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.
Of course Dr. Seymour already owned 6,000,000 shares, so an additional 25,000 isn't going to make much of a difference. It's more symbolic than anything else.
I guess I can take comfort in knowing that if Dr. Seymour ever becomes a billionaire I'll become a millionaire.
You are proposing a bacteriacide that would operate in much the way that penicillin does. That would have the virtue of being specific to bacteria, and might indeed be a plausible way to proceed. But again you have to design a micelle that can disrupt those cross links, you can't expect it to happen by accident. We aren't even at square one in that project. So it's certainly not something anybody should count on at this point. IF NNVC finally brings some antivirals to market, and starts bringing in big money, I have no doubt that they will eventually start funding research projects to devise ways to attack bacteria. But I suspect that a bacteriacide, even in a lab setting, is probably a good 10 years away.
This is like arguing that if you have a pea shooter than can kill earthworms then there's an excellent chance it will kill giant tortoises too. Bacterial cell walls are very different from the outer envelope of a virus. Let's put it this way -- if a bacteriacide gets past the cell wall and ruptures the cell membrane of a bacterium, it may very well also be able to rupture the cell membrane of eukaryotic cells. If so, it would be highly toxic to eukaryotes like humans. You are hoping for a perfect world where micelles can shred the cell walls or cell membranes of prokaryotic cells but just happen to be harmless to eukaryotic cells. That may be a logical possibility, but it is a might slender reed upon which to hang one's hopes.
This I agree with. And I am not saying that we'll never have micelles that can kill bacteria. I'm just saying that the mechanism of action will be different from the current viricides, and that no development work has been done on this. Right now NNVC has to concentrate on getting Flucide out. Then it will work to get out HIVcide and other antivirals. When it's a big established company with steady revenues coming in the door they'll no doubt start looking to see if they can kill bacteria. But anybody needing a new antibiotic right now, or in the next few years, is going to be getting from somewhere other than NNVC.
When a virus attaches to a nanoviricide it conveniently destroys itself. I don't think we can assume we'll be lucky twice. Even if you get your micelle to attach to a bacterium the bacterium probably won't do us the favor of blowing up. Remember that a bacterium is a lot bigger than a virus. Most likely it will be necessary to design a micelle that can cross the bacterial cell wall and deliver a payload to its innards. All the while trying to make sure that it won't cross eukaryotic cell walls. Remember that the much touted safety of nanoviricides is due to the fact that they don't need to enter cells to work. Once you deliberately design 'cides that do enter cells, a lot of safety issues arise.
What's "silly" is that antibiotics work by interfering with some part of a bacterium's metabolism. But viruses don't have any metabolic processes. They are inert until they insert part of themselves into a cell, and then they take over the cells' reproductive machinery. The only metabolic processes to gum up are those belonging to the host cell, and an antibiotic that attacked that would be poisonous to the host organism.
Nanoviricides work by fooling a virus into attaching to it rather than to a cell, and conveniently the viruses self destruct. Most bacteria aren't even trying to enter a cell in the first place.
Suppose we reversed the situation a bit -- we had a better antibiotic that bacteria haven't yet developed resistance to. Can you image how silly it would look if people said, "Great, now just modify it to kill viruses too!"
The IP may cover it but that doesn't mean anybody knows how to do it. Killing viruses and killing bacteria are very different things. So this is a little like saying that we have developed an excellent mouse trap and now are hoping to use it to hunt elk.
Well, that's relevant only if NNVC eventually plans to come out with nanobacteriacides. Antibiotics work against bacteria, not viruses.
Again, some people already have a degree of immunity. They won't get laid low for a week. After all, many people get exposed to the flu and don't get sick at all, because their immune system nips it in the bud. Well, that's how things work here on planet Earth.
A useful reminder that Flucide development is not taking place in a vacuum:
It MM are buying on the way down it is irrelevant if it is because they are accumulating shares (expecting a regression to the mean, i.e., a pop up) or because they are closing short positions at a profit. In both cases the effect is the same -- the price doesn't go down as far as it otherwise would because of the buying pressure.
"(I would be happy with $5.00, giddy with $10.00, and ecstatic with $15.00 and beyond."
I agree. And if it actually gets to $100 I will be flabbergasted and astonished. If Dr. Feelgood cooks me a crow I will eat it.
If a MM maintains a net short position throughout a bull run he will lose money, and should. That said, it being the function of MM's to provide liquidity, they will be selling when others are buying and buying when others are selling. So they will tend to get on the other side of the rest of the market. If NNVC takes a dive down and MM then start buying from all the sellers, I don't think you will be complaining.
Why would a market maker always want the price to go down? When sometimes they have a net short position but other times they have a net long position? Do they often try to push the price one way or the other to make money on their position? Of course. But as often it's to the advantage of MM to push the price up as down.
WORL is a market maker and I'm sure they're doing their best to make their bid/ask spread. But I doubt that they consistently care one way or the other about whether the price goes up or down.
I have no doubt that Cox really believes in the stocks he recommends. That says, he always recommends early stage start ups that have a high probability of reaching financial ruin before they ever get a chance to prove out their ideas. You can almost always get a stock he recommends at one half to one third the price it was at when he first recommended it if you just wait long enough. And his picks are for long term investors/speculators only, even on the winning picks you can expect to wait several years before the company is on a profitable footing.
Well, that was impressive volume on the upside.
Somebody was eager to grab a few hundred thousand shares at the end of the day. Is NNVC finally running out of sellers? Whoever bought those shares at 0.32 is half a cent from a double.
This stock will go up and this stock will go down, there isn't much to do but see if management actually does what they said they will do. Maybe this will be the year Lucy doesn't pull the football away from Charlie Brown.
It's nice to see the price finally north of 0.50 again. Although frankly, whether it goes up or down for the next few months isn't really what matters. What matters is the news that will either drive the stock to 0 or send it north of $10 - tangible progress towards the clinical trials and the clinical trials themselves. The first news of this sort will be the announcement that tox studies have finally begun, and that might take as long as September. Of course the results of the tox studies are what really matter, not the start, but at least the start will be further evidence that NNVC really means it this time.
Here I can agree 100% with Dr. Feelgood.
You have to learn to think logarithmically.
Yes, all the people debating me should apply that to themselves.
I said "near sure thing", not 100%. And yes, given that the vast majority of these sorts of speculations fail, "better than 50%" is a near sure thing.
What misinterpretation? You wrote:
You said "better than 50% chance of success" which for this sort of stock is a near sure thing.
The first day of spring in 2012 was March 20. So the peak last year took place at the end of winter. And if the coming rally in June is anything like last year's peak it should be used as an opportunity to sell, as it will be followed by a crash.
Actually you and I have little real disagreement. I fully agree that it is the nature of biomedical research that things take longer than you think, even after you take into account that things take longer than you think. And that's the point. We are told that NNVC has enough money to get through phase I/IIa testing. I believe that is true, provided there are no serious setbacks and delays. But we know that NNVC has experienced years' worth of setbacks and delays in the past, so we shouldn't be too surprised if there are more in the future. And time is money. NNVC has to spend money every month. So with enough delay there will be more rounds of share dilution, and a greater probability of outright bankruptcy. That is why I see this as a lottery ticket with enough upside to be worth holding, not the near sure thing that Puffer thinks it is.
What spring rally? Looking at last year's chart I see a peak of 0.98 on March 12 and it's been trending downward ever since, with short term counter trends that never hit the previous highs. I don't put any faith in long term technical analysis of charts. The only consistent pattern is a simple long term 2 year downtrend, clearly reflecting a lack of interest by investors. I see no reason for this to change without real news, and the next real news that matters is completion of tox studies, highly unlikely to happen by June.
The folks here here who constantly cheer NNVC on but provide no useful content never get bashed.
My phase III rant was not uninformed. I'm still waiting for Dr. Feelgood to explain why clinical trials for a flu drug only cost 40% as much as testing a remedy for sore joints.
Yup, the bear raid yesterday flushed out all the sell stops and so now the price is back in the 0.40 - 0.42 range. But keep in mind that that only looks good in comparison to the last 5 minutes of trading yesterday.
You still have given no reason to expect a $1 stock price by the end of June.
That was from January 25. Not exactly up to the minute news.
Spoken like a speculator who has said before this stock has about a 20% chance of success. It's a lottery ticket. Like most lottery tickets, it will probably wind up in the trash. But with a 20% chance of success, it still has positive expectation.
Well, I don't make it a habit to watch stocks I don't own and don't intend to own. And you haven't explained why this stock will rise to $1 by June 21, when no news of any significance (other than unpredictable bad surprises) is likely to happen by then.
The fact that anybody believes any of NNVC's current timelines after they blown all their previous ones so badly makes me wonder.
The FDA has everything to do with clinical trials in the U.S. I am well aware that there's a lot of talk about doing trials in Australia or some other place. Well, like so much that NNVC management likes to toss into the air, I'll believe it when I see it.
You do understand that the bears have been correct over and over, right?
I will be astonished to see $1 by summer solstice. (Assuming you mean summer solstice, 2013, i.e., June 21) Tox studies won't be done by then, and they probably won't even be started. The manufacturing facility will be far from completed. There will be no other news of significance either. So what magical force is going to put my shares into the black by then? Will Seaside suddenly start buying instead of selling?
That said, I'm as surprised as anybody by the collapse in share price. It's not the 0.32 price that surprises me, it's that it happened in a single 25% plunge in the last few minutes of the trading day. Puffer has correctly pointed out that this happened on rather modest volume, but that just highlights how few buyers are out there. It was apparently quite easy to blow through the few buy limit orders outstanding.
If no chronic testing is needed that will certainly speed things up. The tox testing might only take a few months.
It's hard for me to guess when tox testing will be done. A lot depends upon which sort of tests are required, and I don't know what they are. Looking at the web sites of various labs that do such testing, it is clear that chronic toxicity testing is much more time consuming than acute toxicity testing (no surprise there). If chronic toxicity testing is required the tests could take 6 months or longer. I will be generous and assume that the start of tox testing is consistent with the stated times of "June +/- 3 months". I will be realistic and assume that that means "end of September, 2013". So if chronic toxicity testing is required I don't expect the tests to be completed before the end of March, 2014. It will be some period of time after that before the FDA gives IND approval. So, if all goes reasonably well I hope to see phase I trials start early in 2015, all of this assuming no inordinate delays in the construction of the manufacturing facility.
This estimated timeline will get the usual vitriol from daBoze and Puffer. When actually it is lightening speed compared to what NNVC has done for the past 8 years.
I fully expect that there will be a number of patents granted. But my point remains -- once a patent is granted the clock starts ticking, and for delays of the scale we seen (5 years or more in the case of Flucide) that matters.
If NNVC gets a product out at all it will get it out before that patent expires. But, yes, it makes a difference to the valuation of the company if the expiration is in 11 years or 8 from the time Flucide actually gets on the market.
Verify what? That they received U.S. Patent No. 8,173,764?