 is a tool they inherently understand and can use with their own hands.
In 2017, we were simply trying to save the medical science and the Company that we so firmly believed in as then-10+ year shareholders. We believe so much more in our medical science in 2026.
We tried partnering/co-developing IL PV-10. Merck & Co., which had multiple biologic-based intratumoral agent relationships, and Bristol-Myers, which had one such agent, were the most familiar of Big Pharma with intratumoral treatment. They found PV-10 medical science promising; however, Provectus’s clinical data could not overcome data and mechanism gaps as well as prior commitments to these other agents. There were other global pharmaceutical companies to whom we spoke at length and in depth. All in all, IL PV-10’s dataset, while impressive, was not sufficiently baked in their view to commit resources or capital or to get a deal done.
We also looked for ways to convince drug regulators of regulatory viability based on the gap-filled historical clinical data we possessed. We were fully aware of and deeply understood Provectus’s prior questionable regulatory interactions, choices, and decisions. We managed to engage the world’s top melanoma expert, based on a certain ranking, to author an information memo about ITM’s clinical rarity for Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, a capital-efficient attempt to carve out a drug approval pathway from the data we inherited. The memo’s other two authors were in the global top 10 of the same ranking.
While we pursue the development of oral PV-10 and its total TAM in cancer and beyond, which is difficult to believe let alone comprehend, the TAM for IL PV-10 remains valid and arguably larger now than when we first contemplated it. The rest of this post will delve into how we are advancing IL PV-10 more deliberately, more efficiently, and with better external validation than before.
3. The Center for Interventional Oncology at the National Institutes of Health
From an investor standpoint, institutional engagement with a body like NIH’s Center for Interventional Oncology (CIO) represents a form of third-party scientific validation. It is earned through scientific credibility and matters because NIH has no commercial stake in the outcome.
The CIO is a specialized interventional oncology research group within the NIH Clinical Center and is focused on image-guided cancer therapeutics. This group had prior familiarity with rose bengal and intratumoral delivery to the liver independent of Provectus before connecting with us. CIO’s prior scientific interest in PV-10 initially opened the door to discussions in August 2025 about evaluating IL PV-10 in a visceral tumor setting, starting with the liver and HCC.
In drug development, timing is far from linear. Scientific curiosity and process precede formal collaboration. Institutional engagement unfolds in stages: interest, access, evaluation, and deeper alignment of one form or another. Our recent work with the CIO reflects this progression. We first introduced this budding collaboration in our April 15, 2026 Substack post titled “When the Wound Won’t Resolve.”
Progress from discussion to collaboration was not immediate. A series of U.S. federal government shutdowns in 2025 and 2026 delayed the transfer of vials of PV-10 to NIH facilities until February 2026. Once PV-10 was received, the CIO team moved quickly to initiate preclinical work on IL PV-10.
What followed has been a methodical, technically rigorous, pre-clinical evaluation of IL PV-10 in the context of image-guided interventional oncology. Initial efforts focused on hepatic delivery models, where the group assessed how PV-10 behaved when injected directly into tissue using clinically relevant techniques. These studies leveraged one of PV-10’s underappreciated properties, its radiopacity, to visualize and track the drug in real time using CT imaging.
The work has since progressed into a translational tumor model using woodchucks with HCC, a system chosen for its biological relevance to human liver cancer. In this setting, CIO has demonstrated to itself/themselves the feasibility of IL PV-10 delivery, confirmed its localization within tumors via imaging, and validated its persistence within tumor tissue at necropsy. These are important building blocks for our collaborator: delivery, retention, and measurable presence are prerequisites for any subsequent therapeutic or immunologic effect.
The ongoing phase of work is focused on mechanism; specifically, how PV-10 distribution within a tumor relates to cell death and immune activation. This includes analysis of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), tumor RNA expression, and spatial mapping of immune cell infiltration relative to drug localization. In practical terms, the CIO is working to connect three variables in a coordinated way: where the drug goes, what the drug does, and how the immune system responds to drug-disease interaction.
From an investor perspective, this distinction matters. Intratumoral oncology drug development evaluates outcomes without fully characterizing spatial drug behavior. CIO’s approach, in contrast (pardon the pun), treats delivery and distribution as central variables. If successful, this framework could inform CIO whether IL PV-10 works in HCC (we believe it does clinically), whether there is immune activation from PV-10 treatment and if so what, how to optimize its use: dose, placement, and potential combination strategies, and whether and how PV-10 works in other visceral organs for which Provectus has no preclinical or clinical experience or data: pancreas, kidney, etc.
4. A Potential Path Forward for IL PV-10 Drug Approval in HCC
As this body of work matures, both Provectus and NIH are evaluating the potential for a more formal collaboration in HCC. To arrive at this point, we entered into a CDA and an MTA with NIH. No agreement has been formally discussed or executed yet. Very preliminary discussions have included the possibility of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to support continued translational and clinical investigation. A clinical trial of IL PV-10 for the treatment of HCC could include the NIH Clinical Center.
Any reference in this Substack post to NIH should not be viewed as an endorsement of Provectus or IL PV-10.
The rationale for CIO to focus on HCC is straightforward. The liver is uniquely suited to image-guided treatment. HCC remains a disease where local-regional treatment and systemic therapy coexist as part of standard of care. Within that framework, IL PV-10 may offer a differentiated approach: direct intratumoral delivery to defeat the tumor, the potential for measurable and characterized immune activation, and the potential for a systemic immune response.
The current NIH-led work is intentionally focused on single-agent PV-10. The objective is to establish a clear, data-driven understanding of safety, injected tumor effects, and immune signaling of IL PV-10 before advancing further, such as into combination strategies. This sequencing reflects a deliberate shift from earlier development efforts at Provectus, where signals of activity were observed clinically but not initially or fully characterized mechanistically, to a more modern approach grounded in measurable biology.
Should the ongoing CIO preclinical work continue to generate supportive data, a logical next step could be to design a Phase 2 clinical study in HCC. Given Provectus’s prior clinical experience with IL PV-10, including Phase 1 work in cancers metastatic to the liver (HCC, mCRC, mUM, pancreatic, etc.), there is an established safety and tolerability basis (as a single-agent or in combination with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-1+anti-CTLA-4) to consider advancing directly into a Phase 2 setting, subject to regulatory alignment and study design considerations.
At this stage, key elements of such a clinical study, including patient population, line of therapy, efficacy endpoints, and/or combination or sequencing strategy remain to be determined. These decisions are expected to be informed by the conclusions of the current and planned NIH work, particularly the relationship between PV-10 delivery, tumor response, and immune activation. The ongoing program is both exploratory and foundational: it is intended to shape how IL PV-10 is used clinically, not simply whether it is used.
Looking ahead, the progression from prior institutional interest to active preclinical evaluation to discussions around a formal framework, suggests a steady, measured evolution of the relationship. The direction is clear: from observation to measurement, and from hypothesis to structured investigation.
There can be no assurance that a CRADA will be executed with NIH or that any clinical path will be pursued with NIH.
From a shareholder standpoint, this represents a different kind of progress. Our focus is on building a coherent, evidence-based framework that can support efficient, interpretable, and ultimately definitive clinical development. If successful, this approach may increase the probability that subsequent studies, whether single-agent IL PV-10 or a combination therapy for visceral and superficial tumors, are designed with greater precision and clear endpoints.
It is worth stating plainly: the NIH is not sponsoring Provectus, nor is it advocating for any specific outcome. Their role is to investigate, generate data, and advance scientific and clinical understanding. That is precisely why their involvement at this initial exploratory level carries weight.
It is also worth being direct about a limitation of Provectus’s earlier drug development program that this work is designed to address. Much of Provectus’s IL PV-10 clinical work in melanoma and cancers of the liver was conducted without the benefit of a well-defined mechanistic framework. While signals of activity were observed, the underlying “why” and “how” was not fully characterized at the time, Datasets were often incomplete by the standards of translational rigor in the service of potential co-development or licensing relationships. As a result, it has been challenging to clearly communicate the drug’s full potential to prospective partners, particularly in an environment where mechanistic understanding and biomarker-driven narratives are expected.
By 2016, Provectus could describe a fulsome mechanistic story clinically of single-agent IL PV-10 in melanoma:
• Injected tumor cytotoxicity (rapid complete response),
• Immune activation (DAMPs), and
• Systemic immune response (CD8, CD4, and CD3 T cells, NK cells).
As we’ve said before, the lift of a single-agent or combination therapy melanoma trial is too heavy for Provectus because it is too dilutive for shareholders, requiring hundreds and hundreds of patients, tens and tens of clinical sites, and survival endpoints.
In cancers of the liver, we have a less detailed mechanistic picture that still parallels our mechanism work in melanoma:
• Clinical injected tumor cytotoxicity (HCC, mCRC, mUM, etc.),
• In vitro (colon cancer; Qin et al., Cell Death and Disease, 2017) and clinical (DAMPs; internal mUM analysis) immune activation, and
• Clinical systemic immune response
o Neuroendocrine tumors metastatic to the liver; Price et al., British Journal of Cancer, 2025; CD4 T cells and NK cells. mUM T cell exploration
o Our mUM data show two patients receiving IL PV-10 + ipilimumab+nivolumab achieving complete metabolic response despite extrahepatic disease (one patient with liver, lung, bone, and soft tissue disease; another with liver, lung, and omentum disease).
We think the opportunity for IL PV-10 a drug approval pathway in HCC is much more capital efficient than in melanoma.
The historical IL PV-10 program showed authentic biological and clinical signals, but lacked the mechanistic, spatial, and translational framework to explain, optimize, and credibly advance those signals. In retrospect, we realize that PV-10 previously was developed as if outcomes alone would be sufficient, when intratumoral oncology drug development requires outcomes to be mechanistically explained, spatially understood, and externally validated. We thought outcomes alone could generate partnerships and co-development. When we arrived, we ran ongoing trials to generate survival data we felt was missing; these data were and remain meaningful. But they were not sufficient on their own.
The current effort with NIH is intended to close the mechanism gap in HCC by linking delivery, tumor effect, and immune activation, signaling, and response in a way that can be measured, explained, and more effectively conveyed. We also believe, after much internal review, discussion, and debate, that HCC represents a better liver cancer indication to pursue for IL PV-10 drug approval, rather than metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma or mUM.
Why? We believe (in an anecdotal clinical data-driven manner) that oral PV-10 is much more suited to pancreatic cancer, localized to the pancreas or metastatic to the liver and/or elsewhere, than IL PV-10, and potentially comparable (in context and carefully) to standard of care and emerging treatments.
5. Why Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma Matters
Provectus is pursuing IL PV-10 in preoperative pSCC. This is a rare disease (ORPHA:398058). Its inclusion in the IL PV-10 development strategy is intentional and complementary.
pSCC represents a superficial, accessible tumor environment where PV-10’s core attributes can be fully leveraged. The lesions are directly visible and injectable, enabling complete intratumoral delivery, immediate assessment of local effects, and critically, tissue sampling before and after treatment. This creates an opportunity to study IL PV-10 in a setting where drug delivery, tumor response, and immune activation can all be observed with minimal ambiguity.
The clinical context is equally important. Standard treatment for many patients who initially present with local penile SCC involves partial or total penectomy, a procedure associated with significant functional and psychological consequences. In this setting, a preoperative intratumoral therapy is being positioned as a potential means to reduce tumor burden prior to surgery and, if supported by data, enable less extensive surgical intervention while also demonstrating immune activation against the injected cancer as a potential further benefit.
From a development perspective, the preoperative design is particularly valuable. Patients receive IL PV-10 prior to planned surgery, allowing investigators to compare baseline tumor characteristics with post-treatment pathology. This “window-of-opportunity” approach provides a structured way to evaluate pathologic response, immune infiltration, and molecular changes within the tumor microenvironment, in addition to radiographic and clinical observations.
The p SCC program serves a distinct purpose within the broader IL PV-10 drug development strategy. The HCC work with NIH is focused on image-guided delivery and spatial biology in a deep-organ (visceral) setting. The penile SCC study is designed to clarify how PV-10 behaves in superficial tumors when applied in a controlled, tissue-rich, preoperative context. Together, these efforts aim to define the appropriate use of PV-10 across different anatomical and clinical scenarios, backed by robust mechanistic characterization.
As noted above, pSCC is a rare indication. Studies in this population do not define the full commercial potential of IL PV-10. They may, however, offer a more direct path to approval, assuming clinically meaningful endpoints (e.g., pathologic response, surgical outcomes), while informing about the broader platform in a capital-efficient manner.
6. A Mechanism-Driven Extension
A potential third prong of the IL PV-10 drug development program has emerged through another external collaboration. Unlike HCC or penile SCC, this program is not driven by clinical workflow or anatomical accessibility, but by tumor biology. It also carries a specific potential financial opportunity for shareholders worth understanding.
An investigator in a pediatric oncology research setting identified a subset of cancers characterized by suppression of innate immune sensing pathways, including cGAS–STING. This results in an “immune cold” tumor microenvironment with limited interferon signaling and reduced immune recognition. Provectus’s collaborators at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine have already shown that PV-10 may activate or stabilize STING signaling, leading to downstream immune activation, and that IL PV-10 is viable in vivo for relapsed and refractory pediatric solid tumors.
This convergence prompted external interest in evaluating IL PV-10 within this biologically defined context. The underlying hypothesis is straightforward: if certain tumors suppress STING-mediated immune signaling and PV-10 can activate this pathway, then PV-10 may help reverse tumor-intrinsic immune silence.
From a development perspective, this effort is best understood as a mechanism-driven extension of the IL PV-10 platform. Initial work is expected to focus on preclinical validation of STING pathway activation and tumor response in a relevant mouse model. If supported by those data, a Phase 1 clinical study could follow.
Provectus has a “ready-to-go” clinical trial protocol from a then-promising collaboration with the Pediatric Oncology Experimental Therapeutics Investigators’ Consortium (POETIC) on IL PV-10 for the treatment of relapsed and refractory pediatric solid tumors. The protocol had been accepted by the FDA. A leader of POETIC decided, however, to unilaterally shelve the relationship and the clinical trial for what believe was a very personal, disingenuous reason. Provectus continued to work with a member of POETIC, one of its leading researchers. His work has yielded an extraordinary amount of knowledge defining PV-10 as a platform therapeutic:
• IL PV-10 for relapsed and refractory pediatric solid tumors,
• Oral PV-10 for leukemia,
• Oral and intranasal PV-10 for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),
• Oral PV-10 for adult solid tumor cancers,
• PV-10 for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS),
• Novel activation of STING,
• Potential association of heat shock proteins with STING from PV-10 treatment, and
• Other ongoing research (proprietary; a patent application was recently filed).
His lab’s body of work, much of it generated despite the abovementioned POETIC leader’s decision, is one of the most consequential threads in the PV-10 scientific narrative. Shareholders should understand it as such.
Importantly, this third area of IL PV-10 investigation involves a rare, potentially ultra-rare, cancer, which may enable access to regulatory pathways designed for small patient populations, including a Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher (PRV) upon approval. Historically, such vouchers have been monetized by sponsors (i.e., they’ve sold their PRVs to other companies; some keep and use them), representing a potentially meaningful, non-dilutive source of capital to support Provectus’s broader development efforts. PRV sales in 2025 and 2026 to date have ranged from $150 to $200 million.
In the broader context of IL PV-10 drug development, this effort would serve a complementary function. HCC defines the interventional oncology framework. Penile SCC clarifies use in superficial tumors and defines the surgical oncology framework. This third program provides a test case for PV-10 in tumors where immune suppression is a defining feature of the disease biology. Together, these three prongs of the IL PV-10 drug development program reflect a deliberate effort to align the drug with the settings where its underlying properties may be most relevant.
7. A Mechanism-Driven Extension
For Provectus, the value of this overall strategy lies in disciplined, third-party investigation and indication-specific alignment. Across deep-organ, superficial, and mechanism-driven settings, the goal is to advance IL PV-10, specifically and broadly, and to understand where and how it can be used most effectively.
In biotechnology, credibility is often built incrementally, through data, through repetition, and through the willingness of serious institutions to engage. Our work with the CIO and other institutions represents meaningful steps along this path.
We will continue to share updates with shareholders as appropriate as the work progresses.
Share
1
We plan to seek orphan drug designation (ODD) status for this indication.
2
ODD status was granted to PV-10 for the treatment of HCC in 2011.
3
We plan to seek ODD status for this indication. ODD status was granted to PV-10 for the treatment of neuroblastoma, another pediatric cancer, in 2018. FDA grants ODD to a drug-indication pair, not to a drug globally. This means PV-10 can receive ODD for every new qualifying indication independently, if each indication meets the

