Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Just curious...
Is anyone on this board still holding this stock?
2 clams!
I remember when Rawnoc made that notorious prediction, before the 1 to 20 reverse split. Bulls hated him, because he kept being right. That 2 clams would be $40 now.
Stock holders should keep this in mind -- no matter how many reverse splits NNVC does, 2 clams is always in your future.
I see Seymour got a new hat.
Remember -- that faster you lose faith in this stock the less money you'll lose.
Allowing for the latest reverse split, I sold out when this stock was almost 10 times higher than it is now. And I still lost a lot of money.
Well, maybe with a 9 to 1 reverse split.
Truer words were never spoken. I was once bullish but skeptical. Now I'm a true believer -- that nothing but losses will ever happen to NNVC investors.
Lol! NNVC is approaching 2 clams again, after a big reverse split.
I lost a lot of money on this stock, I'm just happy I got out before losing even more money.
This is laughable too:
For NV-COV-2:
Re: share price - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[CATCHES BREATH]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Ta!
Guess so. Schwab shows B/A numbers (albeit tiny ones).
Looks like it is just an iHub glitch. Things look normal trading wise through etrade.
No bid or ask. That's weird, right?
There were only those two reverse splits.
And if you add in the 1-20 reverse split and the 1-3.5 reverse split, this thing is a 3 penny stock.
Were there only these 2 reverse splits or more?
NEWS -- NanoViricides approaching new ALL TIME LOW
The market cap of this POS scam is still overpriced by 20X.
2,500
15,000
31,000
One finger out, three back.
And still nobody can predict the future.
Nevertheless, pondering this question is a rich and fulfilling way to spend one's life.
"Will NNVC ever put one of their nanoviricides into humans?"
It was a good question a decade ago and it's still a good question....except that you have 10 years less to wonder about the answer.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64937699
Nanoviricides: sound concept, horrible execution.
Here once again, non-related scientists take the concept of nanomolecules (in this case natural exosomes) with viral ligand on them (in this case, ACE2, same as NV-CoV-2) and use them to treat viral disease in animal models.
Exosomes are definitely safe (all cells produce them naturally).
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-nano-sized-vesicles-ace2-receptor-infection.html
These natural ACE2 exosomes, like NV-CoV-2, are broad-spectrum, i.e. effective against multiple CoV strains in mice:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27893-2
I don't know if I'm scientifically literate enough to answer the question or not, but I can give my impressions.
To answer your question,
I see that the medium and high NV-CoV-2 dosage was 160 and 320 mg/kg, while the RDV was 10mg/kg.
The concentration was 1mg/ml for RDV and 16/32 mg/ml for NV-CoV-2 med and high respectively.
I also see total dosage of NV-CoV-2 almost 9x and 18x higher than RDV alone.
If the RDV concentration and dosages in the NV-CoV-2 injections was higher than RDV only injections, couldn't that be the determining factor in the survival? More RDV is the cause for the increased survival?
I am not scientifically literate enough to understand if the concentrations are as I believe this chart indicates:
Perhaps you know?
yes, that is why I mentioned him.
Great question. It's clear there is a problem, that there must be some reason why they haven't even gotten into trials yet. I simply find it hard to believe those who say that multiple scientists are faking all the data they have shown, that the nanoviricides don't do anything at all to treat viral disease - when it's clear from the data presented that they work in some animal models. What is your opinion on the matter? Do the nanoviricides work in animal and other models of viral disease? If so, why no human trials?
The data presented make it hard to believe the "it's all a scientific fraud, since the nanoviricides don't work at all in cells or animals" explanation given here by some. The hardest part of that explanation is the apparent belief that dozens of people are in on the alleged fraud/scam.
Some reasons given here are:
(1) They don't work.
(2) They aren't safe.
(3) They can't be made reproducibly or cost effectively.
(4) Diwan is afraid to even try, since they might fail, and then the gravy train is gone.
(5) The entire thing is a fraud from the beginning.
I tend to lean towards 3 or 4, versus 5 or 1 espoused here by many.
I haven't seen any good evidence to support views 1, 2, or 5.
"Or is this all a fraud, including these 3 papers?"
At the risk of stating the obvious the Company is a couple decades into the drug development process (over 15 as a public Company) and has yet to bring a product to market.
That may not describe fraud but it does describe failure.
How long does this Company get to hold out hope for success without accomplishing it before the term "fraud" applies?
I was speaking more about the third article in the series:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.24.469813v1.full
All the authors are properly listed with their affiliations at Nanoviricides and AlLExcel:
"The procedures for in vivo experiments were done by Dr. Krishna Menon from AR Biosystems, (17633 Gunn Highway, Odessa, FL 33556), based on the protocol #IACUC No. 14/17ARB."
As you know KM was once the Chief Regulatory Officer for NNVC.
From a 2005 Form 10 filing:
"All but the antibody-based anti-influenza nanoviricides have been recently tested in mice in an aggressive study involving extremely high levels of infection with a common influenza strain called H1N1. This study was conducted by Dr. Krishna Menon, the Company’s Chief Regulatory Officer. While a final comprehensive report on this study has not yet been issued, the results indicate that most of the nanoviricide nanotechnology-based drug candidates were more efficacious than oseltamivir (Tamiflu(tm)). Initial unpublished data suggest that FluCide-I may be as much as 10 times (1,000%) superior to Tamiflu in common influenza. "
The authors are employees of AllExcel, yet they fail to report that in the conflict of interest statement in the publications.
