Yes, that is the worst case scenario, but I don't think that it will go down that way. I think if VZV testing does not pan out, they will fall back to just an HSV topical treatment which would be in high demand all by itself. That potential revenue stream will open up all sorts of new funding avenues, including partnerships with big pharma companies, allowing for the company to pursue the other IND applications already on their list of extremely high effectiveness antivirals in animal studies.

I think it comes down to VZV - HSV test results. If positive, the arguments you assert will be quickly forgotten. If negative, you will have the satisfaction of being right, day after day at nauseam.

All these arguments seem to always leave out key counter arguments.

I do agree that the company should have publicly communicated the risks involved with scale up sooner. Risks are not always recognized until they become a consequence. The effort to scale up is ongoing and may be cracked for all we we know.

Producing 200g's for an animal study is one thing, producing 200g's, with verified, repeatable control standards that complies with FDA regulations and requirements for tox and human trials is another. The latter requires much more rigor and process infrastructure, which takes time.

Regarding selecting the final Herpes viral cide to take into the IND process, my understanding is that they are attempting to find the cide that attaches to all Herpes viral types. That is consistent with the Flucide approach which addresses all Type A flu variants. Yes, they have already found cides that are extremely effective against HSV1 and 2. The strategy as I understand it, is to find the broad spectrum cide that works for all the Herpes virus variations including HSV1 and 2, VZV and ocular. No other drug out there has that promise. It may not or may not be the same ligand as previously tested for HSV. This approach will allow one production process, one tox study, one chemical effects analysis on the body for all the Herpes viral indications and allow for expedient expansion of INDs using the same cide with different suspension media. They can always fall back on the HSV cide if the broad spectrum cide, which includes VZV, does not pan out.

Of course, test results for VZV effectiveness are still outstanding. I am an engineer. I am trained to go with the data when you have it. If you don't have it, find a way to get it. Otherwise, one can fall into vein speculations which are well off the true cause and effect.

Regarding topical application effectiveness for viral bodies that also live in the tissue, I would agree we don't have definitive data on how that works, just bottom line results, which have shown extremely high effectiveness for ocular Herpes, and HSV1 and 2 in animal studies. The theory is, the nano cide molecule absorbs into surrounding tissues and bind with the virus internal to the body. One can only conclude that there had to be some level of that process going on to achieve such dramatic effectiveness in the animal studies. Hence, tox studies will require the predictive analysis and measurement methods to show that the cides are not toxic to the body. Therefore, the first cide through tox is the highest hurdle to get over in that regard for this technology. It is not hard to see that having to perform this type of analysis on how the body metabolizes each ligand design could be scope intensive. Thus, it is cost effective to find the most effective broad spectrum cide, to minimize scope of going after one virus at a time with a different ligand. And yes, this strategy takes longer than just going with one Herpes virus manifestation at a time in the short run.

Since all these Herpes viral manifestations are not effectively treated with existing medications, there is an opportunity for an unmet need.

Investing always carries with it some level of risk. No risk, no reward.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see your case as such a lock.

Informative article on advances in HSV research...

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-scientists-advance-herpesvirus-infection.html

How do you get that? Straynut regularly reports the short interest on NNVC and only the data from the WSJ each time. Nothing different about his/her reporting format this time.

The turd has converged then. Remember, buy low, sell high.

Just going by the chart.

You are right about the converging triangle, see the link below. I think the chart says different about the timing you suggest.


http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=nnvc

Actually, I think they are pursuing your #1 and #2.

They already have a HSV-1 and 2 cide that has demonstrated significant effectiveness. The plan was/is to have multiple confirmations of effectiveness for that indication path. I don't think anything has changed in that regard and there has been plenty of time for tests to be completed. Success of #1 is likely already in hand in my estimation.

They could just go with that; or, they could put forward and test a set of cide formulations, including the best HSV formulation, and see if there is one that works across all Herpes virus variations including VZV. If there is a pony in that set, FDA approval for each indication of a Herpes virus manifestation, using the same root cide should be much more expedient and cost effective to expand, since the manufacturing process of the root drug is the same and the same chemistry analysis/effects on the body would apply, as well.

If there is not a pony in that set, they can still pursue one or more narrow indications with different ligand formulations for each Herpes virus variant.