Development of novel bacterial lipoprotein-based nanoparticle for Rose Bengal delivery

These findings establish Lipo Rose Bengal as a first-of-its-kind nanocarrier…

potential new class of biomaterials for nanotechnology applications.#RoseBengal https://t.co/JtadInVhMV— $PVCT (@Ablate_Cancer) April 20, 2026

"Development of Tunable Rose Bengal Based-nanoGUMBOS as Potential Selec" by William J.A. Russell

These findings demonstrate the novelty of Rose Bengal based nanoGUMBOS as tunable and selective chemotherapeutic agents. https://t.co/k74diAfT6X— $PVCT (@Ablate_Cancer) April 12, 2026

Water-soluble triads of Sn-chlorine with Rose Bengal as a Promising Photosensitizers for Photodynamic Therapy - ScienceDirect https://t.co/2dVQzDVnmw— $PVCT (@Ablate_Cancer) April 10, 2026

https://open.substack.com/pub/provectus/p/the-building-before-the-hoped-for?r=h1cx0&utm_medium=ios

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Highlights Preclinical Evidence of PV-10-Mediated Immune Modulation in Burn Wound Healing; Porcine Study Demonstrates Shift Toward Pro-Regenerative Tissue Environment

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., April 02, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) today highlighted newly published independent preclinical research evaluating the effects of PV-10 in a clinically relevant porcine burn wound model. PV-10 is a formulation of the Company’s proprietary, pharmaceutical-grade active pharmaceutical ingredient rose bengal sodium (RBS). The study, titled “The Association of Rose Bengal with Macrophage Polarization and Oxidative Stress Response in Full-Thickness Excisional and Grafted Burn Wounds: A Porcine In Vivo Study,” was conducted by investigators at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) and Shriners Children’s Texas in Galveston, with Provectus serving as a funding sponsor, and is published in Medicina. The journal article is available at https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62040629.

Their research demonstrates that PV-10 delivered in a hydrogel formulation is associated with modulation of the local immune environment, including increased macrophage presence, a shift toward reparative (M2-associated) phenotypes, and reduced T-cell infiltration at later stages of healing. These findings suggest that PV-10 may contribute to establishing a pro-regenerative tissue microenvironment that supports tissue remodeling.

PV-10 as a Modulator of Tissue-Level Immune Biology

The UTMB preclinical study utilized a porcine full-thickness burn, excision, and autograft model that is widely considered one of the most clinically relevant preclinical systems for human wound healing research owing to its close approximation of human skin architecture, immune cell composition, and wound repair kinetics. Across repeated applications on days 1, 7, and 14 post-burn, PV-10-treated wounds showed:

Significantly higher pan-macrophage and CD206 expression at day 120 post-burn (p = 0.0034 and p = 0.0277 versus saline control, respectively), consistent with a reparative M2 macrophage profile,

Significantly reduced CD3+ T-cell infiltration at day 120 (p = 0.0360 versus saline control), with values approaching uninjured skin baseline, suggesting attenuation of persistent inflammatory signaling, and

No increase in 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE) oxidative stress markers across treatment groups, indicating immune modulation without excess tissue-damaging oxidative burden.These effects were most clearly observed relative to saline control, with less consistent differentiation versus hydrogel vehicle alone. The authors note that controlled green-light activation, adjusted formulation concentration, or modified dosing frequency may yield more differentiated results in future studies.

Implications for a Broader Platform Mechanism

These findings extend the understanding of PV-10 to support its potential role as a pathology-targeting agent capable of modulating local tissue biology across disease contexts. To our knowledge, this is the first porcine study to characterize the immunohistochemical effects of multi-dose PV-10 in a grafted burn wound model over an extended 120-day period.

Notably, the study demonstrated measurable biological activity following repeated topical administration under ambient light conditions, without the controlled green-light photoactivation used in photodynamic therapy. This suggests potential flexibility in activation paradigms and clinical deployment, with relevance for non-specialized settings where dedicated light sources are unavailable. Fewer than 25% of U.S. burn patients are treated at verified burn centers, underscoring the practical importance of a formulation that does not require specialized equipment.

Dominic Rodrigues, Provectus’s President and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors said, “We believe this work supports the broader view of PV-10 as a regulator of tissue-level biology. Rather than acting solely as a cytotoxic or antimicrobial agent, PV-10 appears capable of shifting the local environment of diseased or injured tissue toward controlled repair. That concept has implications for wound healing of course, but also for oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology, where immune balance and tissue response are critical.”

Positioning Within Advanced Wound Care and Beyond

The UTMB study’s observed immune modulation highlights a key challenge in burn care: failure to transition from early inflammation to controlled tissue repair.

Burn wound management remains clinically complex, with approximately 30,000 hospital admissions annually in the U.S. Another approximately 600,000 individuals annually suffer a burn injury that merits emergent care. Outcomes are often driven by wound closure and the quality of immune resolution and tissue remodeling, which influence scarring, function, and long-term recovery. These are areas where current standard-of-care approaches remain limited.

UTMB’s findings suggest PV-10 may contribute to this transition by shifting the local immune environment toward a reparative state. In this context, PV-10’s potential differentiation includes:

Immunomodulatory activity observed without controlled photoactivation, supporting use in most clinical settings where dedicated light sources are unavailable,

Increased M2-associated macrophage presence during the remodeling phase, addressing one of the central failure modes in burn wound repair: chronic M1 inflammatory activity and impaired immune resolution, and

Delivery via a Pluronic-based hydrogel system, which is a relatively simple, cost-effective vehicle compatible with broader clinical translation and potential integration into existing wound dressing platforms.The global advanced wound care market is projected to exceed $15 billion by 2030, reflecting the need for therapies that not only close wounds but improve the biological quality of healing.

More broadly, UTMB’s findings reinforce PV-10’s potential relevance across multiple therapeutic areas where immune dynamics and tissue remodeling drive disease progression and recovery.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of immunotherapy medicines based on rose bengal sodium, a first-in-class synthetic small molecule from the halogenated xanthene family. The Company’s clinical programs span oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology, with additional proof-of-concept programs in hematology, wound healing, infectious diseases, and tissue repair.

For more information, visit https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2025.

Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
mailto://hraines@pvct.com
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
Susan Xu
mailto://sxu@allianceadvisors.com
(778) 323-0959

UC@PEI- #RoseBengal @Apt exhibited excellent targeting/biofilm disruption ability, w 99.9% bactericidal efficiency

…#MRSA infected confirmed localized treatment significantly reduced bacterial load & accelerated wound closure compared to non-targeted https://t.co/QDWVh8q1Sf— $PVCT (@Ablate_Cancer) March 21, 2026

co-delivering celecoxib & Rose Bengal enable multimodal immunogenic & anti-angiogenic therapy for spinal metastasis non-small cell lung cancer

…promising therapeutic strategy w strong translational relevance for managing met #NSCLC & improving outcomes https://t.co/YpPBrbHaJE— $PVCT (@Ablate_Cancer) March 20, 2026

Substack, 3/13/26

A Small Molecule with a Big Idea: Provectus's Rose Bengal Sodium and the Fight Against ALS