The research was done by Dr. Krishna Menon. Also not reported as a conflict of interest.
The conclusion of these reports:
For all doses, NV-CoV-2 was detected in Rat plasma producing an initial increase that peaked between 4-8 hours. The results show that Plasma concentrations decreased to below detection level between 24 to 48 hrs.
Meaning the NNVC polymer was detectable after injection and then after 24-48 hours it was not. Unless they meant to say NV-CoV-2 R in their conclusion, there is no conclusion about the presence of Remdesivir. It wasn't present and it wasn't increased.
If the only conclusion is that the polymer is at detected at increased levels after injecting it into rats, that would fall under the medical term: Duh!
Interesting manuscripts.
Do you still maintain that the authors are all being fraudulent in their description of the experiments they did in rats showing the nanoviricides protected rats from death by coronavirus, or more accurately extended their lives?
Granted, this isn't final peer-reviewed publication, and the writing isn't stellar:
Yes, with a 6:1 reverse split.
Does anybody on this board think this stock can reach 18$ again?
The only difference between an NNVC bull and bear is time.
Really?!?!?!?
Yah think?
That's some very out-of-the-box thinkin' there!
The fact that they have had a bunch of years to finish their anti-herpes, anti-flu, and anti-dengue compounds,... And have not done so,
Suggests that's their working MO.
Funny and excellent point. Perhaps they feel that, should they take an individual variant approach, the competition might address the second half of the variants before NNVC has the chance to scam their way through the first half.
Ipso fatso, they're gonna do one big drawn out ScamFest and avoid a series of individual failures.
They're just preprints. Bedtime stories for scientists.
Interesting stuff.
It looks like they've recently loaded up a total of three manuscripts to bioRxiv: https://www.biorxiv.org/search/%2522anil%252Bdiwan%2522
There are plenty of predatory journals around in which one can just publish manuscripts for a fee without any meaningful peer review.
"NanoViricides, Inc. (NYSE American: NNVC) (the "Company"), a leader in the development of highly effective antiviral therapies based on a novel nanomedicines technology, reported today on the significant advantages gained by remdesivir encapsulation within its lead COVID-19 candidate NV-CoV-2 thereby resulting in the dual-acting drug candidate NV-CoV-2-R with the promise of a potential pan-coronavirus cure."
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/significantly-improved-safety-profile-and-metabolism-of-remdesivir-observed-due-to-encapsulation-in-nanoviricides-drug-candidate-enabling-potential-highly-effective-pan-coronavirus-antiviral-drug-301382343.html
That was two months ago.
"In brief, our platform technology based NV-387-encapsulated-RDV (NV-CoV-2-R) drug has a dual effect on coronaviruses. First, NV-CoV-2 itself as an antiviral regimen. Secondly, RDV is protected from plasma-mediated degradation in transit, rendering altogether the safest and an efficient regimen against COVID-19."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.24.469813v1.full (note...preprint, not peer reviewed)
That was dated 11/26. (see Note)
"Among nonhospitalized patients who were at high risk for Covid-19 progression, a 3-day course of remdesivir had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in an 87% lower risk of hospitalization or death than placebo."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116846
That was last week.
Note:
One of the authors of the Preprint is listed as Jayant Tatake, who is referenced in the latest NNVC 10-K:
" On March 3, 2010, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Dr. Jayant Tatake to serve as Vice President of Research and Development. The employment agreement provides for a term of four years with a base salary of $150,000. In addition, the Company issued 1,340 shares of Series A preferred stock and 1,786 shares of common stock upon entering into the agreement, and will issue an additional 1,340 shares of Series A preferred stock and 1,786 shares of common stock on each anniversary date of the agreement. The shares of Series A preferred stock were issued in recognition of Dr. Tatake’s work towards the achievement of several patents by the Company."
Something changed at some point (when?) because the pre-print and JT's Linkedin listing describe him as "VP, R&D at AllExcel, Inc.,"
Ultimately, who pays him?
Al of the pre-print authors are employees of either Nanoviricides or Allexcel:
Are they going to mold them like little coronavirus particles? Or maybe like little PacMen?
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1379006/000110465921143985/tm2134013d1_8k.htm
As confusing as ever. What does this mean?
"Of the 11,515,170 shares of the Company’s common stock and 481,694 shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred Shares”) entitled to vote at the Meeting, an aggregate of 60.7% of the Registrant’s securities entitled to vote were present in person or by proxy, representing a majority of the Company’s outstanding voting capital stock."
60.7% of what, exactly? It says "of the Registrant’s securities", but it would be foolish to think that that meant 60.7% of the common and 60.7% of the Preferred. It would be even more foolish to think that it meant 60.7% of the total common and Preferred shares....they can't be added together.
Does it meant that 60.7% of the total potential votes to be cast were represented in person or by proxy? That's not what it says but it's the only thing that makes sense.
The total potential votes were 11,515,170 + (481,694 x 9) or 15,850,416 votes.
Looking at the results versus the potential votes, as confusing as it may be, one thing is abundantly clear....NNVC shareholders don't care enough about their Company to vote on its most important issues.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |