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.
Thanks for your efforts and the work of board contributors interpreting Friday's investor announcement and Dr. Diwan's latest communique. For longs seeing the path to market begin to grow detailed, Dr Diwan's vision brings excitement and confidence. And Nanoviricides is not just a one trick pony. While FluCide Toxicity work is active and results will be delivered in 2013 other drugs in the pipeline are also progressing.
Antiviral eye treatment testing is active and results will be provided in 2013.
AIDS studies are active and 2013 results will impact SP and Nanoviricides' credibility and prestige.
Dengue treatment, not forgotten, could be the 2013 wild card. Programs intended to motivate research in low/no profit diseases may result in financial and fast-track regulatory opportunity.
Hear, hear! I'll second the motion.
This, IMO, is paper formalizing what was hinted at in Nanoviricides' most recent presentations. I refer specifically to forecast increase from 2 years cash on hand to an estimated 5year stash. (At current burn rate.)
This post is insulting and disrespectful to many who read commentary on the board.
This board is at its best when contributors bring good instructive, well-researched information to posts. It is valued by all when contributors bring questions, critiques and topical source materials. The past few weeks have included many cooperative, respectful posts intended to contribute information and pose thoughtful questions to assist investors.
As contributors we can continue to support and build on this model. There are bad actors that have been absent for some weeks. As participants in a public forum we contributors can maintain decorum and a positive discussion board by refusing to engage and take the bait when libelous, baseless, accusations are posted. We can also keep the narrative clear, clean and fresh by maintaining a standard by which contributors do their research and bring the fruits of that research to the group.
No community welcomes a guest who arrives empty handed, takes from the host and then bad mouths the host and the host's decisions.
Historically the best means to deal with bad actors...ignore and isolate. Make them carry their load and contribute to the greater good.
The manufacture of the "vat" has been contracted. The manufacture is in fact the short pole in the Shelton project. Prepping the facility for install will take longer than the manufacture of the lab elements. When the Shelton plant is ready for install the "vats" will be delivered.
This dilemma has been discussed often on this board. I suggest that in practice Regulators will not require Nanoviricides to elevate lethality to the "drowning" point.
A negotiated maximum safe dosage will reached.
I don't mean to imply that Regulators will set a target that will mitigate the significant challenge of producing sufficient materials for Toxicity testing. There will still be a challenging requirement to produce materials in the existing research-supporting lab. By design the lab is intended to produce one off test quantities. Producing materials required for Toxicity testing will be slow but steady. But I can not imagine Regulators will insist on dosages so high as to dilute test animals blood beyond life supporting levels.
Agreed. Unintended consequences and unfortunately the occasional greed-inspired unreported consequences do occur. Testing, testing and repeated testing is frustratingly slow but the system has been developed to assure the greater good. And yes, thousands die while the potential cure is within reach.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Brewing is the analogy that was used by a well placed principal at NanoViricides who described the process to me some time ago. The recipe is proprietary, the process exacting, the effort two pronged to satisfy the micelles and the virus-specific coatings, but the method is well suited to mass production.
It is the ability to support the manufacturing process in a repeatable fashion combined with the transportability of Cides at ambient temperature that is most encouraging about Nanoviricides' prospects.
Proving drug efficacy has not always opened the revenue floodgates. Many effective drugs have languished because of challenging, cost prohibitive, manufacturing challenges.
Penicillin tantalized for a decade until grapefruit was identified as a ready source to generate the raw material. And even after were it not for WWII and government funding a life saving and world changing drug would have remained a lab curiosity.
Nanoviricides will be able to produce and Cides production will be scalable. Manufacturing of Cides will more closely resemble a brewing process than a drug drug manufacturing process.
I have read the board and I read Patrick Cox's response. I was laid up with a cold and probably doing too much navel gazing and second guessing of my portfolio and admittedly in duress reached out to the Star community for reassurance.
I feel better now. (In case you were worried)
We all "take someone else's word" when investing. Investing is not a revelatory experience. Using a product is not DD. I have done my research. I am a stockholder. While I hold a stock I assess the potential impact of newly available company and investor community publications on SP.
Thanks for the reply.
He said/He said. Patrick Cox assures that all is on the up and up but here's a link that would indicate otherwise. I welcome other investors feedback.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11820016/1/star-scientifics-made-up-misleading-relationship-with-johns-hopkins.html
I agree.
I am very confident Tox will be complete by mid summer.
I'm a boring guy. I like progress on the manufacturing front. I like testing and tweaking of formulations. I like satisfaction of the pre-IND checklist. I like the extended opportunity to acquire and average down.
Institutions aren't built on fireworks.
I don't anticipate that the findings reported here will have an effect on the value of NNVC SP but for any who are familiar with the technology of Nanoviricides there is much to support and validate the science behind Dr. Diwan's vision.
There is a growing body of evidence to buoy the credibility of, once heretical, nano Pharm and Nanoviricides in particular.
Thanks for posting this fascinating article. Even the most skeptical among us who might argue the economic impact is being exaggerated, that what is calculated as profit lost is merely profit delayed, can't easily dismiss the eventual economic impact.