The USPTO published a Provectus patent application describing a method of treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis by inhibiting the aggregation of key disease proteins.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Provectus patent application this week describing a method of treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by inhibiting the aggregation of key disease proteins.
This newly published application is like many early-stage biotechnology intectuall property filings. It describes in silico-based (i.e., computer modeling-based) research on a possible approach to treating this very debilitating disease. Generally speaking, drug discovery and development follows in silico, in vitro (“petri dish”), in vivo (animals such as mice), and clinical trials in the pursuit of a hoped for drug approval.
Thanks for reading Provectus’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
Behind the patent application lies something even more interesting: a growing body of multi-dimensional, cross-disease, mechanistic work by Provectus and several different research collaborators suggesting that Provectus’s proprietary synthetic small molecule rose bengal sodium (RBS) may interact directly with the proteins that drive ALS pathology.
Research from the Narendran Laboratory at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine (Dr. Aru Narendran, MD, PhD) provides the scientific foundation behind Provectus’s latest published patent application.
Note:
This discussion is better suited for a long-form Provectus Substack post than a press release. The patent application reflects very meaningful scientific work; however, it represents foundational research rather than a near-term corporate event. We believe Provectus shareholders benefit more from understanding scientific rationale and broader implications than from a brief announcement that, in some quarters, may be deemed “hype.”
The central problem in ALS is protein aggregation
ALS remains one of the most devastating neurological diseases: Progressive motor neuron degeneration, median survival of 2–5 years after diagnosis, and very limited disease-modifying treatments, with certainly no cure.
At the molecular level, however, ALS is not a mystery. Researchers generally agree on one of its central drivers: misfolded protein aggregates. Two proteins are especially important: TDP-43, aggregates in ~95% of ALS cases, and SOD1, aggregates linked to disease progression.
TDP-43 is an RNA-binding protein involved in gene regulation. When it misfolds, it accumulates in the cytoplasm of neurons and forms toxic aggregates. Similarly, SOD1 normally exists as a stable homodimer, but when the dimer destabilizes, monomers can assemble into oligomers and fibrils that damage neurons.
The pathological cascade looks roughly like this: monomer ? oligomer ? fibril ? neuronal dysfunction ? cell death. Interrupt this cascade and you might be able to slow the disease.
Where current ALS drugs fall short
The treatments currently approved for ALS largely target Lookout Mountain, not the root molecular pathology.
For example, riluzole reduces glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity, edaravone scavenges free radicals, and AMX0035 (now terminated) modulates mitochondrial and ER stress.
These therapies can slow disease progression slightly, often measured in months rather than years, but they do not directly stop the protein aggregation driving the disease. That’s why ALS research has been focusing on anti-aggregation strategies.
Enter RBS
Provectus and the Narendran lab asked a straightforward question: Could this molecule bind to ALS proteins and prevent them from aggregating?
To answer this question, the team conducted molecular docking and simulation studies examining how RBS interacts with TDP-43 and SOD1.
The results were intriguing.
What the modeling suggests
The Narendran Lab’s computational modeling indicate that RBS may interact with several critical regions of ALS proteins.
1. Blocking TDP-43 aggregation
RBS appears capable of binding to multiple domains of TDP-43; notably, the RRM1/RRM2 interface, involved in RNA binding, and the C-terminal domain (CTD), which drives aggregation.
Docking simulations showed that RBS binds to the RRM1/RRM2 interface with greater affinity than a known reference compound (quinacrine), suggesting stable protein–ligand interactions. The models also suggest that RBS could inhibit RNA-binding dysfunction, stabilize normal protein conformation, and interfere with aggregation in the CTD region.
2. Stabilizing SOD1
The work also suggests RBS may interact with SOD1 dimers, stabilizing the protein and preventing dissociation into aggregation-prone monomers.
Docking simulations showed strong binding to the hydrophobic groove of the SOD1 dimer interface, with calculated binding affinities stronger than several reference molecules.
If validated experimentally, this could block one of the earliest steps in the SOD1 aggregation cascade.
3. Disrupting fibril formation
Another interesting result emerges from simulations involving SOD1 oligomers. RBS appears capable of interacting with multiple strands of the oligomer structure simultaneously, potentially preventing further assembly of fibrils.
In other words, RBS might interfere with aggregation at multiple stages: monomer stability, oligomer formation, and fibril elongation.
The bigger idea
What makes this work especially interesting is that it aligns with a broader emerging concept in medicine from Provectus. Many neurodegenerative diseases share a common mechanism: protein misfolding and aggregation:
• ALS and TDP-43,
• Frontotemporal dementia and TDP-43,
• Alzheimer’s disease and amyloid-ß / tau, and
• Parkinson’s disease and a-synuclein.
If RBS can disrupt aggregation processes, it may represent a new class of disease-modifying therapies.
The road ahead
It’s important to be clear: this research is still early. The Narendran lab’s work primarily involves computational modeling (i.e., in silico research), which identifies promising interactions but does not yet prove therapeutic efficacy. The next steps could include cellular models of ALS, animal studies, and, eventually, clinical trials.
But every major drug discovery effort begins with exactly this kind of work: identifying molecules that interact with the right biological targets.
Why this patent work matters
The recently published patent application builds on these findings by proposing pharmaceutical compositions designed to inhibit TDP-43 aggregation in ALS patients. In other words, the intellectual property reflects an effort to translate these mechanistic insights into potential therapeutics.
That’s still a long road. But the logic is compelling.
If ALS is driven by toxic protein aggregation…and a molecule can stop that aggregation…then the disease process itself might be slowed or…
A quiet but important signal
Scientific breakthroughs often begin quietly. A docking study. A new molecular interaction. A patent application few people read.
But, occasionally, these signals point toward something bigger.
Whether RBS ultimately becomes a therapy for ALS remains to be shown. What the Narendran lab’s work shows, however, is that the idea is biologically plausible and that the search for aggregation-blocking therapies is accelerating.
For a disease that has long lacked effective treatments, that alone is meaningful progress.
A broader hypothesis: one molecule, many pathologies
One of the most interesting aspects of this work is how it fits into a broader hypothesis that Provectus has been developing for RBS.
Across different diseases, oncology, dermatology, ophthalmology, and now neurology, RBS appears to interact with abnormal biological structures rather than normal cellular machinery.
In other words, RBS behaves more like what might be called a pathology-targeting perturbation agent and less like a traditional receptor drug and
Consider the pattern (disease area, pathological target, Potential RBS role):
• Cancer, Lysosomal instability in tumor cells, Selective tumor cell destruction,
• Infectious disease, Microbial membranes and biofilms, Antimicrobial photodynamic activity,
• Ophthalmology (keratitis), Pathogenic microbes in the cornea, Targeted pathogen elimination, and
• Neurodegeneration (ALS), Misfolded protein aggregates, Potential inhibition of aggregation.
Each case involves abnormal biological structures that do not exist, or exist only minimally, in healthy tissue:
• Lysosomal vulnerabilities in tumor cells,
• Microbial cell walls and biofilms, or
• Aggregated misfolded proteins.
These structures create what physicists might call energetically unstable systems.
A molecule such as RBS that binds or perturb those systems can sometimes trigger disproportionate biological effects.
A common thread: aggregation biology
The ALS work highlights a particularly interesting dimension of this idea: protein aggregation. Aggregation biology is increasingly recognized as a central feature of many diseases.
In ALS alone, two proteins dominate the pathology: TDP-43, which aggregates in ~95% of cases, and SOD1, whose oligomerization and fibril formation drive toxicity The Narendran lab’s modeling suggests that rose bengal sodium can interact with both systems.
For example:
• At the TDP-43 RRM1/RRM2 interface, docking simulations show favorable binding interactions compared with known reference compounds, and
• In the SOD1 dimer interface, RBS appears to stabilize the protein and prevent dissociation into aggregation-prone monomers.
In other simulations, the molecule interacts with multiple strands of SOD1 oligomers, potentially interfering with fibril assembly itself.
RBS may disrupt aggregation at multiple stages of the cascade. This is exactly the kind of mechanism researchers have long hoped to identify in neurodegenerative disease.
A structural clue
Why might this molecule interact with aggregation-prone proteins? One clue may lie in the structure of RBS itself. The molecule contains large aromatic ring systems, halogen substitutions, and amphipathic regions capable of hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions. These features make it capable of engaging with hydrophobic grooves and exposed residues often present in misfolded proteins. Protein aggregates frequently expose hydrophobic surfaces that are normally buried in the folded structure. Those surfaces can create binding opportunities for a small molecule like RBS capable of stabilizing alternative conformations or physically blocking fibril formation. The Narendran lab’s docking results appear consistent with exactly this type of interaction.
A different model of drug discovery
Most modern drug discovery focuses on receptor targeting. Find a receptor. Design a ligand. Modulate signaling.
But diseases like ALS do not always present convenient receptors. Instead, they often involve abnormal molecular structures. Protein aggregates. Misfolded oligomers. Amyloid fibrils.
Targeting these structures may require a different approach, one that looks less like classical pharmacology and more like structural biophysics. If RBS can indeed interact with aggregation-prone proteins, it may represent a new category of therapeutics: aggregation-modifying small molecules.
A platform possibility
Seen in that light, the ALS work may represent more than a single therapeutic idea. It may hint at a broader platform concept. A single small molecule scaffold capable of interacting with multiple pathological structures across different diseases.
Cancer. Inflammatory dermatoses. Infectious disease. Neurodegeneration. Each involving abnormal biological architectures that could potentially be destabilized or blocked by the same chemical framework.
This hypothesis remains to be tested. But the emerging evidence suggests it may not be unreasonable.
A final takeaway
It is easy to dismiss early research. Docking simulations are not clinical trials. Patents, let alone patent applications, are not therapies. But sometimes the early signals reveal the shape of a new scientific idea before it becomes obvious to everyone else.
The work coming out of the Narendran Lab suggests that RBS may interact with the very molecular structures that drive ALS. If this observation proves correct, and if it can be translated into the clinic and if it can be shown to be an effective therapy, the implications could extend far beyond this one disease.
Sometimes a molecule is just a molecule.
Sometimes a molecule is something much, much more.

PVCT filed their Annual Report last year on 3/28/25 so we can expect the 2026 Annual Report to be filed soon.

Substack 1/14/26
Beyond Single Targets: How Rose Bengal Sodium Connects to Most Cancer Drug Targets
An AI-assisted analysis of potential mechanistic overlaps of Provectus’s synthetic small molecule and leading cancer drug targets
The Oncology Drug Development Paradox
Cancer drug development largely follows a single-target paradigm:
• Identify a target,
• Design a drug to block, stimulate, or do something to it, and
• Match the drug to patients whose cancer is dependent on the target.
This strategy has yielded some transformative therapies, such as PD-1/PD-L1 in immuno-oncology (Honjo/Freeman), HER2 in breast cancer (Shepard/Slamon/Ullrich), and BRAF in melanoma (Marshall/Marais).
This approach has limits. Tumors adapt, pathways compensate, and resistance emerges. What begins as a clear target or a clean molecular match often becomes a clinical disappointment when faced with the biological redundancy and plasticity of cancer. The result is an arms race:
• Patients benefit, often only a subset defined by genetics, biomarkers, or disease stage.
• Companies cumulatively invest billions, where each success requires relentless pipeline diversification to stay ahead of resistance.
• Science continues to chase cancer’s adaptability, often in a fragmented way.
Is there another way to think about cancer therapeutics, one that complements single-target precision with multi-faceted systemic effects?
Enter Rose Bengal Sodium
Provectus’s Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS) is atypical. It is not strictly a checkpoint drug, a monoclonal antibody, or a kinase inhibitor. RBS is a multi-mechanistic agent:
• Inducing immunogenic cell death (ICD) by causing oxidative stress and lysosomal collapse.
• Releasing tumor antigens in situ, enabling dendritic cells to prime T-cells.
• Destroying tumor vasculature locally at the lesion site.
• Exerting oxidative pressure on DNA and mitochondria, disrupting pro-survival signaling networks.
• Engaging the tumor microenvironment, transforming “cold tumors” into “hot tumors.”
• And more…
RBS acts less like a sniper rifle (i.e., one target) and more like a systems-level perturbation, reshaping the disease battlefield so that it alone can change the trajectory of a patient’s disease or it in combination with other therapies can help them work better.
Key Cancer Targets: Where RBS Fits
Let’s take at least 20 validated oncology targets and ask: Is RBS the same, indirectly related, similar in effect, synergistic, and/or not related at all to them?
What’s the point of this analysis? In examining the overlap between RBS’s cancer mechanisms and some leading cancer drug targets and their mechanisms, we can try to surmise RBS’s overall strengths as potentially the key ingredient in the recipe for the cure for cancer (as one Provectus-affiliated translational researcher said).
1. Directly the Same (Functional Overlap)
RBS shares mechanism-level outcomes with:
• PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4: Though not blocking the checkpoint receptors themselves, RBS induces immune activation that resembles checkpoint release. Drug example: pembrolizumab.
• VEGF/VEGFR: RBS can ablate tumor vasculature, achieving an anti-angiogenic effect. Example: bevacizumab.
Several companies have been pursuing and testing PD-1/VEGF bi-specific antibodies. Yay, two targets!
2. Indirectly the Same (Pathway Convergence)
RBS stresses cells into failure points that mimic downstream effects of targeted inhibitors:
• BRAF, MEK, and KRAS: The RAS/RAF/MAPK pathway is disrupted indirectly through oxidative signaling collapse. Example: dabrafenib.
• mTOR: RBS-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) suppresses growth and survival pathways. Example: everolimus.
• PARP: RBS creates PARP dependency, akin to PARP inhibitor effects. Example: olaparib.
3. Similar To (Comparable Outcomes via Different Mechanisms)
RBS creates phenotypic results that echo targeted therapies:
• CDK4/6: Cell cycle arrest. Example: abemaciclib.
• Aurora kinases and PLK1: Mitotic catastrophe.
• Hsp90: Destabilization of misfolded proteins, paralleling chaperone inhibition.
4. Synergistic With (Force Multiplier Potential)
This is perhaps the most important lens:
• Checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4): RBS makes tumors immunologically visible. Example: pembrolizumab.
• PARP inhibitors: Double hit on DNA repair. Example: olaparib.
• BRAF/MEK inhibitors: RBS eradicates resistant clones, preventing relapse. Example: dabrafenib.
• CD20, CD38, and SLAMF7 antibodies: RBS amplifies immune recognition, complementing B-cell/myeloma targeting. Examples: rituximab, daratumumab, elotuzumab.
• Anti-angiogenics: Combined blockade of vasculature locally (RBS) and systemically (VEGF inhibitors).
5. Not Related (No Clear Overlap…Yet)
Some validated oncology targets don’t show mechanistic overlap with or a connection to RBS, so far:
• HER2. Example: trastuzumab deruxtecan.
• ALK. Example: crizotinib.
• ROS1
• IDH2
• PDGFRa
The Tally: RBS vs. Key Targets

