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.
I'd hoped for a more optimistic reaction to this week's Investor call. It would seem the jury remains out, waiting for profits delivered before delivering a verdict.
IEVM is thinly traded. When (if), the revenue promise is fulfilled the price will soar. The question remains...will there be time and opportunity to buy a ticket and ride the rocket before it reaches its destination? The candle won't burn too long.
The tide seems to be coming in. (Make certain to leave some slack in your anchor chain.) It was only weeks ago when Friday signaled a sell off, investors not confident enough to hold shares over the weekend. Today we enjoyed a healthy finish. MMs dropping SP on the final trade to cool things down a bit. Seems investors don't want to miss a signal and chase a rising stock. (Particularly those trading in and out on news.)
It would appear that many anticipate the initiation of Tox testing, Shelton Go-Live and/or European activities bearing fruit. I for one wouldn't count on an announcement of Tox start. I suspect the first we'll hear is when preliminary results have been reached. That is if Management follows the pattern applied to 2013's spectacularly successful informal Tox round.
Enjoy the Long weekend. GLTA.
Thanks for the encouraging post. You are right to ask. The beauty of NanoViricides' platform is the ability to rapidly design cures for emerging illnesses.
5 years an investor. Up .25 per share. In positive territory and patiently awaiting Tox and Human Testing.
There's so much to be optimistic about, so many positive activities taking place simultaneously.
Your post is an excellent reminder of why so many are long and strong.
There is zero evidence for this supposition. In fact informal Tox conducted by KARD in 2013 provided extraordinary positive results. Those results explain the need to produce large quantities of FluCide, much larger than previously anticipated, which has resulted in the delay to a June start. Is this good news or bad? Depends on your bias.
Tox was promised to start by June. We may get a PR when it is initiated we may not. Informal Tox was only announced at the conclusion of the process.
Investors will have to read the tea leaves and make individual decisions to stay or go, hold or sell, short or marshal forces to hold down (attempt to drive down) prices in support of a stealth accumulation effort.
GLTA longs. I will continue to hold firm.
Strong volume on last week's PR and the 10q.
Best of luck to you. If all goes as I anticipate 6.00 will go green in time.
You must have mistyped. Clearly you meant own not know. Still, both statement options confuse me. Please clarify.
I'm chilled because I don't know this POS.
Do you mean for all your commentary you don't know anything about NanoViricides? That explains a lot.
I'm chilled because I don't own this POS.
You don't own NNVC? Your time must be worth something? Are you investing all this effort with no profit motive? Are you being paid by other who wish to lower the price?
Thank you in advance for clarifying.
It is as foolish to get upset by a paper loss as it is to begin counting paper gains calculated over a 3 month period, YTD or selected arbitrarily.
I'm green, have been for years, and added thanks to the dips. (Reference to SP, please don't delete.)
An excellent pin up candidate. Thanks BK.
Nanoviricides has stated all along that viricides were novel. They explored contracting manufacture. Executive leadership opted to build the first generation plant themselves when conditions for contracting did not serve the best interest of the company and shareholders. You are taking my comments out of context. NanoViricides and any long term investor who has paid attention knew that manufacture of viricides would be proprietary. You claim, or more accurately since you tend to speak obliquely, insinuate that there was a radical change in manufacturing plan and principles within the past year. I contend that this is untrue. You accuse management of misleading shareholders. Since manufacturing principles have not changed you charge is without merit. Formulas have evolved and improved. Concepts of manufacturing have remained consistent. Understandable challenges associated with scaling up were anticipated, were communicated, and have been overcome to date.
Please research the team of experts Nanoviricides has contracted to manage the construction. Dr. Seymour and Dr. Diwan are not managing the day to day decisions of the construction process. They have hire experienced professional for facility and lab construction.
What NanoViricides has demonstrated in the construction project and, more importantly, in the satisfaction of milestones essential to eventual EMA and FDA certification is a willingness, even eagerness, to contract and collaborate with the best.
No other option? Substandard work? Unfinished work? Unmet building requirements? All good reasons to hold payment.
Understood, you don't like the patent ownership/exploitation rights structure. That has been discussed exhaustively and the discussions have been valuable and instructive. The discussions, and the concerns that have been raised by/for shareholders, may very well result in a redefinition and/or clarification of that structure.
This line of debate has value and is an example of what was good about this board. The discussion and debate on the board, if it can still be characterized as debate, has changed in both style and substance.
There are myriad legitimate reasons why a groundbreaking nano biotechnology would take 9- 11 years to achieve FDA approval. You have selected one that fly in the face of all evidence.
Question: Why would an investor research a company and having found it, in his/her opinion, wanting spend time and energy attacking Management and the company's technology?
Answer: That investor is a guardian of humanity, dedicated to protecting unsuspecting speculators from financial ruin.
What common trait do our conclusions share? They are equally preposterous.
NanoViricides' testing and independent studies conducted by Kard.
FluCide is not a rat killer, it is a virus killer. For purposes of clarification Rats are not and have never been the subject of NanoViricides' FluCide testing. Mice have been the subject of NanoViricides' independently performed and verified testing. Over 5000 mice have been used for FluCide testing.
Mice exposed lethal influenza viral load left untreated die. Mice exposed to lethal influenza viral load treated with Tamiflu die. Granted they live a little longer. But Tamiflu treated mice, all of them, die of influenza and influenza related immune system reactions. Mice exposed to lethal influenza viral load treated with NanoViricides' FluCide live. The mice are cured of influenza by FluCide.
FluCide is not toxic. FluCide has not killed mice. FluCide kills influenza virus more effectively then any known treatment. FluCide cures.
