NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[KMBJN]

NNVC's challenge is technical.

Agreed. Technical challenge of large scale production is a hurdle that can and will likely be overcome, even if it isn't clear when.

Meanwhile, I think this opinion is completely wrong:

BLP is based on fake-science. It can never work unless Randy Mills is able to rewrite the laws of physics. Probability of that is zero.

The "laws of physics" as currently promoted by mainstream physicists are obviously wrong, IMO. Here's one latest example:

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-cooled-an-object-beyond-the-icy-limits-of-physics

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-physicists-cool-microscopic-quantum-limit.html

How could they cool an object down to below the theoretical "quantum limit?" You mean they broke the "laws of physics?"

Mills says "So much for zero order vibration-disproves the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Also, invalidates the method of quantum mechanical calculation of molecular bond energies."

Speaking of this modeling of molecules and bond energies based on QM, Mills' molecular modeling software is much more accurate, and based on first principles. Here is a summary from the patent:

The present invention, an exemplary embodiment of which is also referred to as Millsian software and systems, stems from a new fundamental insight into the nature of the atom. Applicant's theory of Classical Physics (CP) reveals the nature of atoms and molecules using classical physical laws for the first time. As discussed above, traditional quantum mechanics can solve neither multi-electron atoms nor molecules exactly. By contrast, CP analytical solutions containing physical constants only for even the most complex atoms and molecules.

The present invention is the first and only molecular modeling program ever built on the CP framework. All the major functional groups that make up most organic molecules and the most common classes of molecules have been solved exactly in closed-form solutions with CP. By using these functional groups as building blocks, or independent units, a potentially infinite number of organic molecules can be solved. As a result, the present invention can be used to visualize the exact 3D structure and calculate the heats of formation of an infinite number of molecules, and these solutions can be used in modeling applications.

For the first time, the significant building-block molecules of chemistry have been successfully solved using classical physical laws in exact closed-form equations having fundamental constants only. The major functional groups have been solved from which molecules of infinite length can be solved almost instantly with a computer program. The predictions are accurate within experimental error for over 800 exemplary molecules, typically significantly more accuracy then those given by the current Hartree-Fock algorithm based on QM [2].

The present invention's advantages over other models includes: Rendering true molecular structures; Providing precisely all characteristics, spatial and temporal charge distributions and energies of every electron in every bond, and of every bonding atom; Facilitating the identification of biologically active sites in drugs; and Facilitating drug design.

An objective of the present invention is to solve the charge (mass) and current-density functions of specific groups of molecules and molecular ions disclosed herein or any portion of these species from first principles. In an embodiment, the solution for the molecules and molecular ions, or any portion of these species is derived from Maxwell's equations invoking the constraint that the bound electron before excitation does not radiate even though it undergoes acceleration.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/9563746.html

Which is the better theory - the one that can explain nature (Mills) accurately, or the one that you say is 100% correct which cannot?

Which one is the "fake science" - the one that postulates that an electron has no volume and exists everywhere at once, and that allows "spooky action at a distance," or one based in the real world that matches our common experience and is based on laws of physics derived from real world observations?

Mills simply took Maxwell's equations and solved the electron with the appropriate constraint - that the accelerating electron does not radiate. He didn't break any laws, but rather applied the correct constraint to solve the true nature of the bound electron. He relied on common sense instead of theoretical mathematics that has no basis of reality in the world we all experience.

You and everyone are free to believe whatever they wish. To say that the current/mainstream "laws of physics" can't be broken is 100% wrong. You assign 100% probability that the "laws of physics" proposed by modern QM are correct? That is incredibly naive position to take, IMO. There is enormous amount of evidence showing that the mainstream / modern QM theories are wrong and incomplete. All you have to do is look with an open mind and see.