Bottom line: RBS appears to relate directly, indirectly, or synergistically, to most oncology targets.
The Narrative Shift: RBS as Cornerstone and Catalyst
We can cast RBS as either a primary agent capable of altering the course of disease on its own, or as a supporting enabler that amplifies the effectiveness of other drugs.
On one side, RBS shows standalone potency. In clinical settings, intralesional injection of RBS has led to complete regression of treated lesions, along with regression of untreated lesions via immune activation. For some patients, this single intervention has been enough to alter the trajectory of their disease, not just a temporary slowing, but genuine tumor clearance and durable response. We believe non-clinical (and anecdotal clinical) evidence of oral administration of RBS could be as or even more promising. This positions RBS as a potential cornerstone therapy, one with the capacity to reshape a patient’s disease course independently of other drugs.
On the other side, RBS demonstrates enabling power. By inducing immunogenic cell death, exposing tumor antigens, and creating a pro-inflammatory tumor microenvironment, RBS primes the immune system in ways that can make checkpoint inhibitors, targeted kinase therapies, PARP inhibitors, and even antibodies against B-cell and myeloma antigens more effective. In these contexts, RBS acts as a potential catalyst therapy, turning partial responses into deeper remissions, and transforming resistant disease into treatable disease.
Why This Matters for Patients
• More options, fewer limitations,
• Potential for both rapid control and systemic immune activation.
• Combinations that finally make sense for real-world tumors, and
• A therapy that adjusts to the patient, not the other way around.
Why This Matters for Investors
• RBS appears to show relevance to most oncology targets,
• Platform molecules create outsized enterprise value,
• A multi-faceted, multi-functional therapeutic approach to oncology is the future,
• RBS is a one-of-one molecule, and
• Attractive risk-reward profile.
Systems Medicine Meets Precision Medicine
The case of RBS underscores a broader principle for oncology. The field has spent decades pursuing increasingly precise, single-node interventions. These remain important, but cancer’s complexity often defeats them in isolation. The next generation of therapies may succeed not by replacing precision medicine, but by anchoring it in systems medicine: drugs that change the entire tumor-immune ecosystem.
RBS exemplifies this integration. It is precise enough to deliver lesion-specific tumor destruction, but systemic enough to trigger immune responses on its own as well as potentially synergize with checkpoint blockade, DNA repair inhibitors, angiogenesis suppressors, and other classes of drugs.
Closing Thought
RBS may be best understood as a hybrid agent:
• Powerful alone, directly destroying tumors and activating immunity, and
• Transformative in combination, making the current oncology toolbox more effective
In this dual role, RBS does not compete with other cancer targets; it touches, reinforces, and extends them.
For patients, the implications are profound. For investors, the value proposition is unusual. For oncology, RBS may represent not just another tool, but a new category.

Substack Article 12/21/25
Is Provectus’s proprietary synthetic small molecule rose bengal sodium (RBS) a 1-of-1 therapeutic molecule?
Not “best in class.” Not “first in class.” But something potentially more fundamental: a molecule whose therapeutic versatility stems from chemical properties that appear to have no pharmaceutical parallel.
By “1-of-1,” we mean a molecule whose combination of structural features, mechanistic plasticity, and biological universality may be genuinely unique in medicine.
________________________________________
Molecular Nomenclature & Manufacturing Context
In this and other Provectus Substack posts, the terms rose bengal (RB) and rose bengal sodium (RBS) are used interchangeably to refer to the same underlying molecular entity. Historically, RB was first synthesized in the late-19th century and modified in the early-20th century to its current tetra-iodinated form. While earlier Provectus nomenclature included rose bengal disodium (RBD), the World Health Organization designated RBS in 2022 as the international nonproprietary name (INN) for the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
Importantly, although old RB and modern RBS share the same molecular structure, they are manufactured very differently. Commercial-grade RB available today is often produced using legacy processes that introduce persistent impurities and instability, including the potential loss of iodine atoms during manufacturing, handling, storage, and use.
Provectus’s RBS is produced using a modern, purpose-built manufacturing process designed to avoid the formation of these impurities from the outset.
This manufacturing distinction between commodity RB and pharmaceutical-grade RBS represents Provectus’s proprietary development work and is not discussed in the Sharma review. The review does document, however, that researchers frequently encounter stability and aggregation issues with RB formulations, noting that “aggregation diminishes the production of ROS [reactive oxygen species]” and that various “nanocaging approaches” have been explored to stabilize RB particles.
Provectus’s pharmaceutical-grade manufacturing was specifically designed to address these well-documented formulation challenges, resulting in a non-aggregating, fully soluble, and clinically validated product.
________________________________________
The Case For RBS as a 1-of-1 Therapeutic Molecule
Five lines of evidence, each drawn from the Sharma review, suggest RBS may genuinely occupy a category of one:
1. Universality Across Biology Is Not Normal, but RB Exhibits It
The Sharma review documents RB activity in organisms spanning every major branch of life:
• Mammalian cancer cells,
• Bacteria (gram-positive and gram-negative),
• Fungi,
• Viruses,
• Ocular tissues,
• Neuronal systems, and
• Environmental microbes.
This is not the footprint of a typical drug molecule. This is a molecule that engages deeply conserved biochemical machinery, which predates most divergence in the tree of life.
That is the signature of genuine platform potential.
________________________________________
2. The Halogenated Xanthene Structure Is Truly Unique
RBS contains an unusually dense cluster of halogens (four iodine, four chlorine) arranged on a xanthene scaffold that enforces:
• Strong triplet-state formation,
• High singlet oxygen quantum yield,
• Highly controlled electron-transfer behavior,
• Potent protein crosslinking under stress conditions, and
• Remarkably stable redox cycling.
We believe this pattern simply doesn’t exist elsewhere in medicine. Porphyrins? Different universe. Anthracyclines? Different geometry. Phenothiazines? Not even close.
RBS is a chemical singularity.
________________________________________
3. The Mechanistic Plasticity Is Unmatched
Depending on concentration, formulation, and tissue environment, RBS can:
• Rupture lysosomes (chemoablation),
• Trigger immunogenic cell death (ICD),
• Modulate mitochondria,
• Crosslink structural proteins (tissue repair, corneal strengthening),
• Disrupt pathogens (bacterial, fungal, viral),
• Disaggregate harmful proteins (tau, amyloid-ß),
• Act as a fluorescent imaging agent, and
• Drive oxidative catalysis.
Most drugs operate through one mechanism, perhaps two. RBS operates through several distinct, each emerging naturally from its chemistry.
This is not accidental. It’s structural.
________________________________________
4. PV-10 Provides Hard Clinical Evidence
The review devotes an entire section to Provectus’s investigational cancer immunotherapy PV-10 (RBS), highlighting:
• Preferred tumor retention,
• Lysosomal targeting,
• Local cytolysis,
• Release of antigens + DAMPs, and
• Systemic immune education.
Most small molecules don’t generate in situ vaccines as part of their normal behavior. PV-10 does.
It does so because of RBS’s baked-in biophysics, not because of an engineered delivery system.
________________________________________
5. Simplicity of Formulation Is a Hidden Strength
A paradox runs through the academic RB literature: Researchers often complain about RB’s “aggregation,” “solubility,” or “quenching” issues, yet these problems arise from exotic nanocarriers or highly concentrated lab constructs.
Provectus solved these challenges 15+ years ago:
• Pure disodium salt,
• Non-aggregating,
• Fully soluble,
• Clinically validated,
• Stable, and
• Easy to manufacture.
The “hard part” of formulation is already done and done cleanly. This matters for scalability.
________________________________________
The Case Against RBS as a 1-of-1 Therapeutic Molecule
Intellectual honesty requires examining counterarguments. When evaluating promising therapeutic molecules, enthusiasm can outpace evidence. We think that a balanced pro-con analysis demonstrates intellectual honesty; we’re weighing evidence rather than cherry-picking data to support a narrative. It clarifies which applications are genuinely near-term versus which require further scientific work and validation.
Acknowledging limitations alongside strengths makes the case more compelling: our optimism is grounded in evidence to date and informed analysis, not hype.
The evidence and analysis, when assessed fairly, suggests RBS may genuinely be a unique therapeutic platform: a 1-of-1 therapeutic molecule whose century-long safety record, diverse mechanisms of action, and broad activity (in preclinical and clinical settings) create possibilities that we believe simply don’t exist with other compounds.
1. Clinical Breadth Is Narrow for the Moment
Human clinical use today includes:
• Intralesional oncology (IL PV-10),
• Topical dermatology (top. PH-10), and
• Topical ophthalmology (top. PV-305 + PDAT).
________________________________________
2. The “Platform” Claim Lacks Direct Head-to-Head Comparisons
While RBS demonstrates breadth, the review doesn’t systematically compare RBS to other broad-spectrum agents or standards of care. Without direct comparisons showing RBS outperforms established alternatives across multiple domains, the “universality” argument remains suggestive rather than definitive. The burden is on Provectus to demonstrate not just activity, but advantage, across therapeutic areas.
________________________________________
3. Academic Framing Still Constrains the Narrative
The Sharma review, like much academic work, defaults to “RB is a photosensitizer.” This narrows the conversation. It doesn’t emphasize:
• RBS’s dark activity,
• Its immunologic recalibration,
• Its systemic potential, and
• Its multi-kingdom relevance.
Much of the scientific community still sees a slice of the molecule, not the full picture.
________________________________________
4. Safety and Specificity Must Be Shown, Not Assumed
If a molecule interacts with a “universe” of pathways, some may ask:
• “Is it too broad?” or
• “Will systemic use be too active?”
Dose-dependency of RBS in each disease setting answers this; however, we believe that the historical diagnostic, Provectus’s clinical, and emerging anecdotal clinical data all point in the direction of universality.
________________________________________
What the 2026 Review Paper Really Tells Us
The most striking thing about the Sharma paper is what it does not attempt to do:
• It never tries to unify RB’s diverse activities,
• It never proposes a grand theory, and
• It never asks, “Why does this dye work across so many domains?”
The authors systematically document example after example, system after system, organism after organism, but never attempt synthesis. Universality is implied, not explained. That silence is revealing.
To drug developers, investors, and strategic thinkers, this pattern hints at something far more profound: RBS is not just a photosensitizer. It is a deeply conserved, oxidation-modulating, protein-interacting, energy-adapting molecular scaffold that life recognizes at a fundamental level.
In other words: RBS may indeed be a 1-of-1 therapeutic molecule, not because we want it to be, but because the chemistry, the biology, and decades of cross-disciplinary research consistently point in the same direction, even when researchers in completely different fields independently arrive at similar observations about its unusual properties.
________________________________________
Final Thought
Universality is rare in drug development. Most drugs carve out a narrow niche in biology, effective in one disease, one pathway, one mechanism. RBS appears different. It operates upstream at the interface of oxidation, energy transfer, and protein structure, to engage processes that govern life across biological kingdoms.
This new 2026 review doesn’t just document that universality, it normalizes it.
And that is the strongest argument, yet, that RBS isn’t merely “promising,” it may truly be 1-of-1.
The Path Forward
If RBS truly is a 1-of-1 molecule, the implications extend beyond Provectus’s current pipeline. It suggests a platform that could address multiple disease categories—oncology, dermatology, infectious disease, tissue repair, neurodegeneration, etc.—without requiring separate discovery programs for each indication.
The question isn’t whether RBS works, or shows activity, in these areas (we believe the evidence increasingly says it does), but whether Provectus can strategically develop and commercialize such an unusually broad asset. That challenge is business and regulatory, not scientific. And that’s an encouraging place to be.

