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.
Which part?
The part where he says: "We decided to do a reverse merger and merge into a public shell" and then later argues with the female shareholder that he did not say that. He tells her [at 1:28:13] "I never said a shell... here's what you heard: we bought a shell."
Or the lie about facilities:
Question: "Once the focus returns to Flucide, will the company have to start all over with toxicology studies (small and medium animals), or will they be able to pick up where they started after NNVC finally solves the scale-up problem?" Seymour says: "They can pick up where they started." But at no time were any flucides manufactured under cGMP conditions. This is required for cGLP tox studies. NNVC never ever started FDA eligible tox studies.
Or the part where he talks about why they have a new focus on Shingles, explaining "big market, easier to get to human tox testing, and easier to manufacture." All of which has now apparently become moot as they are focused on ocular.
Or the lie to a question about the status on the agreements established in February with the Universities of Wisconsin and Pittsburgh regarding ocular herpes of the eye? To which Seymour answered: "The ocular herpes candidate is on hold until the final candidate for shingles is complete." But they have not selected their final candidate and have switched focus to ocular.
Shall I go on?
My question was regarding any specific ACTIONs...not words...that the company's management has undertaken in response to concern from shareholders about the "very slow progress."
I don't think I heard anything on this matter. But please, do enlighten us if you believe it was addressed.
Can you give an example of specific actions taken by this company that indicate management is concerned with how shareholders feel about the "very slow progress?"
Rarely is good news announced on Friday afternoon.
I hope you meant to write tar pit and not tar baby.
Let me get this straight, you wrote and presented an informal report supporting nnvc while you were getting some negative input from someone you hired to look into the company.
Sounds a bit hypocritical, doesn’t it?
We'll have to agree to disagree about the intent at initial creation.
Regardless, unlike KMBJN, you and I are in agreement of where the morality of management is currently.
Were the results already out when the announce was made?
Oops!
The other's have been addressed.
When do you think Tox will be completed?
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Who said the BOD was aware of and involved?
The scheme was hatched between Seymour and Diwan. I don’t think Dr. B is aware.
Nope, I'm not claiming this will happen this year.
Still 100% accurate!
6 years without Tox and now not even a lead candidate! They'll announce a lead and a deal with Diwan eminently, which will buy them more time to collect salary and bonus, without ANYONE giving them grief, as "they are making progress." But it will have zero impact on their ability to manufacture, replicate batches, produce to scale or bring anything through Tox. They will not have Tox completed in '18, and by mid '19 it will all be moot.
From March '15:
Bingo!
Since when do past behaviors indicate future behaviors?
Oh, that's right, since forever.
Can you all believe another full year has passed (almost) and there is not a single drug IN Tox, let alone completed?
Now where did I first hear that there would be no Tox completed in '17?
Oh yeah, the same place I heard about no Tox in '13, '14, '15, '16, '17,'18, '19...no need to continue as there will not be an NNVC at that time.
Don't say you weren't warned.
I'm out.
I don't know but when he/she posted this the SP was $1.82...today it is roughly half that much. I'd say their $9 prediction was a bit off.
Regardless of how well either of us present our POV, the only thing that matters is who has been more accurate?
I encourage you to reread our posts, in totality, and see what has transpired or not and then gauge.
Anyone have an update on the plans to do clinical trials in Australia?
Bwahahahahahaha!
And yet, what I wrote then and previously was 100% accurate.
Crazy, isn’t it!
Or do you believe the 3 universities were all doing the same studies as backup? Remember, Baylor can’t even do any testing (company’s statements, not mine).
Oops!
I honestly can’t follow what you’re trying to say here.
You’re right, I have no way of knowing anything. I make it all up and haven’t seen or spoke with Seymour at all this month.
But clearly you have had a private dialogue with him about who “the rat” is. I wonder how that transpired? Did you ask him if anything I’ve written is accurate or was it just “attack the messenger?”
(I couldn’t possibly know the answer)
The question was what would have to happen (or if it’s easier, not happen) for you to consider that this might be a scam?
Are you sure your use of the term “rat” is appropriate? “Rat” usually refers to someone who was on the inside or was aware of so nefarious behaviors and “ratted” the perpotraiters out. If there’s nothing untawdry occurring, what would there be to “rat” on? He might think he knows one rat, but not all of them...and believe me, there are many.
Interesting that you claim to know what he knows.
I would appreciate it if you could answer my question directly. I answered yours.
You asked me how and why the scheme was hatched and I restated my reasoning.
I answered about "buy-ig in big" with the proposition that there are other ways to acquire shares, aren't there? To which you replied with another question: why would one hold on to shares in a known scam? There are sometimes restrictions on what one may do with shares and there are also often sensitive internal and personal issues that if revealed to other "associated parties" would forestall and complicate the ability to "dump" shares. Also, maybe one's conscience ultimately was stronger than one's desire to accumulate wealth at other's expense.
But my question was very clear and remains unanswered.
What would have to occur for you to consider that maybe this is a scam?
Please try and provide just answers and not more obfuscative questions.
Much appreciated.
What about the predictions that have been 100% accurate regarding no Tox completed in '13, '14, '15, '16, '17?
Were they just uninformative, meaningless drivel or were they completely accurate indicators of the company's inability to achieve their self stated goals?
What about the predictions that have been 100% accurate that they can not scale the 'cides and have not been able to replicate a single batch at any size, which will prevent them from getting SUBMITTING an INDA, let alone being granted IND status.
The theracour announcement is a just more distraction and fluff as it means virtually nothing, except the company will now be paying Diwan additional fees.
