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.
It sounds more like the other way around. The investors pulled out of investing. They would have to pay for the shares up front at the rate of 50 cents per share, but couldn't sell them until they got registered a few months later.
By that time, they would probably be worth about 40 cents a share. Who would want to do that?
Will you be hiring any professional pharma executives?
Why bother? Does it really look like they will ever put a product out?
18 months ago, Seymour said "INDA's in 18 months."
Now, if you read the annual report, they say, "INDA's in the 2008-2009 fiscal year". If it happens halfway through the year that means... INDA's in 18 months.
18 months from now... look forward to hearing the same thing.
Face it, they don't have a clue as to when anything will be done. Or where the money to fund all these projects would come from. They constantly issue guesses and goals and projections that never pan out.
If the Dengue studies perform well, whats the next step?
What Dengue studies? The filing lists the current dengue drug status as "early R & D", same as the HIV drugs. Not even in preclinical testing.
Will there be a program to create investor awareness about NNVC?
People are already aware of NNVC. They just don't like it.
Is it possible to collaborate with Big Pharma before Human studies?
What exactly about this operation would impress Big Pharma? The lack of funding, or the lack of results?
Really Echo? Who told you that? They don't even mention the possibility in the filing.
They also fail to mention any shipment of materials to WRAIR, though they said it would happen months ago.
What the company said was... if they don't get the funding subscribed, they may quit operating. It was very straightforward.
Apparently the "subscribers" are wondering why they would want to buy 1.5 million shares for $750,000 (50 cents a share), when the stock is only trading for 57 cents right now. On top of that, many shares have been converted for debt already, and are obviously hitting the market.
You don't "license drugs for clinical testing". Nobody (except NNVC perhaps) licenses drugs that haven't been tested on anyone yet. Even funnier would be manufacturing huge quantities of drugs that haven't been tested, as you suggest they would.
End the speculation. The rambling, disjointed thoughts of Gene Seymour are all you are going to get.
No mention of any work actually being done at WRAIR. No mention of receiving any government funding.
Reports to Security Holders
As a result of its filing of Form 10-SB/A and listing on the OTC Bulletin Board, the Company has become subject to the reporting obligations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). These obligations include filing an annual report under cover of Form 10-KSB, with audited financial statements, unaudited quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB and the requisite proxy statements with regard to annual shareholder meetings.
The same statement appeared in last year's annual report. So, the company is claiming that shareholders have been invited to annual meetings.
Have they?
"As of the date of this filing, we have 2 employees..."
"Date of this filing" would be today. They said last year that they had five employees. What happened?
Wait a minute. I thought that someone visited their labs and saw scientists happily working? Was that just a dog and pony show?
Let's see. No phone. No employees. No money.
The future looks bright.
Doc actually predicted a filing by 10/5, sorry:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23359512
In September, 2007, the Company had received subscriptions in the aggregate amount of $2.5 million financing through the offering of shares of the Company's common stock. It is anticipated that these funds should enable the Company to support operations through the end of its fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. However, the Company has not yet accepted these subscriptions. If the Company does not accept these subscriptions, or if a significant number of subscribers request the return of their subscriptions before they are accepted by the Company, the Company may not be able to support its operations through the end of its fiscal year.
Are they considering going out of business? Why else would they turn down money they say they desperately need for operations?
The burn rate is huge. They have paid over $1 million to Diwan alone (TheraCour) for "licensing fees" and other costs. Not to mention the consulting fees, the PR costs to pump the company through podcasts, etc. Over $6 million total so far during the "development stage" with no products to show for it.
All that money, and they are filing the 10-K late.
To cover these costs, they have had to issue millions of shares at cut rate prices. As these shares get sold, the stock price keeps getting hammered lower and lower.
I don't get it. Since NNVC doesn't actually own any of the technology, why didn't Diwan just take Theracour public? How "frugal" is it to run two different companies, when one would have sufficed?
We get talk here sometimes of "big pharma" buying out Nanoviricides, but there's nothing to buy.
The company does not claim their products have "no toxicity". Indeed, in the November 10-SB last year they said the following...
We believe that the side effects related to systemic toxicity of nanoviricides may be substantially lower than with existing anti-viral therapies. We believe so because the nanoviricides drugs are specifically targeted to the virus particle and are expected to have minimal adverse interaction with human physiology.
It's a matter of degree to figure out just how toxic the nanoviricides will be, and I am sure we will find out in the human testing stage, should they ever get there a few years from now.