The quote is out of context or simply being misunderstood by RawNoc. Dr. S statement refers to the therapeutic index which is explained further along in his exchange. (See below) FluCide is so non-toxic NanoViricides is having a very difficult time finding the dose that will kill 50% of test population.
The therapeutic index (also known as therapeutic ratio) is a comparison of the amount of a therapeutic agent that causes the therapeutic effect to the amount that causes death (in animal studies) or toxicity (in human studies).[1]
Quantitatively, it is the ratio given by the lethal or toxic dose divided by the therapeutic dose.
In animal studies, the therapeutic index is the lethal dose of a drug for 50% of the population (LD50) divided by the minimum effective dose for 50% of the population (ED50).
Lethality is not determined in human clinical trials; instead, the dose that produces a toxicity in 50% of the population (TD50) is used to calculate the therapeutic index.
Good work. Dr. S anticipates that production in the new facility will result in the generation of FluCide by Q4, FluCide for use in Human Trials. The research you've done validates the anticipated new facility timeline.
Materials for Tox are being made at the existing facility. BASI Tox will be performed in 2014.
A Diwan quote taken out of context.
GMP like.
The question posed is based on a false premise. NanoViricides did not determine that a whole new production process was required.
Not that it is relevant to your false premise but there is a wonderful silver lining in the grey cloud of Tox delay. In informal Tox studies conducted by Kard it was determined that FluCide was so very non toxic therefore vastly greater volumes of FluCide were determined to be required for BASI formal Tox testing.
Incidentally, materials for the formal round of Tox testing are being generated in NanoViricides existing facility to optimized and lab validated specs. Further, manufacturing scale up processes, in the existing facility, indicate that Shelton facility scale up activities will proceed with little or no challenge.
NanoViricides will complete Tox studies for FluCide in 2014.
RN's assertion that NanoViricides will not undertake Toxicity testing of FluCide in 2014 is unsubstantiated.
Others, who have followed and invested in this opportunity for years, remain confident that Toxicity testing will be completed by the end of 2014.
SOP.
Dr. S informed you this was a vacation trip? You are a fount of valuable and accurate information. Thanks for keeping us honest.
Now here's a thread that makes some sense. Thanks Stockbuilder for originating. Thanks Aspenmp for echoing and amplifying. Biotech takes patience and a willingness to accept some bruises along the way. NanoViricides is not only progressing at a reasonable pace for a biotech introducing a radically new approach to a antiviral it has progress in a fairly direct path. To date, no major set backs. Steady as she goes.
What do you think Dr. Diwan is worth annually?
Thank you for posting.
Do yourself a favor. Contact Dr. S. Request a tour of Shelton. Invest a small amount of time and money. Make it back when the "nonexistent" influenza cure revolutionizes the world of anti virals.
I disagree. The courts in Nevada disagreed 3 times. The court in Colorado will reach a decision based on law and the facts. Neither of our opinions will influence the decision.
I believed NanoViricides' is destined for success. You feel otherwise. The FDA, EMA and Markets will reach a decision based on science and commerce. Neither of our opinions will influence the decision.
From a Timothy Egan, NY Times Opinion piece 3/22/14:
An original work, an aha! product or a fresh insight is rarely the result of precise calculation at one end producing genius at the other. You need messiness and magic, serendipity and insanity.
Having earned a living in creative as well as technical endeavors I agree with the author wholeheartedly. New ideas, great ideas, are born in the minds of creative, OPTIMISTIC, relentless, iconoclasts. New ideas take time to fulfill. The optimism that feeds creativity often betrays the creator during the process of realization. Deadlines are missed. Details bedevil. Relentlessness rescues. The good Drs. have demonstrated all of the above mentioned characteristics. It has been a long road for many. Results demonstrated so far have been positive, very positive.
Successful BASI Toxicity program. Successful Human trails for FluCide and DengueCide. Media, Institutional Funds, BigPharm and Mr. Opportunity will be pounding on NanoViricides' door.
Let the program run its course. Dr. Diwan is methodically following his program. Let him work. We're less than 2 years away. Patience.
Read the full post. NanoViricides has a long standing relationship with the University. This is not competition. This is another fine NonoViricides' opportunity.
You are brilliant in your moments of lucidity. Glad to have your support of NanoViricides.
They promised they would hire Lawyers to pursue SA's anonymous poster and they did it. Right on schedule.
(Probably not the answer you were looking for. But one that may be important to you in the long run.)
So right, there is a massive market for influenza treatment. Please that you have chosen to follow NanoViricides. The most exciting part about NanoViricides' exciting breakthrough technology (apart from the fact that the FDA, PHE, ViroClinics, Lovelace and many institutional investment funds have demonstrated keen interest), is that FluCide is just the lead cure and most advanced program in the NanoViricides' platform. In addition to FluCide there's DengueCide (granted Orphan drug status last year by both the FDA and the EMA), HIVCide, MERCide and others. Nanoviricides has lab proven viral cures for many viral killers.
Spread the word.
Thanks for your reply.
Thanks for the reply drk. I'd like to hear LoanRanger's theory. Perhaps he has a point of view neither you nor I can see. Perhaps his point of view will offer insight into the thoughts that might motivate individuals to consider contacting these Lawfirms.
I don't believe there is merit to the case. If a trader/investor lost money during a period of 180% growth then they suffered a fate all investors must accept responsibility for. They speculated and lost.
If I might ask, on what grounds do you believe the class action suit, covering a 1 year period wherein a 180% SP increase occurred, is justified?
Thank you for providing the virtual tour.