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.
They can prove their worth by:
1. Filing an IND as promised for many years.
2. Obtaining just ONE institutional investor who believes in the company. Sorry, you don't count.
3. Displaying the chemical structure of one of their compounds.
4. Having more than a few million dollars of cash on the balance sheet.
Not one of these things will ever happen. :(
Nah. HAART works perfectly well for quite a long time if the patient is adherent. If the patient is not adherent you just swap out a NNRTI for another one and he's fine again. HIV treatment will take you to end of natural life. The only tox is nightmares for Sustiva, lipodistrophy for the old, old drugs. Some very rare kidney surrogate marker tox with a few other drugs. The tox profile is very clean. It's just a really strict regimen. One pill every day, LOL. You'd be surprised at the people who can't keep up with it.
Let me ask you a very simple question. Have you ever been scammed?
HAART is a lifelong thing, you can't shift away from it. It gets you to functional zero and leaves you there. The patch wouldn't help.
Your math is wrong on GENZ.
The average price of GENZ in 1988, split-adjusted, was 2.60. Today it is at 71.00.
This is a 14% annualized compounded return (GENZ never paid dividends). This is good, to be sure, but not that good. One can do better shorting the NNVC's of the world. It's easy to find one NNVC per year. NNVC has fallen over 50% from peak to trough this year. 50% compounded is better than 14% compounded.
HIV drugs are universally orally based. No one would take an HIV injection today. Just ask TRMS.
They've actually accomplished nothing if you look at their resumes.
Remember that nanoviricides seem to only be able to be administered IV/through injection. This would drastically reduce the market opportunity. Unless of course they could handle the treacherous metabolic route known as the human GI system.
Sorry, I have nothing to gain from talking to you and it risks my anonymity. 10 employees!!!? That's a bit. Wonder who they hired.
My question is, what are the basic chemical properties of Nanoviricides? Weight, atomic composition, structural nature, etc. This is easy to understand for all other drugs but this mysterious group of compounds.
I need a chemical structure. Small molecules are REALLY small. I'm talking 5-40 atoms total. How many here? What is the weight of the compound, chemical composition, etc? I don't think they're 20nM large, LOL.
You're welcome.
They don't work. Assume the most obvious explanation is true. This is basically a you know what... no cash... no institutional investors... just a few guys in a room... mouse data with no clear intent or plan to move forward into humans... we've all seen this movie before.
That'd be great. I'm always interested in buying a $100m company that's going to $1bn. I need to see a chemical structure first. Is this a cell membrane? A hydrocarbon? What the devil is it. Molecular weight is what? 0.14kD? 140kD?
I focus on the other stocks with, you know, other fund managers, Wall Street analysts, etc.
Since no fund managers own this stock (check the filings, it's just you all), and no analysts cover the stock... and only 3 people work at the company... who do I talk to?
If you can't give me a picture of the molecule then how can I understand it?
Typical small molecule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atorvastatin.svg
Typical large molecule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Infliximab_structure2.jpg
I'm a medicinal chemistry fan. I can understand things like solubility. Lipophilicity. Bioavailability.
Just show me a picutre... is it that hard?
P.S. the FDA wants to see it, too.
I think assuming the technology works at all will get you into a lot of trouble in the healthcare investing arena. I have questions. Do you have the answers? How can the distinct 'ligands' that the micelles are bound to be manufactured? How large are they? What's the structure? These are simple questions. Most drugs have a molecular structure. If they don't, they're the large antibodies which are very tough to characterize. If this product is that small, it should be rather simple to display. What does it look like, chemically?
Any clue on human/animal PK? This is what sinks most novel delivery technologies that look good in vitro.
I'm including the AllExcel days.
Given that the population of hosts is so much larger than the number of 'cides, why would the virii attach to the 'cides and not the hosts?
In HIV/HCV there are millions of copies of virii. You would need millions of nanoviricides. Has anyone thought that through?
You know 90% of medical research goes nowhere. Ask the #1 cancer center MD Anderson. Just because there are great doctors attached to it, doesn't mean there is some increased chance of success. MSK, MD Anderson etc have flunked hundreds of potential cancer drugs. I would focus on the target and profile of the drug asset, not who has been paid to conduct studies. That's their job.
Sounds good in theory. But it also sounds like one would need a lot of 'cide with a lot of PK distribution (the D in ADME). How well is this drug technology distributed in large animals? I would still imagine you want to stop virii as they're replicating, not afterwards...