Regarding my question about their office - are you saying they still have an office in Connecticut, but no longer have a phone there? Between that and the late 10-K filing, the company appears increasingly unprofessional.
Dave, I think it's bad policy to broadcast a lack of faith in IHUB posters and their ability to submit intelligent, well-mannered posts.
You don't know me, I don't know you... given that, I'm more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you welcome a balance of posters and opinions on all boards, and that IHUB mods will seek to err on the side of caution in pursuing board bans in the future.
I don't think that would be a mistake at all.
Thanks for helping me get back on board here, Doc. What's the deal with the corporate phone number?
I have been told by a fellow board member that the number listed on corporate filings, (203) 937-6137, is now routed to Gene Seymour's house?
Do they no longer have an office?
Wow, the perfect example of what I've been saying. Not only do I encounter rude people, but they feel a need to stalk me to other boards.
Yes, I've been banned... for posting messages such as the one you just wrote.
Feel free to refer to my Post #98673 of yesterday. Why was the post in question only removed after I called out IHUB publicly on it? When I submitted it privately, to two different mods, nothing happened.
Yet when brought out into the light of day... the post suddenly disappeared! This reality argues against your "simplicity" argument.
Why would TOU change from one day to the next? From a private complaint to a public one? Apparently the rules are incredibly flexible. I wasn't "crying" favoritism, but apparently giving a good example. Poof! Post removed.
The only difference was the veil of secrecy had been lifted. If you want to trust people blindly, that is your right. I choose not to.
"Trust us" is never a great policy, especially when you aren't even told whom you are supposed to be trusting.
P.S. Since this is my last post allowed today by the IHUB gods... I am editing it...
Complaining to someone via PM is fine, though useless.
Complaining on the board is off topic and will be removed.
That's the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Any complaint will be ignored or removed... move along.
And if you read the info box, it states that this is the place "to discuss IHUB rules". Things are bad enough. Please don't encourage the secret police to be any more oppressive than they already are.
Feel free to inform me of what this behavior was, Tina. Exactly how is hoping to be treated decently by fellow posters "behaving like an animal"?
RE: "The argument that people need to know the actual alias of the person deleting their post isn't clear to me."
Wow, it's quite clear to me why you shouldn't have "secret police". Can you imagine being thrown in jail, without knowing whether it was even a police officer who put you there? Could just have been someone off the street.
Yet when you take it to a judge she just says, "Oh, not sure who threw you in jail, but must have been a good reason for it." Add that to the fact that you aren't told what the charges are.
The NNVC moderator runs wild, deleting any post that shows the company in a less than perfect light. The IHUB mods let him do it. He can say anything he wants in off-topic posts about me, such as the other day when he simply posted "you disgust me", without fear of any punishment from IHUB. He retains unlimited posting privileges.
If I reply to such posts in kind, I get immediately suspended from the board. This time for a month. Yeah, that really cleaned up the board. Now it's filled with off-topic attacks on me that I can't answer. Is that what you want? This is fairness?
Go ahead, tell us how fair playing favorites is. The censorship here is astounding.
Matt, why are certain people asked to "grow up" and not others?
This is the "personal attack" defintion you have provided: In essence, a personal attack is attacking a person, rather than a person's ideas. The written word provides wide latitude for the most fervent of debates: efforts to short-cut the debate process by attempting to discredit or disparage a person rather than a person's ideas usually fall into the personal attack category.
I have complained that the following post is a "personal attack", yet the IHUB mods apparently don't agree and refuse to remove it. Funny, as soon as I don't toe the line and cheerlead for NNVC, I get banned from board...
Posted by: DrFeelgood
In reply to: linda6511 who wrote msg# 7413
Date:10/10/2007 10:15:33 AM
Post #7414 of 7438
Why are you even discussing a drug that has been sidelined? What is your point? Why do you focus on a drug that clearly has years of work in its future while ignoring 3 drugs that are nearing the end of preclinical testing? Why do you focus on a single change in direction for the company while ignoring the change was to focus on fast track drugs? Why are you not focused on those 14 major developments and accomplishments? Why do you ignore the backing of the federal government and its military research institutes only to discuss a very old list of questions regarding a filing that has since been approved? What possible purpose do your consistent and twisted arguments against this company serve?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23558236
Obvious that the post is about "you" (i.e., me) and NOT the company. Does anyone here think the above is not a personal attack by your administrative definition?
Of course, this poster is never disciplined at all for constantly posting like this. Never even a one-day suspension.
