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.
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.
No. There is no risk of being short Nanoviricides. There are other reasons to not be short however, such as the high leverage hit one has to take to maintain a short position. If the stock somehow made it to $2.00 per share I would sit there with a million share offer. Until then, I think the price dynamics of sub $2 stocks in the current environment is not appropriate for a short seller, no matter how clear the fraud is (as is the case with NNVC).
i've been doing it over many days.
Yep, you're right. It's a scam. I'm covering several hundred thousand shares. That's why it's rising. No mas for me. Have much bigger fish to fry.
I'm covering a bit now, causing the uptrend. I believe the market is not valuing sub-$5 cult stocks appropriately if that makes sense. Coupled with the high margin requirements for sub-$5 short selling (typically requires 100% collateral versus 10% for other positions), these are hard shorts to bust. I will keep some short forever, however. If the stock rises to $2 or $3 I will aggressively short. This isn't a NNVC-specific behavior--there are many frauds just like it that do not fall in a rising tide/positive GDP period. It has more to do with the spirit of gamblers and disposable income and fund flows than the shenanigans of this fake enterprise.
Will always check in from time to time on this company's fake progress and non-existant assets.
IVDs are pretty easy to get approved. Drugs not so much. The management trick for IVD is to get sales. Seymour failed miserably at that. The stock doesn't trade anymore. Sad story. NNVC will end up the same.
Unfortunately SSUR wasn't a drug company, but they did a great job of running it into the ground. That does not bode well for NNVC, LOL!
Nothing will happen. Just excuses. Management has no experience. Just look at the job they did at SSUR.
All of the patients will be cured soon with the new protease inhibitors. Hepatitis C will be gone by the time Nanoviricides files their first IND, LOL!!!
18 months would be a very optimistic timeline given the company's past speed. Toxicity, manufacturing, CMC/stability and the like takes 12 months at record speed, 18 months at good speed and 24+ if you're new and don't know where to go. I think we're looking at a phase 1 in 2013-2014 if you ask me. In the meantime, more of the same, preclinical results, financings, etc.
Any expectations a company sets can be defined as a promise in my book. Changing the semantics does not reverse the disappointment caused by and inept appearance of management.
So you're saying management has delivered on promises? There seems to be good documentation that they have failed to do so. What am I missing?
But management statements HAVE been ridiculous. Their track record for promising and delivering is terrible. Even now, aren't we supposed to be expecting something this quarter? I've lost track of how many times they've disappointed relative to their goals.
I disagree. I have been increasing my short position and expect in one year's time the stock will be down at least 50% from current levels.
Most investors lump preclinical in one big basket.
Dengue competition
Tamir (ACEL) is a $8 million market cap company with Dengue, SARS, etc antivirals. That's 20x cheaper than NNVC at the same stage in development.
Siga (SIGA) is a proven organization developing antivirals for Dengue as well.
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about this?
Right, Aspen. I'm getting my Colorado mountain towns confused.
Seymour has had long stretches of apparent unemployment.
His previous job was at StatSure (SSUR) which was a failure.
Just the usual details. Nothing too juicy other than he works from California.
I know exactly where he lives, about his vacation house in Vail, etc. He never works. This is purely a lifestyle company with a handful of employees and an egregious market cap.
Yes I take all of my investments seriously.
LOL if it's going down it's a bottom formation. If it's going up it's a sign that the company is doing a great job. Rose-colored glasses, anyone?
I did a background check and put a PI on him.
He lives in California and does nothing all day. He has no experience in the healthcare business, and especially has no experience in the drug business. How sad.
I agree that there is almost no even-handed objective analysis on this board sometimes.
Even I would admit progress towards an IND filing would be useful and good news. cGMP validated manufacturing supply or toxicity studies would be great news.
Too bad he works from home in California and does nothing all day. Some CEO.
1) I am an institutional investor
2) Institutional investors invest in low-priced stocks with small market caps all the time. ACHN, a real antiviral company, recently raised money from institutions.
Why are no institutional investors interested? You would think everyone would be clamoring for a piece of this. Instead they have to raise money through Seaside. Seaside is worse than Rodman.
I know many institutional investors who have laughed at NNVC.