Substack 12/10/25

Redox Biology: Electron Acceptance and Donation Across Disease, and Provectus’s Rose Bengal Sodium’s Continued Context-Dependent Role

Overview
One of the most important, yet least appreciated, features of human biology is that nearly every disease state can be understood through the lens of redox (reduction–oxidation) balance: the controlled movement of electrons inside living cells.
• Electron donors (reductants) provide electrons to damaged or oxidized substrates and tend to buffer oxidative stress.
• Electron acceptors (oxidants) pull electrons from biomolecules and tend to increase oxidative stress.
Disease fundamentally represents a shift in redox status. Different diseases require opposite redox interventions.
We believe the remarkable thing about Provectus’s synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS) is that it is potentially one of the very rare molecules capable of acting as either an electron acceptor or an electron donor, depending entirely on biological context, oxygenation, energy state, and the species exposed.
This duality explains the drug’s unusually broad therapeutic versatility across oncology, dermatology, ophthalmology, infectious disease, and potentially neurology, cardiology, pulmonology, and other diseases.
We don’t yet know the limits of RBS’s versatility.
________________________________________
Electron Acceptance vs. Electron Donation Across Disease
A. Cancer: You Want Electron Acceptors (Pro-Oxidants)
Most cancers operate on the edge of redox instability. They produce high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) but are unable to tolerate additional oxidative pressure. Therapeutically, electron acceptors:
• Push tumor cells past their oxidative threshold,
• Induce rapid membrane and mitochondrial collapse,
• Trigger immunogenic cell death (ICD), and
• Recruit innate and adaptive anti-tumor immunity.
________________________________________
B. Infectious Disease: You Want Electron Acceptors
Bacteria, fungi, and parasites are vulnerable to oxidative stress. Electron acceptors produce:
• Singlet oxygen,
• Radical species, and
• Cell wall and nucleic acid damage.
________________________________________
C. Neurology: You Want Electron Donors (Anti-Oxidant)
The brain is the most oxidation-sensitive organ:
• Neurons do not regenerate,
• Mitochondria are extremely active, and
• Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), etc. feature excess ROS and mitochondrial decline.
Therapeutically, electron donors:
• Buffer oxidative injury,
• Protect mitochondrial membrane potential,
• Reduce protein mis-folding and tau/amyloid toxicity, and
• Prevent microglial inflammatory activation.
________________________________________
D. Cardiology: You Want Electron Donors
Cardiomyocytes are destroyed by oxidative bursts during:
• Ischemia,
• Reperfusion,
• Heart failure,
• Myocarditis, and
• Arrhythmias.
Electron donors protect the heart by:
• Stabilizing mitochondria,
• Reducing calcium dysregulation,
• Preventing lipid peroxidation, and
• Improving energetic efficiency.
________________________________________
E. Anti-Aging: You Want Electron Donors
Aging is accelerated by:
• Chronic oxidative stress,
• Mitochondrial decline,
• Stem cell exhaustion, and
• DNA oxidation.
Electron donors support healthy aging through:
• Redox stabilization,
• Mitochondrial protection, and
• Inflammation reduction.
________________________________________
RBS: A Context-Dependent Redox Modulator
The Core Point: RBS is not simply an oxidant or an antioxidant. It is a context-dependent redox modulator.
Its behavior depends on:
• Oxygenation state,
• Presence or absence of light,
• Local metabolic activity,
• Species (tumor vs. normal cell; bacterial vs. fungal vs. neuronal; etc.), and
• Intracellular pH and substrate availability.
This adaptiveness is extremely rare, and may potentially explains why RBS shows therapeutic activity across such a wide range of species, tissues, and diseases.
________________________________________
When RBS Acts as an Electron Acceptor (Oxidant)
Primary contexts:
• Intratumoral cancer therapy (PV-10)
• Photodynamic antimicrobial therapy (RB-PDAT)
• Dermatologic malignancies
• Fungal infections
• Select bacterial infections
Mechanism:
RBS accepts electrons, transfers them to oxygen, and generates:
• Singlet oxygen,
• Superoxide, and
• Peroxide.
This leads to rapid, selective cell death.
Clinical effects:
• Tumor ablation,
• Immunogenic cell death,
• Bystander immune activation, and
• Microbial destruction.
In these contexts, electron acceptance is the therapeutic pathway.
________________________________________
When RBS Acts as an Electron Donor (Reductant)
Primary contexts:
• Ophthalmology at low, non-photodynamic doses (RBS w/o RB-PDAT)
• Dermatology in non-malignant inflammatory conditions (PH-10)
• Mitochondrial dysfunction
• Neuroinflammation and neuroprotection (theoretical, mechanistically supported)
• Cardiac oxidative injury (theoretical)
• Anti-aging biology (redox stabilization)
Mechanism:
RBS donates electrons to oxidized proteins and lipid radicals, buffering local redox stress.
Clinical effects:
• Reduced inflammation
• Protection from oxidative tissue injury
• Enhanced tissue repair
• Stabilization of mitochondrial function
• Reduction in protein misfolding and cellular stress
In these contexts, electron donation is the therapeutic pathway.
________________________________________
Strategic Takeaway for Investors
RBS is not a conventional molecule, nor are drugs made from it conventional either. It is a precision redox modulator whose therapeutic effect depends entirely on biological context.
This dual capability:
• Explains the broad range of clinical activity already observed,
• Allows oncology and infectious disease applications to leverage its pro-oxidant behavior,
• Enables ophthalmology, dermatology, neurology, cardiology, pulmonology, and anti-aging potential to leverage its antioxidant behavior,
• Positions RBS as a foundational molecule capable of addressing diseases from entirely different categories through a single biochemical principle: context-dependent redox control.
We think few, if any, molecules in medicine have this kind of versatility.
________________________________________
In Closing
The common thread across cancer, infection, neurology, cardiology, pulmonology, aging, and other diseases and disorders is redox imbalance.
We believe what makes Provectus’s synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS) unique is that it adapts to the redox environment it encounters. In tumors and pathogens, it potentially behaves as an electron acceptor and induces oxidative destruction. In normal tissues under stress, especially in the eye, skin, nervous system, or heart, it potentially behaves as an electron donor and restores balance.
This context-dependent activity is why we believe RBS has unusually broad therapeutic applicability, and why we believe RBS’s value extends far beyond any single indication.

I've been told good things are happening in the background from people in the know, but I'm afraid that there's not a lot being published at this time. Suggest signing up for Dom's Substack and he puts out some good information in that publication.  Hopes are high 2026 will be our year.

I've been in this stock for a very long time - have drifted away due to the seeming lack of anything that will >actually< push PV10 and related to the marketplace. Is there much of anything happening?

Provectus’s Proprietary Synthetic Small Molecule Rose Bengal Sodium Speaks the Language of Life Itself: Oxidation and Energy

From chloroplasts to mitochondria, this single molecule reveals the shared chemistry of living systems and the future of medicine.
A Colorful Century
Starting more than a century ago, the rose bengal (RB) molecule has been a constant companion of medical science as a multi-purpose diagnostic (but unapproved) tool, albeit one that few in the modern pharmaceutical industry have noticed. For a brief moment in the early-1900s, RB was even used to treat eye infection.
Like so many medical discoveries, RB began as a dye, an oxanthracene and triphenylmethane pigment synthesized in the 1880s to color textiles. Its vivid, complex, magenta hue made it ideal for ophthalmologists: in the 1910s, scientists started using RB to highlight damaged corneal and conjunctival cells, allowing physicians to see what the naked eye could not, where life within the eye had quietly failed. In the 1920s, researchers began to explore RB as a marker for impaired liver function, allowing doctors to diagnose even the most vulnerable like pregnant mothers and newborn babies.
By mid-century, researchers discovered that this bright, harmless-looking dye could do something extraordinary when exposed to light. RB produced singlet oxygen, a reactive form of oxygen capable of killing microbes, tumor cells, or any cell whose defenses were weak. This discovery launched research into photodynamic therapy (PDT) using RB, where light and chemistry met to destroy disease. The concept of PDT itself dates to the 1900s.
The early founders of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals first explored the ability of rose bengal sodium (RBS) – Provectus’s proprietary, pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic small molecule and active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) – to selectively destroy cancer tumors or lesions when illuminated. They saw that RBS and PDT could precisely kill diseased tissue while sparing healthy cells, a level of selectivity that hinted at deeper biology beneath the molecule’s surface chemistry.
And yet, even that was only half the truth.
Provectus’s original founders eventually showed that RBS could act as a medicine without light. RBS demonstrates potent, controllable biological activity in the dark, destroying tumors, calming inflammation, and sterilizing infection through localized redox modulation, not photodynamic activation.
The simple fact that RBS works without light poses a deeper question.
Important
In this and other Provectus Substack posts, we use RB and RBS interchangeably as descriptors, or labels, because today they’re the same molecule. When RB was first created in the 1880s, it possessed two iodine atoms. In the 1920s, RB was modified by adding two more iodine atoms (a total of 4). Provectus’s original founders referred to the molecule as rose bengal disodium (RBD), a reflection of the molecule’s two sodium atoms. In 2022, we sought an international nonproprietary name for the API, the World Health Organization (WHO). A subcommittee called the WHO Expert Advisory Panel on the International Pharmacopoeia and Pharmaceutical Preparations, which doles out these nonproprietary names, insisted that RBD be called RBS instead, irrespective of our molecular math argument (i.e., two sodium atoms).
Nineteenth century RB, with four iodine atoms, and 21st century RBS are the same molecule. They are made (synthesized; manufactured), however, very differently. Today’s RB, which is available from specialty chemical manufacturers and suppliers, is still made using the same 18th century manufacturing process that creates certain impurities. Additional, more modern purification methods to try to “scrub” RB cleaner may be used but are not wholly successful. Provectus makes RBS using a 21st century manufacturing process that avoids the production of these impurities in the first place.
RB/RBS itself is a very stable molecule in theory (i.e, the tendency to maintain its structure and to resist change like decomposition or reaction is low). In practice (i.e., manufacturing), however, RBS is much more stable than RB, which can jettison iodine atoms as radicals. This fundamental difference has significant implications beyond RB’s inability to comply with modern drug regulatory standards.
The Plant Experiment That Changed the Frame
That deeper question: What kind of molecule operates across both light and dark, in both plants and animals, with the same logic?
In 2025, a team at University College Dublin published a paper in Plant Direct¹ that may become one of the quiet milestones in RBS science by further supporting (in context) Provectus’s belief that RBS-based medicines can treat most diseases. Working with Arabidopsis thaliana, a small plant from the mustard family, the Dublin team treated plant cells with RB and observed something remarkable.
Under light, plant cells underwent programmed cell death (PCD), a regulated, calcium-dependent process that required both chloroplasts and mitochondria. It was orderly, genetic, and precise. The plant’s metabolic machinery responded to the oxidative signal the way animal cells respond to stress: by initiating a controlled shutdown designed to protect the organism.
Under darkness, however, everything changed. Without the guiding influence of the chloroplast, the plant’s master redox organelle, RB’s chemistry went unregulated. The same oxidative potential that produced calm orchestration in light now caused necrosis, a chaotic oxidative wave that ruptured membranes and destroyed cells.
At first glance, this contrast between RB’s behavior under light and dark might sound like a flaw.
In truth, it was a revelation. It showed that RB’s power was intrinsic, not dependent on light or enzyme, but modulated by the biological system that received it. In light, biology guided chemistry. In darkness, chemistry acted alone.
The molecule hadn’t changed. The context had.

Raw Chemistry, Elegant Biology
This is the essence of Provectus’s RBS: our small molecule’s chemistry is simple, even brutal, while its biology, when harnessed, is refined.
In the plant experiments, chloroplasts served as the cell’s conductor, transforming oxidative potential into a symphony of signaling and controlled death under light. In darkness, the conductor vanished and the same energy became noise: uncontrolled, destructive, uncontained.
This same pattern plays out in human medicine. But here, the conductor never leaves the stage.
In animals, mitochondria and lysosomes assume the redox-regulatory role that chloroplasts play in plants. They buffer oxidative stress, modulate calcium flux, and dictate whether a cell repairs, adapts, or dies. When RBS enters this environment, in a tumor, on a patch of inflamed skin, or for a corneal infection, it encounters a system that can interpret RBS’s signal.
That is why Provectus’s formulations of RBS as drug product candidates achieve elegance from raw chemistry:
• The drugs localize the molecule, so it acts only where redox balance is already broken.
• They dose it so that oxidation becomes signaling, not destruction.
• The drugs control the molecule, so the body responds with regeneration or immune activation rather than chaos.
The chemistry itself is primitive. The pharmacology makes it human.
The same fire that burns a field can also warm a home. The difference is containment.

From Chloroplasts to Mitochondria: The Bridge of Evolution
Why can a plant experiment teach us about a cancer drug specifically and other medicines generally?
Because chloroplasts and mitochondria share a common ancestor: ancient bacteria that learned to trade oxygen for energy. Every eukaryotic cell, plant, animal, or fungal, descends from that same evolutionary merger.
That’s why the language of redox signaling, calcium flux, and reactive oxygen is universal.
When RB triggered PCD in Arabidopsis and apoptosis in a human cancer cell, it spoke to the same underlying logic, the grammar of energy and oxidation written into the first living cells.
Most modern drugs target genetic-, receptor-, or protein-level differences.
RBS acts on energetic commonality. It’s not surprising that it works in both kingdoms of life: plant (Regnum Vegetabile) and animal (Regnum Animale).
If you really know RBS, like we do, what would be surprising is if it didn’t work in both.

Universality vs. Specificity: Why RBS Isn’t Humira or Keytruda (hint: it’s potentially far better)
To grasp how unusual this is, for a molecule to have such commonality at the core of life, it helps to contrast RBS with two of the defining drugs of our time.
Keytruda (pembrolizumab) blocks PD-1, a receptor that exists only on mammalian T-cells.
Humira (adalimumab) binds TNF-a, a cytokine unique to the mammalian immune system.
These are marvels of specificity, but also of limitation. They cannot act outside the narrow receptor networks they target, no matter how hard Big Pharma tries to market them as capable of doing more. You could pour Humira or Keytruda onto a leaf forever and nothing would happen, because the leaf has neither TNF-a to bind nor PD-1 to block.
RBS, by contrast, does not depend on a singular receptor or protein: remember, no single targets for RBS. It acts on the physics of life:
• On oxidation–reduction balance, the pulse of every cell.
• On calcium signaling, the metronome of biological decision-making.
• On organelle stress, the universal language of adaptation.
It is therefore unsurprising, not odd, that RBS behaves the same way in plant and human cells.
Antibodies speak the dialect of the immune system.
Provectus’s proprietary RBS speaks the language of life itself: oxidation and energy.

Mechanistic Implications: A Molecule of First Principles
The Plant Direct data make RBS more than a candidate drug, they make it a proof of concept for a new class of therapeutics: biophysical medicines that act through the universal principles of redox balance and energy control, not through receptor binding.
This universality brings both opportunity and obligation. It means that our drug formulation and dosing are not secondary; they are the whole art of Provectus’s current investigational and future potentially approved medicines. Too much oxidation, and you recreate the plant’s dark necrosis. Too little, and you lose the therapeutic signal.
Provectus’s RBS’s clinical science exists entirely in that middle ground: the zone where chemistry meets control, where the molecule becomes message rather than mayhem.
That is not serendipity, it is engineering. It’s what turned an 18th-century dye into a 21st-century platform medicine.

Translational Relevance from Plants to Patients
Oncology (PV-10)
In cancer, RBS’s oxidative signal initiates a controlled cell death that releases tumor antigens, activating the immune system, a process known as immunogenic cell death (ICD). The plant’s PCD is its distant evolutionary cousin ICD. Both are redox-triggered, calcium-driven, and adaptive.
Dermatology (PH-10)
In inflammatory skin disease, RBS acts not to kill but to reset, modulating the same oxidative signaling networks that, in plants, regulate stress responses and immunity.
Ophthalmology (PV-305 via RB-PDAT)
In corneal infections, RBS provides precise oxidative remodeling, enough to sterilize pathogens and induce tissue repair, but not enough to destroy host cells.
In each case, and in potential disease areas like neurology, cardiology, and pulmonology, what matters isn’t whether light is, or is not, present. What matters is whether the biological system is ready to interpret RBS’s signal.

Why This Matters for Patients and Investors
For Patients
This cross-kingdom scientific validation should inspire confidence. It confirms that Provectus’s RBS doesn’t rely on fragile receptor biology or transient genetic trends. Its mechanism is embedded in the architecture of life itself.
In principle, this means RBS can be applied wherever redox imbalance defines disease, from cancer to chronic inflammation to microbial infection to fill-in-the-blank. The universality that makes RBS scientifically elegant also makes it clinically versatile.
For Investors
Universality equals de-risking. It means RBS’s biology cannot go obsolete, because it operates on first principles. The risk shifts from whether it works to how it’s controlled. That’s where Provectus’s intellectual property of patents and trade secrets sits: formulation, confinement, and activation. Every program now, PV-10, PH-10, PV-305, and those drug product candidates to come, exists because Provectus’s leadership team learned how to shape context around a universal molecule.
Humira and Keytruda’s moats are specificity. RBS’s series of moats are trenched by universality. In medicine, universality scales.
Light revealed some of RBS’s mechanisms. Darkness reveals all of RBS’s addressable markets.

“A Molecule Older Than Medicine”
RB began as pigment, a dye. RBS now stands revealed as something more profound: a messenger between chemistry and biology, between energy and control.
In Arabidopsis, RB shows us what happens when life’s conductor is absent, when oxidation plays without restraint. In humans, RBS demonstrates what’s possible when that same energy is guided, confined, and turned toward healing.
The lesson is not that RBS will behave differently in plants and people.
The lesson is that the rules are the same. Only the orchestration changes.
Provectus’s proprietary RBS is the rarest kind of molecule, one that doesn’t need a target to matter because its target is life’s own mechanisms.
As science learns to shape those mechanisms rather than fight them, the boundary between dye and drug, chemistry and medicine, will continue to fade.
The same molecule that once colored cells and assessed tissue now colors the future of redox medicine.
RBS speaks the language of life itself: oxidation and energy.
Epilogue: From Redox Medicine to Systems-Aware Medicine
Science often names things in pieces, by what they do or where they act. In that sense, Provectus’s RBS is the basis for redox medicine: a molecule that regulates the balance of oxidation and reduction, that speaks through oxygen, electrons, and energy. It works where biology’s oldest physics have gone wrong.
But there is another way to see it. RBS doesn’t simply oxidize; it interprets. Its effect changes with context, with tissue type, metabolic state, and the system’s readiness to respond. RBS kills when a cell’s defenses are broken, calms when inflammation rages, and repairs when structure is failing.
RBS behaves as though it listens before it acts.
That makes it more than redox medicine. It makes RBS the API source of systems-aware medicine: a therapy that aligns with the organism’s internal logic instead of overriding it.
Most modern drugs are command-and-control: they block, suppress, or force a single pathway.
RBS belongs to another lineage entirely. It restores coherence. It converts chemical energy into biological intelligence.
That, perhaps, is Provectus leadership’s deepest message regarding our drug agent, it is a molecule that began as color that now illuminates how life maintains itself, through oxidation, through energy, and through awareness of the system it serves.

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Positions PV-10 as a Differentiated Alternative to Traditional Vaccine Adjuvants; University of Calgary Research Highlights Novel STING-Pathway Activation for Improving Hepatitis B Vaccine Efficacy

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) today announced the publication of independent preclinical research by Aru Narendran, MD, PhD and colleagues at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine in Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. Their paper demonstrates that PV-10, a formulation of the Company’s proprietary, pharmaceutical-grade active pharmaceutical ingredient rose bengal sodium, activates the body’s natural STING (stimulator of interferon genes) immune pathway, leading to stronger antigen presentation and more robust T-cell responses.

The article, titled “PV-10 as New Adjuvant Enhances Immune Responses in Hepatitis B Vaccination Through STING Pathway,” is available here.

This novel STING-pathway mechanism suggests that PV-10 could potentially represent a safer, more efficacious, and differentiated alternative to widely used vaccine adjuvants such as aluminum salts, emulsions, saponins, and nucleic acid–based fragments, many of which face questions around safety, reactogenicity, and long-term impact.

PV-10 as a Next-Generation Immune System Activator

Dr. Narendran and colleagues’ research showed that PV-10:

Stabilizes STING dimerization, a key step in activating the body’s innate immunity,

Upregulates pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines critical for the immune system’s adaptive responses, and

Significantly boosts IFN-gamma secretion by antigen-primed T cells.These findings point to PV-10’s potential ability to rescue immune non-responders, individuals who fail to mount protection with current vaccines, and to serve as a cleaner immune system activator across infectious disease, oncology, and pandemic preparedness applications.

Dominic Rodrigues, President and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Provectus, said “We believe this research validates PV-10 as more than a cancer drug for injectable solid tumors, it can be a platform immune enhancer. By working through the natural pathway of STING that cells already use to recognize threats to our bodies, PV-10 offers the chance to potentially strengthen immunity without relying on historical or controversial vaccine additives. For patients, that could translate into the possibility of safer, more effective protection where current options fail. For investors, that could translate into expanding into multi-billion-dollar addressable markets such as infectious disease and oncology vaccines and preparedness programs.”

Market Opportunities

The vaccine adjuvant market is projected to exceed $2 billion annually by 2030. PV-10’s differentiated safety and mechanism potentially create significant optionality for Provectus across:

Infectious disease vaccines: Global vaccine sales are expected to surpass $70 billion by 2030, with a $1 billion-plus adjuvant subset. PV-10 could offer a safer alternative for the approximately 10% of healthy individuals who fail to respond to existing vaccines such as hepatitis B.

Oncology vaccines: A market projected to be more than $10 billion by 2032, where effective immune activation is critical, PV-10’s STING-mediated activity could complement immune checkpoint inhibitors that already generate more than $40 billion annually but need stronger T-cell priming to expand durable responses.

Preparedness programs: Governmental and non-governmental organizations spend billions of dollars each year stockpiling tools to respond to and counter epidemic and pandemic threats; safer, more effective, scalable vaccine adjuvants are a high-priority unmet need.For patients, this means the potential for more reliable protection of groups often underserved by current vaccines, such as older adults, immunocompromised individuals, and those who never achieve immunity with existing formulations. For investors, it potentially further positions PV-10 at the convergence of multi-billion-dollar markets in infectious disease, oncology, and immune system health.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of immunotherapy medicines based on rose bengal sodium, a first-in-class synthetic small molecule from the halogenated xanthene family. The Company’s clinical programs span oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology, with additional proof-of-concept programs in hematology, wound healing, infectious diseases, and tissue repair.
For more information, visit https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of:

The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2024, and

Provectus’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2025.

Contacts:
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
Susan Xu
mailto://sxu@allianceadvisors.com
(778) 323-0959

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Initiates Preclinical Study of Oral PV-10 in Bladder Cancer
September 29 2025 - 8:00AM

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) today announced the start of a preclinical study of its lead investigational drug PV-10 in an orthotopic bladder cancer model. Results are expected in the first quarter of 2026. PV-10 is formulated from the Company’s pharmaceutical-grade rose bengal sodium active pharmaceutical ingredient.

Conducted by Translational Drug Development, LLC (TD2), the study will evaluate PV-10’s performance across different treatment arms, including oral and intravesical monotherapy and combination with an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor. The study is designed to generate translational data that would inform future clinical development of PV-10 for bladder cancer and support broader immuno-oncology applications of oral PV-10 for solid tumor cancers.

Alan Bryce, MD, Interim President and Chief Clinical Officer, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix said, “Our goal is to be able to translate successful mouse model data into the foundation for a corresponding clinical trial of PV-10 in bladder cancer, with the key being to have an evidence basis for dose and route of administration determinations.”

Dominic Rodrigues, President and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Provectus, said “Successful results from this preclinical research will allow us to expand PV-10’s investigational new drug application for site-specific and systemic administration. We believe oral PV-10 has the potential to be a game-changing treatment across solid tumor and hematologic cancers.”

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a pipeline of immunotherapy medicines based on rose bengal sodium, a first-in-class synthetic small molecule from the halogenated xanthene family. The Company’s clinical programs span oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology, with additional proof-of-concept programs in hematology, wound healing, infectious diseases, and tissue repair.

For more information, visit https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of:

The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2024, and

Provectus’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2025.Contacts:
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
Susan Xu
mailto://sxu@allianceadvisors.com
(778) 323-0959

is there any hope left or the constant non accomplishments going to drive us back to 2014 levels. We are almost there.

Something is coming. We going to .20 .30 .40 .50

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Announces Publication of Moffitt Cancer Center Research on PV-10 for Head and Neck Cancer

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) today announced the publication of preclinical research by Christine Chung, MD and her team (the “Chung Lab”) at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida (“Moffitt”), evaluating intratumoral PV-10 in models of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (“HNSCC”).

The study, published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, highlights novel mechanistic findings that could support future clinical development of PV-10 in locally recurrent HNSCC. The article, titled “PV-10 triggers immunogenic cell death in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma via endoplasmic reticulum stress and apoptosis,” is available here.

PV-10, Provectus’s investigational cancer immunotherapy, is formulated from the Company’s pharmaceutical-grade rose bengal sodium (“RBS”) active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”).

Dominic Rodrigues, President and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Provectus, commented, “This important, multi-year research effort funded by the Chung Lab at Moffitt adds to our understanding of PV-10’s mechanistic effects—specifically its ability to induce immunogenic cell death in HNSCC. These results align with our broad immunotherapy platform, including a planned Phase 1 trial potentially later this year of intratumoral PV-10 in pre-operative penile squamous cell carcinoma at Moffitt.”

Mr. Rodrigues added, “We’re deeply grateful to Dr. Chung and her Moffitt colleagues for their scientific rigor and dedication. Their work reflects the broader momentum building around our pharmaceutical-grade RBS platform.”

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. Provectus’s lead molecule is named Rose Bengal Sodium.

Provectus’s medical science platform includes clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology; proof-of-concept in vivo programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers; and in vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and proprietary targets.

Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of:

The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2024, and

Provectus’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2025.

Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
Susan Xu
mailto://sxu@allianceadvisors.com
(778) 323-0959

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Announces Investor Webinar for 2025 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., June 09, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) announced today that its 2025 annual stockholder meeting (the “Annual Meeting”), including shareholder meeting activities and a company update, will also be accessible by Zoom Webinar. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at the Hilton Knoxville, located at 501 West Church Avenue, Knoxville, Tenn., beginning at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

The webinar of the Annual Meeting may be accessed by registering in advance at:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NHDxe61oQDi-t84JgMylsg#/registration.

Annual Meeting materials, including the Company’s Proxy Statement, Notice of Internet Availability, and 2024 Annual Report, are available on Provectus’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com/annual-meeting/.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. Provectus’s lead molecule is named Rose Bengal Sodium.

Provectus’s medical science platform includes clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology; proof-of-concept in vivo programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers; and in vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and proprietary targets.

Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of:

The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2024, and

Provectus’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2025.Contacts:
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
Susan Xu
mailto://sxu@allianceadvisors.com
(778) 323-0959

Thanks to Atlas from the IVillage semi-private board: A phase 1 study to assess the safety, tolerability and effectiveness of PV-10
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-025-02976-9

New Substack post:

https://provectus.substack.com/p/provectus-info

VisiRose & Topical PV-305 • Oral PV-10 to treat cancer • Pre-operative Penile SCC & Intralesional PV-10 • Dermatology & Topical PH-10 • Veripure launch

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Announces Seed Financing for VisiRose, Provectus’s Spinoff Company for Rose Bengal-Based Eye Drugs

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Jan. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) today announced a $3 million seed financing round for VisiRose, Inc. (“VisiRose”), Provectus’s Founded Entity that is developing novel ocular therapeutics.

VisiRose is a newly launched, privately held, clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on initially commercializing Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy (“RB-PDAT”) for the treatment of infectious keratitis and other eye infections using Provectus’s bioactive synthetic small molecule and active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) Rose Bengal Sodium (“RBS”).

RB-PDAT, a groundbreaking, non-invasive investigational treatment for eye infections, is based on innovative ocular research from the Ophthalmic Biophysics Center at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (“BPEI”) of the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine. RB-PDAT combines a formulation of Provectus’s pharmaceutical-grade RBS API and OBC’s light-based medical device to treat eye infections caused by bacteria, fungi, and parasites, including multidrug-resistant organisms.

VisiRose’s seed financing round supports several key ongoing initiatives:

Preparing for and completing a pre-investigational new drug (“IND”) submission meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for RB-PDAT for infectious keratitis,

Preparing and submitting an IND application for investigational eye drug PV-305, and working towards the IND’s acceptance by the FDA,

Manufacturing an initial clinical supply of PV-305 for VisiRose to initiate clinical trials and undertake expanded access post-IND acceptance, and

Applying for Small Business Innovative Research grant funding to support VisiRose’s clinical development of RB-PDAT for infectious keratitis and to undertake more novel research with BPEI.Dominic Rodrigues, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and President of Provectus, who also serves as Acting Chief Executive Officer of VisiRose, said, “We are pleased that VisiRose completed this first financing round to support the advancement of its ophthalmology drug pipeline. The funding enables VisiRose to advance its lead drug candidate PV-305 through critical initial regulatory steps, ultimately moving VisiRose and Provectus closer to providing patients with innovative therapies for corneal diseases and other serious ocular conditions.”

VisiRose’s website is accessible here: https://visirose.com/.

About VisiRose

VisiRose is a newly launched, privately held, clinical-stage biotechnology company of the University of Miami and Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, focused on commercializing the Miller School of Medicine’s Bascom Palmer Eye Institute and its Ophthalmic Biophysics Center’s innovative ocular research using Provectus’s bioactive synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (“RBS”). For more information, please visit https://visirose.com.

About Bascom Palmer Eye Institute

Bascom Palmer Eye Institute serves as the Department of Ophthalmology for the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. The mission of BPEI is to enhance the quality of life by improving sight, preventing blindness, and advancing ophthalmic knowledge through compassionate patient care and innovative research. For 2024-2025, U.S. News & World Report (“U.S. News”) ranked BPEI as the nation’s best in ophthalmology, marking the 23rd time and 21st consecutive year that BPEI has received the No. 1 ranking since U.S. News began surveying American physicians for its annual “Best Hospitals” rankings 35 years ago.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of bioactive synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. The Company’s lead molecule is RBS. Provectus’s small molecule drug platform includes:

Clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology,

In vivo proof-of-concept programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers, and

In vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and several proprietary targets.Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health registry, https://ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including those described in Item 1A of Provectus’s:

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, and

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2024.

Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
mailto://hraines@pvct.com
(866) 594-5999

VisiRose, Inc.
Dominic Rodrigues
Acting Chief Executive Officer
mailto://rodrigues@visirose.com
(866) 216-7333

Investor Relations & Media
Alliance Advisors Investor Relations
Ira M. Gostin
mailto://igostin@allianceadvisors.com
(775) 391-0213

The part of this that gives me some optimism is that the Bascom Palmer institute is a recognized leader in eye care. Unlikely they would hitch their wagon to something that did not have merit. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this collaboration.

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Launches VisiRose, Provectus’s Founded Entity for Pharmaceutical-grade Rose Bengal Sodium-based Treatments in Ophthalmology

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Dec. 11, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) announced today the launch of VisiRose, Inc. (“VisiRose”), Provectus’s first Founded Entity. This new clinical-stage biotechnology company is focused on commercializing Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy (“RB PDAT”) for the treatment of infectious keratitis and other serious eye infections using Provectus’s bioactive synthetic small molecule and active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS). The University of Miami (the “University”) is a minority equity shareholder of VisiRose.

RB PDAT, a groundbreaking, non-invasive investigational treatment for eye infections, is based on innovative ocular research from the Ophthalmic Biophysics Center at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (“BPEI”) of the University’s Miller School of Medicine. RB PDAT combines a formulation of Provectus’s pharmaceutical-grade RBS API and OBC’s light-based medical device to treat eye infections caused by bacteria, fungi, and parasites, including multidrug-resistant organisms.

Dominic Rodrigues, Acting Chief Executive Officer of VisiRose, who is also President and Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Provectus, said, “RB PDAT represents a consequential solution for patients at risk of vision loss from infectious keratitis. We believe this innovative therapy combines precise infection-fighting capabilities with vision-preserving benefits, paving the way for a brighter future for those struggling with this challenging condition.”

Ed Pershing, Chairman of the Boards of Directors of VisiRose and Provectus added, “VisiRose exemplifies Provectus’s forward-thinking business model, bridging innovation and impact. Spinning off this clinical-stage, ophthalmology-focused entity enhances our ability to address unmet medical needs while unlocking value for our stockholders. By focusing on a high-growth area like eye care, we are both advancing RB PDAT and maximizing the intrinsic value of RBS and, ultimately, Provectus’s market position.”

A copy of VisiRose’s press release from December 10, 2024 of its launch may be found here: https://www.accesswire.com/952319/visirose-introduces-revolutionary-therapy-for-severe-eye-infections.

VisiRose’s website is accessible here: https://visirose.com/.

About VisiRose

VisiRose is a newly launched clinical-stage biotechnology company of the University of Miami and Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, focused on commercializing the Miller School of Medicine’s Bascom Palmer Eye Institute and its Ophthalmic Biophysics Center’s innovative ocular research using Provectus’s bioactive synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (“RBS”). For more information, please visit https://visirose.com.

About Bascom Palmer Eye Institute

Bascom Palmer Eye Institute serves as the Department of Ophthalmology for the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. The mission of BPEI is to enhance the quality of life by improving sight, preventing blindness, and advancing ophthalmic knowledge through compassionate patient care and innovative research. For 2024-2025, U.S. News & World Report (“U.S. News”) ranked BPEI as the nation’s best in ophthalmology, marking the 23rd time and 21st consecutive year that BPEI has received the No. 1 ranking since U.S. News began surveying American physicians for its annual “Best Hospitals” rankings 35 years ago.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of bioactive synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. The Company’s lead molecule is RBS. Provectus’s small molecule drug platform includes:

Clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology,

In vivo proof-of-concept programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers, and

In vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and several proprietary targets.Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including those described in Item 1A of Provectus’s:

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, and

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2024.Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
mailto://hraines@pvct.com
(866) 594-5999

VisiRose, Inc.
Dominic Rodrigues
Acting Chief Executive Officer
mailto://rodrigues@visirose.com
(866) 216-7333

Investor Relations & Media
Provectus: Alliance Advisors Investor Relations
Alyssa Barry
mailto://alyssa@irlabs.ca
(833) 947-5227

NEWS -- VisiRose Introduces Revolutionary Therapy for Severe Eye Infections

Collaboration between Bascom Palmer Eye Institute and Provectus Biopharmaceuticals

KNOXVILLE, TN / ACCESSWIRE / December 10, 2024 / VisiRose, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, is introducing Rose Bengal Photodynamic Antimicrobial Therapy (RB PDAT), a groundbreaking, non-invasive investigational treatment for infectious keratitis and other serious eye infections developed by the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine's Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (BPEI). VisiRose, a newly launched company of Provectus Biopharmaceuticals (OTCQB:PVCT) and the University, is focused on commercializing this innovative ocular research by combining a formulation of Provectus's pharmaceutical-grade bioactive synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS) and BPEI's light-based medical device to treat eye infections caused by bacteria, fungi, and parasites.

RB PDAT offers a potential solution to the growing global problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), providing a broad-spectrum ocular therapy that may be safe, effective, and cost-efficient. The treatment has shown rapid infection resolution and improved patient outcomes in clinical trials across the U.S., India, Brazil, and Mexico.

"RB PDAT is a revolutionary, non-invasive treatment showing remarkable promise for patients with severe infectious keratitis. This innovative therapy harnesses the power of light to combat infection and offers new hope for preserving vision," said Jean-Marie Parel, IngETS-G, Ph.D., FAIMBE, FARVO, Director and co-founder of the Ophthalmic Biophysics Center at BPEI.

Guillermo Amescua, M.D., Professor of Clinical Ophthalmology, Medical Director of the Ocular Microbiology Laboratory, and a board-certified ophthalmologist at BPEI added, "VisiRose is crucial for translating the innovation of RB PDAT from the laboratory to a widely accessible treatment, ultimately benefiting countless patients worldwide."

"VisiRose is the bridge that connects innovation with impact. It enables us to bring the hope of RB PDAT to patients who desperately need it, transforming lives and shaping the future of eye care," said Ed Pershing, Chairman of the Board of Directors of VisiRose and Provectus.

Dominic Rodrigues, Acting CEO of VisiRose added, "RB PDAT offers a beacon of hope for patients facing the threat of vision loss from infectious keratitis. This innovative therapy, with its targeted action and dual benefits, represents a significant advancement in eye care, paving the way for a brighter future for those struggling with this challenging condition."

In more than 500 patients, RB PDAT has shown promising results in treating severe eye infections where traditional therapies have failed. VisiRose is poised to address a significant gap in the $60 billion global ophthalmic market, focusing on regions and populations impacted by rising AMR and the lack of access to effective treatments.

About VisiRose

VisiRose is a newly launched, clinical-stage biotechnology company of the University of Miami and Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, focused on commercializing the Miller School of Medicine's Bascom Palmer Eye Institute and its Ophthalmic Biophysics Center's innovative ocular research using Provectus's bioactive synthetic small molecule Rose Bengal Sodium (RBS). For more information, please visit: https://visirose.com.

About Bascom Palmer Eye Institute

The Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, part of the University of Miami Health System, is consistently ranked #1 in ophthalmology in the U.S. by U.S. News & World Report. Known for its cutting-edge research and clinical excellence, Bascom Palmer provides world-class care across all ophthalmic subspecialties and is at the forefront of developing innovative treatments for eye diseases. With a commitment to advancing both patient care and medical research, it is recognized globally as a leader in ophthalmology. For more information, please visit: https://umiamihealth.org/en/bascom-palmer-eye-institute.

About Provectus Biopharmaceuticals

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals (OTCQB: PVCT) is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of bioactive synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. The Company's lead molecule is named Rose Bengal Sodium.

Provectus's drug platform includes:

Clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology,

In vivo proof-of-concept programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers, and

In vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and several proprietary targets.Information about the Company's clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. For more information, please visit: https://www.provectusbio.com.