The delay in the financials is part of the poor communication. It adds to the air of incompetence surrounding the company.
A year and a half to find manufacturing facility space in the Northeast? Is it really that impossible, or is the company just not serious about it?
Promised INDA's that never come. Constantly switching the focus of the company - HIV then bird flu then rabies and finally dengue fever... and no doubt back again, depending on whatever's in the news. Talk of moving the company to another state. Self-destructive financing as they sell more shares. Pumping the stock on hype sites.
All the while Diwan is paying himself (in the form of TheraCour) hundreds of thousands of dollars for rights to technology he already owns. What possible reason, except to line his pockets?
Since the SEC banned NNVC from using the quote anymore, I didn't post it. They can't make the claim legally.
I didn't claim they "had to state" they weren't making any cures. The company said that voluntarily before the SEC got involved. Refer to the dates I posted.
RabiCide "cures" rabies? You mean the drug that even NNVC says doesn't work more than 30% of the time?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23085703
I really don't want my doctor giving me a drug that will help me 30% of the time, while the other 70% of the time I just die. Bad odds.
Oh, thanks for reminding us earlier today how many years it will take before any of their drugs get to market. If more solid information like that was posted here, perhaps the share price would stop falling.
How's the mythical manufacturing facility coming along?
Over a year ago in May 2006:
"The company also announced that it is actively seeking to build or acquire approximately 50,000 square feet of research and manufacturing space in the U.S."
http://www.pharmacychoice.com/news/article.cfm?Article_ID=27678
I guess your defintion of "active" is different than mine. Do you count the May 2006 press release as another "success story"?
But 90 years later, they've got that Spanish Flu licked!
Wow, Doc, talk about a contrivance. To "prove" that HIVicide cures AIDS, you quote the very statement that the SEC made them remove from their filings.
Go ahead, check the dates. The 10QSB you quoted was from November 2006, and the 100+ comments the SEC made on their faulty filing was in January 2007. It's not longer part of their quarterly filings. Check out the May filing if you like.
From the same document you are so glad to quote: "The Company does not claim to be creating a cure for influenza, HIV or any other viral disease.
Very strong language. Not that any nanoviricides might work, but forcefully stating that they are not creating any cures.
Yet every week there is hype here claiming otherwise. Why?
Also from the May filing:
The Company will be unable to proceed with its planned drug development, meet its administrative expense requirements, capital costs, or staffing costs without obtaining additional financing of approximately $6,500,000 to meet its budget.
They have only raised about a million or so of that total through issuing more stock, some of which may be dumped on the market beginning in December.
P.S. Your guess that something is "soon to be successful" is not an "accomplished goal".
When did they "develop" HIVicide? I must have missed that.
Seems the SEC had not heard about it, either. Indeed, the SEC told NNVC that:
We make reference to the homepage of your webpage where you state that you believe that “t is possible that some HIV patients may be ‘cured’ by drugs developed at NanoViricides Inc.” You also state that you hope to “spearhead” the efforts to making advancements in curing many viral diseases. In contrast we note the statement on page 6 of your Form 10 that you do not claim to be creating a cure of influenza, HIV or any other viral disease. Please explain the inconsistencies.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379006/000114036107001307/filename1.htm
Anyone the least bit interested in this company's ineptitude should go to the link above.
What good is HIVicide if it doesn't cure anything?
"Development" is not a specific, accomplished goal. They haven't developed an HIV drug. I would suggest you quit misleading people in this regard.
As you may recall, the SEC wrote up NNVC for claiming that they might have an HIV drug, when they actually don't.
When I say "specific" goals, I mean the following: When did they say a task would be done by? When was it actually done? For example, they promised listing on the OTC for months and months before they accomplished it.
Yet you count the months of delays as an "accomplishment", I see.
"A bunch of other agreements" - how non-specific can you get? Wow, a bunch! I'm so impressed.
Posting in vague generalities - "they are doing everything", "they are doing a bunch of stuff" does not impress real investors.
So the share price keeps dropping, despite the PR blitz last week.
Hope they didn't pay $25,000 to generate 2400 shares in volume Friday: http://www.mn1.com/disclaimer.php
So we'll start with one high on your list. When did they "develop" HIVCide, and how far is this drug along?
P.S. Why did you promise the annual report would be "Edgarized" last week, when you had no word from the company that such a thing was true?
Doc, since you are so wise, please cite specific examples of the "they have accomplished nearly everything set as a goal over the course of the last 2 years".