Government grants are quickly recognized as sound investments, a form of insurance against the losses brought about by catastrophic business disruption. In microcosm individual businesses recognize the wisdom of Disaster Recovery and investment in Business Continuity planning. On a macro level Governments should evaluate investment in medical research and drug stockpiling in light of the many Study's findings.
On what do you base this comment? Studies under Dr. Harris's program are still active. Have you read quotes or spoken directly to the players?
Thanks, exactly the clarification I was seeking, specifically that the limitation is imposed contractually between an entity, Theracour, and NNVC. I wanted primarily to clarify that you were not imposing/implying any forward looking limitations based upon yet-to-be granted regulatory restrictions.
Can you elaborate on "rights"? What do you mean by "rights"? Who/what defines the limits and restrictions of these "rights"?
That's ...posted an article... Sorry fat fingers and auto-correct can be a lethal combination.
I posted a link to a story on flublok late yesterday. The reticle provides insight into the manufacturing process.
A Shareholder in attendance who has provided my information reports;
Active Dengue grant and study with previously reported University, an active HIV study (3rd efficacy study) with results anticipated this Spring and an active Herpes of the eye program were discussed.
No mention of additional Seaside funding. (No mention, not no a confirmation of no funding from Seaside.)
Active efforts continue to fulfill pre-IND specified deliverables. Progress has been made, additional fulfillment is required.
Toxicity studies are planned for completion in 2013. Successful Toxicity tests are necessary for Australia Human Trials. My source did not confirm dates for Human Trials.
I've been told there were approximately 25. Most from east coast with a few others from as far west as Co. Many stockholders from the medical profession on hand. The meeting went on for a bit over 2 hours.
Drs D and S presented. Q&A.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/VaccinesandRelatedBiologicalProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM198088.ppt
FluBlok novel vaccine manufacturing process approved by FDA.
FYI, clinical trials for this unique, multi-strain vaccine registered first clinical trials in 1993.
I did not intend to conflate the absence of NNVC commentary in Cox' Issue with my second comment. My second comment referred to the market's reaction, or lack of reaction, to NNVC's 1/15 PR.
The publication was an periodic issue not an alert. Cox' issues are not intended as timely responses to breaking news.
That said, I too am puzzled by the tepid market response.
Nanoviricides should carry on independently, forget China deals, postpone Big Pharm licensing, as deep into the FDA approval process as possible. Negotiate in 2014-15, as Tamiflu patents expire, from a position of strength.
Correct. Shelton is a Dr Diwan and Co. Purchase. Shelton is not a capital drain on NNVC. Lease of facilities will be at fair market fee.
Previously stated by Dr S, OneMedPlace presentation, that NNVC has 5 years cash on hand at historic burn rate. It is acknowledged that burn rate will increase significantly as Tox and Human tests get underway.
This statement is comprised of information easily accessible with minimal research effort.
WH,
You correctly interpreted my posting. I support Drs. S and D.
Correct. I do not advocate Management change. I fully support the strategy being pursued. I hope for full valued paid for proven Cides.
Shelton.
There is a time to invest in core technology, yes even take on debt, and a time to pursue profit above all else, reinvestment be damned. A CEO to support merger and acquisition is not the right individual for a company establishing brand and product. A CEO patient and committed to the legacy of the brand is more suitable.
Be careful what you ask for. It takes very little skill to arrange a Sale or Licensing agreement that overwhelming favors Big Pharm. A CEO whose contract and compensation package favors incentives to sell will be motivated to close a deal. A sale too early in development will not return price per share sufficient to satisfy longtime investors. "We'll, that is what you hired me for isn't it?" Buyers love a motivated seller. Short term profit seekers love a motivated seller. Investors in value must be willing and able to liberally sprinkle the essential ingredient into the mix...time.
One last comment. Whomever the CEO, DR Diwan is the key to Nanoviricides' success. His temperament and desire to see to each and every detail of the operation must be supported.
You have been posting here for 3 years. You have only just visited Nanoviricides site. Pictures influence your assessment of an investment's worth. Professionalism?
DD= responsible investing.
Bios of key NNVC contributors are easily acquired.
Put a less insulting way;
As a stockholder I do not want Nanoviricides spending money "tarting up" a website that interested investors might only visit once every 3 years. Pictures worth a thousand words? Not in my book. Words please. The ROI for web design is unsatisfactory.
I prefer that NNVC invests my money in very expensive genetically engineered human-immune test rats.
Nanoviricides' plan is to take validation, Tox and Phase I/II as far as possible independently. The longer they maintain autonomy while achieving milestones, the longer Management and Shareholders assume the burden of risk the greater the negotiating position and reward for investors.
Nanoviricides' is a business model not suited to those who seek quick profit and require liquidity. The model, risk and potential payout suits some investors. Fr us the opportunity to continue increasing our holdings at low SP is welcome. Those who are dissatisfied or disparaging and wish, through often ill informed critique, to alter the business model with board posts are foolish. Sell and disengage. If the loss is too great vote your shares and if in the majority enact a change of Management and possibly a new business strategy. Speculative investing is inherently risky and not ideal for the skittish.
1st visit to NNVC's site?