1) If one claims the objective of this company was not to bring a drug to market, and points out specific actions and behaviors by the company that support this claim, and yet managment continues to make millions in salary, bonus and options/grants, is it really unclear as to what that person believes the reason was for hatching this scheme?
2) Is the only way to acquire shares by investing yourself?
3) Blood is thicker than water.
I’ve answered your questions, now maybe you will answer mine.
I asked a year ago, what you would do if there were no Tox completed and no clinicals started. Let me add to this what if they still have not scaled to anything more than 200g and have not been able to replicate a single batch at any size, have no lead candidate, have declared that they only have 9 months of money left to operate and announce they are renewing their testing with one of the universities, that has yet to supply any results? Those are the current circumstances...almost identical to when I asked 12, 24, 36 and 48 months ago.
Oh, and the SP is $1 (.28 pre split).
My question is, what would have to occur for you to consider that maybe this is a scam?
Yes, tThe Man in the Arena is a good poem/speech. But to claim that Seymour is the type of "man" that the speech is referencing is not accurate. Perhaps when it comes to Roosevelt slighting those of leisure, or unfit for doing the "rough work of a workaday world."
The speech compares those who strive for noble causes and those who talk a big game, but always find excuses why they can not achieve, not strive and in effect "cheat the system" and look for the easy way out.
Which one of these do you believe describe Seymour?
Do you believe Seymour is "daring greatly"?
If you knew how and why this schemes was hatched, your answer would be self evident.
When sources are "a major shareholder" and "a chemical engineer i spoke with", and anywhere in the equation is the term "Seymour" I consider it a completely unreliable source and false statement.
Ask your "major shareholder" to ask Seymour if they've duplicated a batch of any 'cide at any size?
I think they will announce a lead candidate, and maybe that Diwan has agreed to the rights. The terms will not be discussed, though that is material and should be, but it doesn't cost anyone anything to do this, like puts more $ in Diwan's pocket, and means absolutely nothing as it all becomes moot in insolvency.
They will likely not mention anything about the inability to manufacture duplicate batches, nor anything about the impending financial demise.
But who knows, maybe they'll announce a deal with Glaxo for $1.12/share.
Ok, thank for clarifying. It looked like you were writing to yourself...see below.
From: leifsmith Monday, 11/06/17 09:48:23 AM
To: Re: leifsmith post# 135813
Post # of 135833
From: leifsmith Monday, 11/06/17 10:49:18 AM
To: Re: leifsmith post# 135817
Post # of 135833
From: leifsmith Monday, 11/06/17 10:51:16 AM
To: Re: leifsmith post# 135818
Post # of 135833
I was asking because of the dialogue you were having with yourself.
Interesting dicussion...are you trying to convince yourself that this is true?
If it uses 2 different receptors to attach and enter the different types of cells, wouldn't the 'cide have to mimic BOTH receptors?
You might also want to ask him, or one lab nerd, if VZ uses different receptors to get into nerve cells or white blood cells?
A) does he know if this is true?
B) could it be possible?
C) if true, how would the ‘cide address this?
You won’t get an answer from either of them on this issue. Like most facts, they’re too damaging to the story they’re spinning.
How exactly will the binding and destroying happen when the virus is in its “dormant stage” between chicken pox and shingles?
Do you have any idea how and where this virus is stored and activated?
Ask Seymour, I’d love to see the board’s reaction to his response.
It’s pretty amazing.
Just a way of using more words to say: they can not make a replicatable batch of any size.
I appreciate you finding the details of the 2 points I’ve been saying: They have to submit each “drug” or treatment individually for each indication and they can’t make the stuff.
You could not be more wrong.
What you say are facts are pure opinion, or hope, or both.
The FACT is this company is nowhere near manufacturing capability, Tox testing, clinical trials or simply knowing its asshole from its elbow when it comes to what direction they’re heading. It’s an odd combination of panic and resignation that the end is here.
I see it everyday and it’s pathetic to watch.
But have a great rest of ‘17. Remember when I said ‘17 will end without Tox or clinicals? What about when I said the same for ‘16? ‘15? ‘14? All the while some lab nerd was claiming “this is the year” but she was listening to Seymour, and is unable to make rational decisions. She needs to believe so badly, that she’s willing to ignore the repeated warnings, red flags and out and out lies made by managment.
But this will all be moot by June of ‘18.
Time’s up!
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Not impossible...impossible for NNVC to achieve.
That is a certainty and will be apparent before june of '18.
You say it's the same drug:
It would remove one major hurdle amongst many. But saying they can now make 500g is not that same as saying they can replicate a 200g batch. even saying they can make 1Kg batch is not the same as saying they can replicate a 200g batch.
If they can't replicate, they're done.
And they can't.
But honestly, I really have no clue what I'm talking about and just make all of this up.
My accuracy is purely coincidental.
Now, I answered your question, so perhaps you can answer mine.
Suppose I'm right and we reach dec 31 and once again, ANOTHER year has passed without Tox completed, without scale up, without clinicals started? how would that change your POV? I've been asking this same question for 5 years.
It will likely be solved soon. Diwan will ask for $ and Seymour and Diwan will approve it. But that's just a distraction. It will be of little or no value to the company as they can not move forward with shingles as it requires too much material to test. Ocular requires less but as I've been saying (sharp shards or not) they can't manufacture a single batch, at any size, in a verifiably identically replicated manner.
That's a game ender.
Get the forks ready, it's almost done.
(anyone else notice the pivot from shingles to ocular without so much as a whisper of questioning? Another flavor of the month...and YES, I know it is "the same virus...only it's not the same treatment type, administration or formula...all of which mean it can ONLY be submitted for a single treatment).
I'm just making this all up. I have no idea what any of this means!