For Media Inquiries:
VisiRose, Inc.
E: mailto://contact@visirose.com
W: https://visirose.com

Contact:
VisiRose, Inc.
Dominic Rodrigues
Acting Chief Executive Officer
E: mailto://rodrigues@visirose.com

SOURCE: VisiRose

View the original press release on accesswire.com

So previous attempts at treating infectious keratitis using steroids and topical solutions have not netted favorable results. UV light and riboflavin actually worsened pain, increased corneal scarring, and had no impact on microbiologic cure rate per the article. If Provectus pulls this off in the NIH REAGIR study, it would be huge for the company and patient population. I did not realize that the wait on "Eye Company" news was due to readouts of this trial, thought the clinical demonstration of proof of treatment was already concluded. Was hoping we had an operational company and revenue stream in 2025, looks like that may be optimistic.

"All Eyes on Bascom Palmer"

Substack Link Here

"So, in regards to Provectus and its prospective clinical-stage ophthalmology start-up spinout, “EyeCo,” the ophthalmology community awaits the results of the NIH NEI-funded REAGIR study, a double-masked, sham-controlled trial of RB PDT for the treatment of fungal and acanthameoba keratitis7. REAGIR is the acronum for the Rose Bengal Electromagnetic Activation with Green Light for Infection Reduction (REAGIR) study (NCT05110001)."

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Announces Investor Webinar for Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 24, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) announced today that its Fourth Quarter 2024 Investor Update will be accessible by Zoom Webinar. The conference call will be held on Thursday, November 14, 2024 starting at 2 p.m. EST.

The Fourth Quarter 2024 Investor Update webinar may be accessed by registering in advance here:

https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_u628Om3GTyCrclcuZckXNg?_ga=2.250060678.1412167732.1728519054-492896892.1650903731#/registration.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of bioactive synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. The Company’s lead molecule is named Rose Bengal Sodium. Provectus’s small molecule drug platform includes:

Clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology,In vivo proof-of-concept programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers, andIn vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and several proprietary targets.Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of Provectus’s:

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, and

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2024.

Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
mailto://hraines@pvct.com
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
IR Labs Inc. (irlabs) (now Alliance Advisors Investor Relations)
Alyssa Barry
mailto://alyssa@irlabs.ca
(833) 947-5227

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Announces Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., Oct. 10, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) announced today that it will host a conference call on Thursday, November 14, 2024 starting at 2 p.m. EST to provide Company updates.

Conference call details will be provided closer to the date of the event.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of bioactive synthetic small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. The Company’s lead molecule is named Rose Bengal Sodium. Provectus’s small molecule drug platform includes:

Clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmologyIn vivo proof-of-concept programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers, andIn vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and several proprietary targets.Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including those described in Item 1A of Provectus’s:

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, andQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2024.Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
mailto://hraines@pvct.com
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
IR Labs Inc. (irlabs)
Alyssa Barry
mailto://alyssa@irlabs.ca
(833) 947-5227

so, any thoughts on the Summit Therapeutics drug trial results? Showing better results than Keytruda? Maybe an opportunity to use PV-10 to help boost Keytruda results when used in combo?

Are they good?

Phase 1 results.

From today’s PR

Third Quarter 2024 Conference Call Plans (September)

Provectus plans to hold a third quarter 2024 conference call, with a Q&A portion, by or before the end of September.

Excellent review! I was disappointed on the timelines, but I think solid progress is being made. I was at the meeting and I think you’re right. The meeting was well received although there is frustration that we’re not moving quicker.

Any thoughts on the annual meeting would be appreciated; including posts from the other boards.

I listened online and thought the overall presentation portion after the formal meeting was good, both Ed and Dom are certainly unique and highly competent investor/officers of the company. Dominic stated the number #1 priority of the company remains the pancreatic/uveal focus though all other clinical applications from other areas were a close number #2; said the company was able to work on multiple fronts without losing sight of overall goal. Wanted the company to clearly become the "expert" resource of all PV10 matters/requests/inquiries. Said progress delay in prior years actually proved to be well spent time as mechanics and capabilities of the molecule are now so much better understood. He was hesitant to give future dates on when initial patients will be dosed in the upcoming trial as he did not want to set false expectations. Made several statements or comments on the need for speed but must be tempered since making uniformed decisions would likely lead to poor outcomes from rushing ahead; something the company can ill afford. Sounds to me they are hearing the shareholders request for progress loud and clear, and have Dominic's support and understanding, but hurdles and unforeseen obstacles are nonetheless in place that make forecasting end dates irresponsible.

Both Dominic and Ed were disappointed about the lack of funding options/pharmaceutical interest available to them at this time, would consider international funding if the right option presented itself. A remark from the audience afterwards even questioned how serious Big Pharma investment would even be for backing a disease "cure" as they were so dependent on selling their maintenance cocktails. Ed believes differently and stated there are good people at these companies and that hopefully the new focus on communications will have a positive impact. Both mentioned a responsibility to the long supporting shareholders so dilution from second tier financing resources fortunately does not seem to a concern. As many of long time shareholders have heard in the past, funding continues to be an ongoing issue. The reverse split is available if needed or would be helpful for the long term growth of the company. They want it as an option on hand but do not have specific plans when/if to use it; NASDAQ listing could eventually be a reason but they are a ways off from accomplishing that.

The Eye company comments were interesting, even though it seems like we are a ways away from having a company established. Awaiting on outcome results from India even though the rose bengal being used is not pharmaceutical grade from PVCT. Then the cost of starting the company will need to be determined. Getting FDA approval for the new company will actually benefit PVCT as the FDA also focuses on clinical grade and the manufacturing environment for approval, and we have the patents in place for our benefit. Additional comments were made on wound healing, canine cancer, anti-infection properties and other such opportunities; all in various stages of initial development.

Dominic listed a multitude of successful achievements in the prior year but it went by to quickly, I will have to view them once posted.

Though I thought the meeting was well received, I can see how some long term shareholders would get frustrated as this was all a bit generic and no time frames were committed to. At the same time, Ed and Dom said they could not be more optimistic, sounds like the industry is starting to take some notice as well. There is no doubt of Ed & Dom's commitment to this company. I will be holding and adding on larger dips in the upcoming year, I think the potential of the molecule warrants that. Hopefully a revenue stream can be forecast at next year's meeting, the company desperately needs an ongoing cash inflow. I remain optimistic but will be back in 'wait and see' mode.

NEWS -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Announces Investor Webinar for 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

KNOXVILLE, Tenn., June 13, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Provectus” or the “Company”) (OTCQB: PVCT) announced today that its 2024 annual stockholder meeting (the “2024 Annual Meeting”), including meeting activities and a company update, will be accessible by Zoom Webinar. The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 20, 2024 at the Hilton Knoxville, located at 501 West Church Avenue, Knoxville, Tenn., beginning at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

The 2024 Annual Meeting webinar may be accessed by registering in advance here:
https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_KZTlQulrRCOZ2qQI4C23mQ#/registration.

The webinar is being made available only for informational purposes. The 2024 Annual Meeting is being held in person, and accessing the webinar will neither count as attendance for purposes of meeting quorum requirements nor enable a stockholder to vote. Provectus’s stockholders of record at the close of business on April 24, 2024, the record date for the 2024 Annual Meeting, may vote at the meeting by attending in person or following the instructions in the Company’s proxy materials.

Availability of Proxy Materials

In connection with the 2024 Annual Meeting, Provectus has filed a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on May 6, 2024, which may be found here:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315545/000149315224017882/formdef14a.htm.

The Company mailed a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice”) to its stockholders on or about May 10, 2024. These materials, along with Provectus’s 2023 Annual Report, are available on the Company’s website and may be found here: https://www.provectusbio.com/annual-meeting/.

About Provectus

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing immunotherapy medicines for different diseases that are based on a class of synthetic bioactive small molecules called halogenated xanthenes. The Company’s lead HX molecule is named Rose Bengal Sodium.

Provectus’s medical science platform includes clinical development programs in oncology, dermatology, and ophthalmology; proof-of-concept in vivo programs in oncology, hematology, full-thickness cutaneous wound healing, and canine cancers; and in vitro discovery programs in infectious diseases, tissue regeneration and repair, and proprietary targets.

Information about the Company’s clinical trials can be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. For additional information about Provectus, please visit the Company’s website at https://www.provectusbio.com.

Forward Looking Statements

The information in this press release may include “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, relating to the business of Provectus and its affiliates, which are based on currently available information and current assumptions, expectations, and projections about future events and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as “aim,” “likely,” “outlook,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “budget,” “plan,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “project,” “projection,” “predict,” “potential,” “targeting,” “intend,” “can,” “could,” “might,” “should,” “believe,” and similar words suggesting future outcomes or statements regarding an outlook.

The safety and efficacy of the agents and/or uses under investigation have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated or that such agents as products will achieve any particular revenue levels.

Due to the risks, uncertainties, and assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements, readers should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date hereof or as of the date specifically specified herein, and Provectus undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. The forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.

Risks, uncertainties, and assumptions include those discussed in the Company’s filings with the SEC, including those described in Item 1A of:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2023, and

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2024.

Additional Information and Where to Find It

This communication may be deemed to be solicitation material in connection with the proposals to be submitted to the Company’s stockholders at its 2024 Annual Meeting. STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ CAREFULLY AND, IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE DEFINITIVE PROXY STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SEC AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS, BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE COMPANY AND THE 2024 ANNUAL MEETING PROPOSALS. A Notice with instructions for accessing the definitive proxy statement, 2023 Annual Report, and proxy card was mailed on or about May 10, 2024 to stockholders as of the record date of April 24, 2024. Stockholders may obtain free copies of Provectus’s definitive proxy statement and its other SEC filings electronically by accessing the SEC’s home page at http://www.sec.gov. Copies can also be obtained, free of charge, upon written request to Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Attn: Secretary, 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1610, Knoxville, Tennessee 37929, (866) 594-5999. Copies can also be obtained electronically from the Company’s Annual Meeting webpage, https://www.provectusbio.com/annual-meeting/.

Participants in Solicitation

The Company and its directors, executive officers, and advisors may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the holders of Provectus’s Common Stock, Series D Convertible Preferred Stock, and Series D-1 Convertible Preferred Stock in respect of the 2024 Annual Meeting proposals.

Investors may obtain additional information regarding the interest of those participants by reading the Company’s definitive proxy statement and other relevant proxy materials, and Provectus’s annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, as filed with the SEC.

Contacts:

Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
Heather Raines, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
(866) 594-5999

Investor Relations & Media
IR Labs Inc. (irlabs)
Alyssa Barry
mailto://alyssa@irlabs.ca
(833) 947-5227

thx Trimble ... I've not yet re-joined IVillage.

here's a post I put up a few hours ago on the IVillage PVCT semi-private and Group Boards, reconstituted here if you don't have access to those boards:

Block trading today
Interesting consecutive block trading this morning between 9:52:11 and 9:53:16 ET, 245,000 then 250,000 then 476,923 then 143,100 then 250,000 shares traded, all at $.19, a total of 1,365,023 shares out of a day total of 1,883,184 shares traded. That left 518,161 shares traded the rest of the day, which would be a fairly heavy day of trading for PVCT outside of the fact that there were 66,000 shares traded pre-market at $.165, $.1711 and $.1721, and then 105,000 shares traded within 1 second after the opening at $.165 and then another 80,000 shares traded at 9:48:22 at $.1899. Throw in a 50,000 share trade at 10:32:16 for $$.196 and then 2 31,322 share trades at $.1901 and $.1902, and you have a grand total of 1,598,667 shares block traded out of that total of 1,883,184 total shares traded.

That left 284,517 shares traded in smaller lots, a more usual pattern for PVCT.

Is someone saying something to us, with this unusual activity?

It happened early today, so somebody definitely took a position.

Interesting pop on volume today. Maybe somebody out there likes what they see. Only $342k transacted or so, but a bit more than lunch money.

Down 3 cents earlier this morning on no news. Just wanted to check in again before lunch, and it is back to almost flat. I understand the need for the MM to have some latitude on price, to make a market, but this is getting ridiculous. Take the price higher for a change.

totally agree... the minute there is some monetization of PV 10 , this stock will be a gold mine

Interesting approach for directed radiation. I like your thought about a possible application for PV-10. Hopefully a clinician can weigh in on the merits. PV-10 seeking out solid tumors throughout the body seems like a potential candidate if it can somehow carry the targeting particle.

Looking forward to the start of an ocular revenue stream next year. This company finally starting to inch forward. Great potential.

take a look at this article - https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/23/this-up-and-coming-cancer-treatment-could-be-a-25-billion-market-opportunity.html Tell me PV-10 isnt in this potential category?