It is really the lowest risk, highest potential cost effective path to take in my opinion.

It is also one explanation as to why we have not heard anything on the HSV testing with the universities by now, as the final HSV cide selected may be dependent on the VZV testing.

Shorting against the box creates a neutral price position for the owner, but not for the rest of the market. When they cover, it still shows up as a buy at what ever price it happens to be at that time.

The past does not equal the future.

Dow reverses 250 points and NNVC is up a penny on light volume.

Seems like the shorts are trapped with news coming at anytime.

Not good for shorts.

Nope. They are not owned by the hired employees. They are owned by the company that provided the facilities and paid for the work.

That's why its called Intellectual Property.

Not true. Trade secrets are the property of the owner of the premises where they were discovered and codified, and the company that paid for the work, which is Nanoviricides.

I will say that patents and trade secrets mean nothing if there is no product to generate revenues. But, Nanoviricides is on a path to developing a product. It has yet to be realized but they have all the know how, talent, facilities and prior experience to do it. All this time in the development process does add up to IP.

Given the stated fact that Nanoviricides intends to produce their own product, and that no other entity has ever gone down this path to developing a nano-medicine, and it is apparently very difficult, and Nanoviricides has invested $80M and 12 years to get to this point, the chances of another company deciding and succeeding in the same path is extremely remote.

A couple of cases in point: Coca cola and Bicardi. Both have kept a tight hold on the trade secret formula that makes their brand unique. No patents. Yet, they are extraordinarily successful financially. No patents are necessary, because no other entity will be able to duplicate their product.

Typically, drugs are just a matter of chemistry. Not the case with nano-medicines in this case. The production process is everything.

I don't answer to you.

Patents are important, but the trade secrets (IP) acquired to reliably produce the drug formulation per FDA quality requirements, do not expire.

I don't believe it is a scam like you do.

I do agree that the company has not been as forth coming in their communications as they should have been and was too optimistic in their projections.

However, at some point, you have to go with what you know, currently, and not be forever scorned from past disappointments.

If they succeed with their latest strategy, it validates their technology, platform, and strategy for generating revenues. Plus, given how the company has matured, especially with the Shelton facility, the company is woefully under valued at these prices.

Stock prices are an indication of future value, not past successes or failures.

Yes

So if Seymour is quiet (in last month or more) then it must be a good sign.

Yep, something is brewing. My read is Dr Boniuk shed any potential conflict of interest with his role in the Boniuk Charitable Foundation.

Damn the bad luck....

Maybe I did not state it unambiguously: for equal value delta decreases in stock value the percentage decrease in stock value is on an exponential decrease below $1. It's the properties of 1/X. Your example used numbers that held the percentage decrease constant. The amount of equity lost in your example was exponentially decreasing.

10 cent decreases from $1 is indeed 10% in decrease in stock value.

10 cent decrease from 50 cents is a 20% decrease in stock value.

10 cent decrease from 20 cents is a 100% decrease in stock value.

The curve goes to infinite percent loss as "X" goes to zero.

The point is, there is far more leverage over percentage increase or decrease in stock value with exponentially less capital as the stock price dips below $1. Exponentially more shares can be purchased in that 0 to $1 regime for the same amount of capital. That's one of the reasons it's such a hard barrier to crack.

$1 is also has logarithmic properties, that is, delta monetary declines become exponential percentage decreases in stock value as compared to above $1. The reverse is also true, purchasing the stock at $0.5 and having it go to $1.00, takes much less demand for the stock than going from 1 to 2 $. The shorts are fully aware of this attribute, but I have to admit, it is fun watching them trying to crack the $1 barrier and bounce off every time.

Testing $1 for the fourth time. If it bounces off $1 again then it is a good sign. If not, your models might be right. Like last year, it bounced off $1 before and after the turn of the calendar year. That could happen again, except there were some hints of progress at that time. Just the CEO letter this time, which is actually a more professional means to communicate than email replies.

Initially, I was not that impressed by the switch to shingles antiviral as it represents another shift to a another antiviral. However that virus (herpes zoster) is in the herpes family, which has been the focus, and there is a bigger market for a remedy for shingles once you get it. Vaccines don't help at that point. Not everyone gets the vaccine, and it has a relatively low probably of preventing shingles. If you have ever had shingles or have known someone who has it, it is very painful and can take you down and out of work for months. So, that is a worthy endeavor and will likely be efficient to the market as it is a topical treatment.