At the moment this stock is uninvestable. This is why there are absolutely zero institutional investors involved. It's not for lack of exposure (there are 2 million shares short who are institutions).
I would think about an investment if they could prove these drugs are deliverable in humans and other large species. A peer-reviewed publication would be useful.
I think the more reasonable explanation is the one anyone with knowledge in the field would respond with - antiviral animal models are of limited benefit.
Anyway, new topic: Drug Delivery of new technologies, like nanoviricides, is crucial to success. Antisense, RNAi and other excellent-sounding/looking technologies need to be delivered to targets in humans - between GI degradation, solubility, etc this is often the #1 problem. Where do we stand here? Why no human data yet? We've largely been testing the same system for 10 years. Just file a darn IND already. Any day now?
I don't have a medical or doctoral background. Most great healthcare investors do not either.
I just think it's funny because the persona in private versus public is so vastly different. It's just a well-known fact in pharmacology to avoid animal species for virology drug candidates. It's very esoteric information that only folks who have funded or done drug development for decades would know. I was a big backer of Achillion, ViroPharma, Anadys and many other antiviral drugs.
Of course we're dealing with "nanoviricides", here. There are separate rules.
The funny thing about nanoviricides is they don't work inside cells. That's the only place viruses do work and are active. So how would they stop virii from replicating? Food for thought. Might also be why we've never seen an IND since the company started even though there is nothing seemingly stopping them from doing so.
That's funny because the top healthcare investors in the world don't have PhDs.
There are only 2m shares short. If I wanted to really short, I'd double that. I'm just trying to poke possible holes in a potential investment - everyone should do that and encourage it. The board itself doesn't control Wall Street - the NNVC fate will be completely independent of what goes on here. So let yourself enjoy the experience of 'toughening up' your investment and make sure its as airtight as you need it to be...
...unless you're scared of what might surface?
So you don't need an IND filed to get a PRV? I don't know anything about PRVs. I'm not afraid to admit I don't know something. I asked the question and I'm looking for an answer.
Why would Merck not use mice in developing Isentress? They started development recently and were approved recently.
Or Gilead for tenofovir? Or GSK for lamivudine? PFE for mariviroc?
Could it be, gasp, that you are wrong? Horror of horrors.
The truth is - great investors are wrong ALL THE TIME. Suck it up. You can be wrong about one little fact which relates to one little facet of one stock in a portfolio of tons of stocks. It will have zero impact. Lay down your sword already.
I'm a professional investor who pays these doctors and researchers $1,000+ an hour for their opinions. I've seen and funded so many antivirals, I can speak with an air of authority. My portfolio consists of over 100 stocks - no one bet can help or hurt me. I am not a physician.
Humanized mice are not worth the time for most pharma companies as an indicator of efficacy. It's just as cheap and way more informative to do a n=50 human study and measure the log drop yourself.
This is why I'm incredibly suspicious as NNVC has yet to do the most trivial step, which is to file an IND and start a small study. It's been many years and no clear substantive improvements in the platform/process that would account for the waiting.
What is the explanation?
There could be a first time, and this may be that time. I kind of think that stopping the virus in the bloodstream, and not within the cell (where it's replicating) is pretty pointless. How do you clear the infection?
Doesn't one need an IND filed and accepted to get a PRV?
I hope that's not all we have as AVII is far ahead of us in the Dengue department.
No. I'm not contradicting anything if you read carefully.
Find a major antiviral drug developed using mouse models. Knock yourself out, but the sky is blue.
Those are oncology drugs :)
Dengue ain't the only virus. Not sure how well these mice work with Dengue because Dengue has been a joke for a long time until recently.
Good reference - you'll see what a mess it all is if you read it. Unlike easier diseases, antivirals are a wasteland for good animal models. Probably the worst. Even xenografts for cancer are better.
Find a major antiviral drug developed using mouse models. Knock yourself out, but the sky is blue.
Common knowledge. Your own papers discuss how fringe it is to use mice in antiviral drug development. Every paper discusses past limitations to said use. Use your head and conclude that it's not the common practice. Take a look at any drug's development history. AZT, Isentress, lamivudine, etc - they all skipped mice because they're worthless preclinically (at least in this disease).
My sense is you haven't been in antiviral drug development. I've financed companies like ACHN and am well versed on this subject. A few papers can be found on any topic imaginable. Common practice is common practice.