The word "goal" was yours. And Seymour's, as you were so nice to cite.
The "goal" of filing IND's really, really soon has been stated constantly over the past 2 years, yet no end is in sight for any IND filing.
I trust that you know "IND" stands for "investigational new drug", and that it wouldn't take place until any human testing is ready. We aren't even near primate stage.
You cannot be claiming with a straight face that primate testing will be taking place during the calendar year. Quit trying to muddy the waters.
That particular track of testing is currently in progress.
LOL. That reminds me of the time you told us all that dengue fever testing was in progress, and then the company put out a PR saying the materials needed had not even been shipped yet. Is this another one of your speculations?
A "goal" is a far cry from a "plan."
Are you saying the company has goals, but never makes any plans to accomplish them?
Nearly everything? They hardly ever delivered what they promised in the past two years. Just last week you told us they would be filing the annual report on time.
They said primate testing would take place this year on dengue fever. Didn't happen: http://www.secinfo.com/d12Pk6.u3ej.b.htm
They said the financing they did in 2005 would go toward preclinical financing and filing an IND for an HIV drug. Then that drug would be licensed by 2006. It wasn't, and they didn't: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_July_13/ai_n14738442
The CEO said they planned to file two IND's with the FDA by September 2007. Once again... no dice: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_March_20/ai_n16109928
I'm sure I could find more.
Since they can't even file financials on time, I would hold off on any Nobel Prize predictions.
I've gotten used to the sloppy science in NNVC tests, don't worry.
The deck was stacked in the tests by using RIG as a "positive control" in these tests.
From the PR (which you did indicate we shouldn't depend on): "All of the nanoviricide drug candidates showed efficacy superior to the RIG standard..."
What standard? Is NNVC actually claiming there is a standard dose of RIG recommended for mice with 1000 LD50 injected directly into their brains? Somehow I doubt it.
At any rate, LD50 measurements are pretty worthless to use as projections for how drugs might work in humans: http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/LD50.html
Sorry to not quote only company-approved research!
Funny, if you read the NNVC press release on the rabies drug, they don't even say if they administered the drug before or after giving the mice rabies. Very suspicious.
They are implying that their drugs will work after symptoms of rabies develop, but will they? They just conveniently place the "100% fatal" statement right after the test results. Very slick.
I forgot, you have no background in science. Must have missed that.
Is the company ever going to release news with some meat to it?
The NNVC drug only works 20 percent of the time?
It's the next penicillin, LOL.
Show me where this is "NNVC-specific"...
Disclaimer: Never invest in any stock featured on the BoonMarket.com website or email alerts unless you can afford to lose your entire investment. Please read our full disclaimer at: http://www.boonmarket.com/legaldisclaimer.html. Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: Certain statements set forth in this press release constitute ''forward-looking statements.'' Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, any statement that may predict, forecast, indicate, or imply future results, performance or achievements, and may contain the word expressions of similar meaning. Such statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause the company's actual results and financial position to differ materially from those included within the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including those relating to the Company's ability to grow its business. Actual results may differ materially from the results predicted and reported results should not be considered as an indication of future performance.
You don't see it because the disclaimer is a month old. You think these pump sites send email blasts out for free?
How do you think they make their money?
You constantly talk to NNVC management. Why don't you ask them how much they paid the website?
Wow, I missed that part in the disclaimer about them working for famous pump and dumper Jonathan Lebed.
Great company they keep.
Disclaimer from boonmarket saying their "coverage" is bought and paid for, and that they like to sell out their stock positions quickly:
http://www.boonmarket.com/legaldisclaimer.html
This is not a good use of funds for a company running out of money.
NNVC has no shame.
Found the source of the NNVC spam campaign yesterday...
boonmarket.com sent out a PR and hundreds of emails in the morning.
http://investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=60380046
And back down it goes. Don't believe the hype.
You know, hype like this... Seymour saying they will have two INDA applications by the end of this month. From March 20, 2006 article....
The Company is currently developing drugs against avian flu (H5N1), emerging highly pathogenic avian influenza threats (HPAI such as H9N2), common influenza, and rabies. The Company plans to develop additional drugs against HIV and Hepatitis C in the near future. "Our goal is to file two INDAs with the FDA within the next 12-18 months," said Dr. Seymour.
The article from this week said the applications would take another 2 years. What will they say two years from now?
Really, "trendy"? Look at the B/A this morning...
Volume frozen, nobody buying for the half hour it was .82/83 - so the MM's hiked it to .82/85, LOL. So now it looks like the stock is "skyrocketing" although nobody is buying after the early run.
Trolling for suckers on the high side. My bet is they will get a few before the price comes crashing back down today.
They always do.
What are you talking about? Obvious pump job going on.
The only times it has been going up is on press releases, except for the past couple days, which suspiciously looks like a hype job.
Anyone who has cashed out on the spikes is doing quite well.
1998 research in self-assembling micelles... guess Diwan is at least behind these guys...
We are working on many cutting edge projects in polymer science, ranging from block copolymer gels for drug delivery systems to new high resolution liquid crystal displays.
http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/Research-Pages/PolyTech.html
Looks like a lot of researchers have been working on the same thing.
Doc, which is it? All this time, you have been saying that NNVC materials are advantageous because they break down easily in the body.
Example: "Moreover, the nanomaterials in a Nanoviricide are organic compounds that are easily metabolically processed by living systems such as the human body."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22841847
Then yesterday, you changed course. You said the advantage is that they don't break down easily in the body:
"One interesting property of cyclic peptides is that they tend to be extremely resistant to digestion, allowing them to survive intact in the human digestive tract."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22961337
They have no advantage, then. Other groups are working with self-assembling polymers...
http://www.level1diet.com/research/id/785108
So much for that argument.
Some polypeptides are toxic, as in the case of those found in the Death Cap or Destroying Angel mushrooms.
Are these common, non-toxic polypeptides that any company could use to fight viruses?
If so, then where is any advantage NNVC might have? And please don't tell me their nanomicelle delivery system, because you just got done telling us that it is commonly used to deliver treatments.
So the "800 to 1000 percent" is just a projection. It has no basis in any test they actually did - just a theoretical test they admit is impossible to do.
Thanks for clearing that up.
P.S. How many of these "two experts" came from the company?
Wait - I thought you claimed it was because the Tamiflu mice had so much higher body temperatures! Were you just making that one up?
The average mouse body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius. At ten times that, 370 degrees Celsius, the mice would be spontaneously combusting in their cages.
I keep hoping for pictures of this on the NNVC web page.
FluCide is not 1000% more effective. Here's proof.
Your 1000% claim data doesn't make sense, Feelgood.
You are claiming that ten times as many mice showed a response to the FluCide treatment versus Tamiflu?
If that it true, why didn't the company say it in the PR?
They don't use hundreds of mice in these studies. They might use ten for each group - control, Tamiflu, and FluCide.
So in order for your claim of "1000% more mice helped" to be true, all ten mice would have to be helped in the FluCide group, while only one would have been helped in the TamiFlu group.
Then, you need to look at the results NNVC gave for the animal flu tests in the PR.
NNVC said that mice treated with FluCide survived 7.75 days, and those treated with Tamiflu survived 6.3 days, or about 1.3 days longer than the control mice.
So if only one mouse in the group lived longer via Tamiflu, that mouse would have had to live 13 days past the control group mice, or 18 days, while the others only lived 5 days.
Now that is analysis. Analysis does not merely consist of shouting "you're wrong!" but showing someone why they are mistaken.
Do you think that happened? Really?
If I were conducting that test, I would have run it again.
Where are you getting such information, since it's not coming from the company?
Seems like speculation on your part, and not any scientific method.
Not true, Feelgood. NNVC made the 1000% claim on Nov. 17th, 2006, at the NanoBiotech 2006 Conference in Boston:
"...FluCide was almost 10 times (1000%) superior to Oseltamivir (Tamiflu(R) Roche) in animal studies..."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_Nov_27/ai_n16867506
So the claims have nothing to do with tests conducted in December 2006, as you stated. Those tests had not begun yet.
So I ask again - why are they claiming better results than they actually had?
Price falls, fluff PR comes out.
Now the price goes up for a day or two, people cash out on the bump, and the falling price resumes.
Most predictable stock in the world.
Great, why doesn't the data on time of survival match the hype given in the "800%" statement, then?
Here is their data, in case you forgot: http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=7153904
Where do you get 800% out of those animal testing numbers? It's 200% at best.
Before you tell me how great that is... if NVVC keeps changing its claims from 200 percent to 800 percent to 1000 percent... the number becomes meaningless, not impressive.
It's nice to put things in an abstract, but not if you can't back it up in the full report.
I'm sure you have a link to the full report, right? It exists... right?