I think NNVC is making progress but has elected not to report on it as it is counter productive to the stock price given all the negative sentiment. I think they would rather just blow the shorts out of the water someday.

I agree with one exception, I would not characterize the extended timeline as an indication of repeated failures, maybe the market does. I would characterize it as the hidden scope of developing a new class of drug. Not only are they developing a completely new drug class, they are developing the pilot process to manufacture it in a FDA compliant process for future revenue. (think reward)

As a system engineer and program manager of several efforts that had to achieve something never accomplished before to be successful, there is always that hidden knowledge component, otherwise, it would have been done already. (think risk) It can take more time than you think it should, then boom, there is a break through.

It falls into the risk / reward category. I think that is a better way to characterize it from a market standpoint.

It wasn't a prediction. It was just based on a pure technical motivation to go after HSV in a more significant way than current treatments. There is a need and a market for that.

Also,

All the discussion about whether there is a problem with the ligand technology is off base, in my opinion.

NNVC has never had the facilities, the staff, the equipment, the ability to model and test their ligand technology like they do now. They are also optimizing their processes for FDA approved production. My read is they are taking the opportunity to make sure they have the most optimal ligand for a particular virus, like HSV, to make sure that when they proceed forward with Tox and human trials, they will know that other entities cannot beat them at their own game. They are establishing a lead that will not be challenged.

Furthermore, all the discussion about running out of funds etc. is comparatively bogus. Consider GNCA for example. They had recent success with their HSV vaccination treatment through Phase IIb trials but they are almost broke and deeply in debt. NNVC has no debt. GNCA cannot take their Gen03 product to Phase III without significantly more funding. NNVC is nowhere close to that situation.

I will say, if a large pharma wanted to go after a near 100% success rate against HSV, they would acquire both GNCA and NNVC, in some form, to apply both an immune therapy and a anti viral therapy at the same time. The one two punch.

It's binary at this point. They will either succeed at scale up or they won't. They will not show their hand until the timing is right for them. Place your bets.

Time for shorts to cover then.....

Patience, actually

Or full time equivalent. In my line of work, we measure man weeks or man months for budgeting or execution to plan purposes. You could have several different people working on the job part time, but what matters for the budget or execution is what the level of support is.

True, but that does not mean I'm wrong.

Yep, great buying opportunity.

Same ol same ol tired arguments, yet the PPS is still in the range, despite predictions of a break down to the $1 level. Like I have said, the market has priced in a 50% plus premium from the January 2016 lows for the progress they are making with Herpescide and Flucide production and testing. The market is patiently waiting while all the trash talk continues.

Over 2.5 M shares short, while longs accumulate on the dips. It could be a 10 bagger.

The company has never been in a better position to succeed.

They are not tinkering with cides anymore.

If they had a spoon before, they now have a bobcat small tracker now.

LOL

And you can always find people with bullish or bearish arguments depending on their position in a stock.

Actually, the art of profiting from stocks is to buy low and sell high. It is always a risk reward proposition. The key is understanding why a company by virtue of its market cap or stock price is under valued and what is its potential up side.

Nanoviricides is engaged in developing a completely new approach to antivirals. It is been an uphill climb. You can make all sorts of arguments why they have not reached the top of the mountain yet, but it is just rhetorical since you don't value the potential upside in your statements. Very revealing IMHO.

The latest PR highlights an amplified or enhanced capability the company has not had before, which is the ability to model more of the many binding points of a virus, rank those molecular solutions analytically for strongest affinity for cide attachment, synthesize a reduced subset of test cides, test those cides against the actual target virus in their new, in house, BSL2 facility (in the cGMP) for effectiveness, further distilling the test cide set, to a near optimal state before going forward with independent University animal studies; all the while capturing the QA/QC processes for more automated production batches for clinical trials and initial market entry. This is a much bigger crank than they have ever had before.

Their cides already have a great track record of effectivity with no evidence of toxcity from independent test studies. This enhanced capability further increases their odds of introducing a superior drug to market to deal with harmful, even deadly viruses. No one will be able to compete with that. No one will be able to stop this freight train once it gets to the top of the mountain.

The company has never been in a better position to succeed.

Agreed. Well said.