Definitely one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
This board means nothing to NNVC. It never has, and never will have anything to do with the stock price. The market is much bigger than you might think.
This is all very factual. A public company without an independent board. Yikes.
No one wants to buy NNVC but the people on this board, LOL.
I still think "leave a message" leaves the wrong message.
All companies should have a secretary. What if Pfizer is calling?
I think Feelgood has you here. I don't like him but it's true. NNVC doesn't spend much. That's not necessarily a good or bad thing, it's just a fact. I agree there appears to be self-dealing and many intertwined entities, however. These are never good things. Consolidate the companies would make everyone more comfortable.
I think Feelgood is right. There isn't much dilution here. Having said that, there hasn't been much capital raising here, either.
Most people in the drug biz calculate PK as a ng/mL. It's hard to do in animals but in general you need 500-1000ng/mL for an active drug. That is a very fast and loose #.
I was reading the NNVC patent application and on one hand I was disappointed (as a short) that the drugs seem reliable "enough" from a PK perspective. There is probably no 'angle' for me from this perspective.
I was somewhat thrilled to see that the patent application,
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=diwan&s2=anil&OS=diwan+AND+anil&RS=diwan+AND+anil
, does not really contemplate anything novel. For example, "Example 4" contemplates the attachment of zanamivir to these ligands. A better way to deliver Relenza is not going to be attractive. The rest of the examples are similar and the invention is tautological. If there are ligands which act as anti-virals, the benefit of a polymeric construct to attach those ligands to is useless. Just administer the ligand. This doesn't work for all ligands, I understand, but I'm skeptical that there is anything novel here at all.
In my opinion this is not a great way to approximate molecular weight. There are too many variables like formulation solvents etc to make it even remotely accurate. I would just ask the company what the general size of the drug is, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands ot hundreds of thousands of daltons. All drugs have a size. Are these large molecules or small molecules?
I'm not, I'm tempted but I stick to my field of healthcare.
cGMP supply is required for all human clinical trials. A cGMP facility is a misnomer as the concept of cGMP is one related to documentation and controls. You can have your own lab space which is cGMP compatiable so long as you have experience in cGMP protocols. Hope that helps.
Great investment LOL
The backbone polymer block A is selected from hydrophilic and/or water-soluble polymer chains, including but not limited to poly(ethylene glycol), poly(propylene glycol), poly(ethylene imine), poly(vinyl alcohol), poly(vinylpyrrolidone), polysaccharides, and the like. Preferably, the polymer units A are poly(ethylene glycol) chains of formula — (CH2CH2O)111- where m is between 1 and 10,000, preferably between 3 and 3,000.
Hard to figure out the MW when a key variable has a range like that. Wake me up when they publish the structure of one of their drug candidates.
If you have a chemical formula for a unit of the drug, I can easily calculate molecular weight. MW is a common variable that regulators and scientists must understand. Daltons is the unit.
I agree with Ligander that understanding the science is way beyond Google and Wikipedia. It requires experience in the drug business. I have a lot of that.
There's absolutely no telling how many cells there are in the human body. Antivirals work by blocking replication processes. Most antivirals don't work completely because of latent non-replicating infected cells and other dynamics (BBB). I wonder what the size (molecular weight) of a nanoviricide molecule is? My understanding is this has not been disclosed but it could probably be estimated. Any help from the board would be appreciated. It would benefit us to know this so we can exactly estimate the number of 'particles' in a dose. Don't forget most nanoviricides would succumb to normal metabolic elimination and clearance. My guess is there is not enough efficiency to get anywhere near the number of viral particles to be overwhelmed enough not to infect normal cells. Viruses enter their targets in specific ways (read up) and flooding the body with 'decoy cells' is just a silly way to overwhelm a virus given what I've described.
I will do the board a favor and hire a virologist or two as a consultant and see what they think of the approach. I have a very open mind about this. If I discover I was incorrect, I may cover my short. I need to make sure that "nanoviricides" can access all tissues in the body. It is unlikely that this is the case given the BBB, limited information with respect to serum albumin binding, distribution trafficking, etc. Toxicity is important.
There are more cells in the body for the virus to infect than the decoys could be useful for.