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.
More institutional buys!
Thats what it looks like. Someone just might have trimmed a few shorts.
Shorts spelled backwards is Strohs. I am ok with Strohs beer, but not shorts. Unless its summer time, that is!
Nice close rounding out the 4 eyeballs!
$84,672.00 that will be worth over $202,789.44 by this time next year <-- RACOMO
Currently JA2FDX is booming in from Japan on 28.489mc, gotta run, gotta check the news from Japan!
www.qrz.com/db/ja2fdx
Nothing further from Carregidor... ... ...
I would buy the drug if approved for sale. I would take or have anyone I cared about take any drug that has even a snowballs chance to prevent an otherwise certain death, regardless if it was approved for sale, Phase I or whatever, developmental, or even from Captain Julio's eel oil.
Great to see the steady upward trend on revenues.
I think their cell culture media might drive the majority of revenue increases in the future.
I think they will still have to dilute some to get operating capital as their G&A is a little high and the revenues will still need to climb somewhat before they actually start paying for R&D.
I hope they can keep total outstanding shares to 200 million, or 250 million tops. I also hope they can get the Parkinsons treatment results out there in a good way to allow for a higher share price in any future offering. They could probably raise enough funds for another 12months in the bank and keep at or below the 200 million outstanding share count. Based on other companies statistics and the great news on the Parkinsons efficacy, my personal opinion is the capitalization value should be at 200 million at least this year. That would be around a $1/share. When the IND is in place, 400million, $2per share and with good results, whcih the primate studies are suggesting will likely happen, well up from there substantially.
All in all, I agree the stock is undervalued and is a BUY IMO.
Intersting paper on nanomicelle formation, structure and stability. The may have been posted before by someone as it is circ 2011/2012.
It has some nice graphics for visualization and some interesting information.
www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~molly/publications/polymeric%20micelle%20stability.pdf
NNVC should keep all options open and query many of them on a fairly regular basis to keep abreast of any possible testing life-saving scenarios.
The UK relaxation is certainly a place to investigate. I am not sure if the viral types would be ones NNVC has more readily available or not. Once the Viroclinics data is in, it might be more clear what to try to have.
The one I don’t understand is rabies. There are people dying in South America and other places with a post symptomatic rabies infection that have no chance at all without a Nanovircide injection.
It is not just NNVC, other developmental theraputics have good potential to save lives in dire cases that are not used for legal and regulator reasons; Thus the UK position! It is nice to see the potential for such action widening.
BTW - Nice to see the price jump into a range that itches shorts!
RACOMO
I am rapidly approaching a crazy old man, so this is a Rapidly Approaching Crazy Old Man Opinion, a RACOMO.
I can’t seem to find my shorts, so my RACOMO is NNVC is a BUY!
OMG, U actually have me ROFLMAO!
Thanks, I needed that this morning. That and the note from Seymour has helped to set the day for a good start. Additionally, we might actually have a spring like day on tap for today. Maybe just today, but I will take it!
Great to see NNVC supplying all the other efficacy tests by so many independent highly curious investigators while keeping the TOX study a priority!
Best of luck to all!
I agree! Nice to see the confirmation of sorts that things are indeed moving along. Looks like we just might be making that slow turn to the days of the next level of milestone progress gates! Interesting about the FDA number needed. I hope toxicities indeed stay so low to for all practical purposes they are non-existant. The is not only nice for the prognosis of the stock, but also for the prognosis of the potential patients in the future.
Well....all I can say at the moment is ra ra ra GO NNVC!
Thanks I Need Help for the forward!
I would also note I believe that the mice utilized in the tests were of an inbread nature and potenially geared more toward genetic study with stem cell products or the like versus mice like Dr. Harris's geared toward the study of infectious desease like Dengue and antibody dependent enhancement aspect.
While her model is likely much more applicable to efficacy, I wonder if it would matter to much from a nanotoxin investigative standpoint which to use. I would think maybe some other mouse design is best to evaluate toxicities.
How many people who say ROFL are actually really doing that?
Besides the eventual fate of NNVC and a lot of other questions I have in life, I need to add that one to the list!
I revised the post to correct the path name to
www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/10/1/47
That seems to work.
My main point was not to try an nail down precise toxicity issues as I will not have the actual data and case conditions to know how to evaluate, but rather to note that nothing jumped out at me as looking like a show stopper problem up ahead.
I did find it interesting though and might give someone an idea of what is being looked for. for example I noted some increased levels in reactive oxygen species, and the blood counts showed increased granulocytes, possibly a reaction to some stress or inflammation indication?
Again though, I am not sure of the comparability to the NNVC product.
There were several papers mentioned.
The original one I was reading was a link in Nanopatent's post#82128.
The other I was looking at that I copied the sections of text from, (FYI I noticed I left off the second point which was; 2) The body’s innate ability to self-regulate is much more prevalent than regulation in cultured cells
was from a 2013 Oct 3 publication titled;
Nanotoxicity comparison of four amphiphilic polymeric micelles with similar hydrophilic or hydrophobic structure
Try the following for the full text. I hope it is correct, I am having trouble with links lately
www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/10/1/47
It has some interesting data in it, but I am not sure if it is directly applicable to nanoviricides materials. I believe NNVC differentiates the structure to use a more block and tail or tendril design of the hydrophobic vs hydrophilic sections of the nanomicelle than a block to block design. I would think this could have an influence in modifying toxicity as I believe some or a lot of the toxicity of nanoparticles is due to their size/shape or morphology of sorts. Again though, bear-in-mind, I am talking out of my $#&@! somewhat here. Just speculating with what I have to work with in this tired old head.
The paper's conclusion section is:
In this study we prepared PEG-PG-PCL, PEEP-PCL, PEG-PCL and PEG-DSPE micelles and compared their nanotoxicity on J774.A1 cells, Eahy.926 cells and mice. It was indicated that all micelle systems induced a change in inflammatory factors, potentially as a result of the increased level of ROS. PEG-PG-PCL micelles and PEEP-PCL micelles led to an increase in cell volume. This phenomenon likely correlated with the size of PEG-PG-PCL micelles and the polyphosphoester structure in PEEP-PCL. Besides, PEG-DSPE micelles inhibited the growth of Eahy.926 cells by inducing apoptosis. No evidence was found for cell membrane changes after treatment with these micelles. Likely due to the direct injection into veins, these nanocarriers were found to influence blood components differently. However, these changes in the blood did not induce significant alterations in inflammatory factors and pathology of major mouse organs. The difference between the in vitro and in vivo results indicates that the in vitro toxicity may not occur in vivo, probably because the animal body can protect against certain toxicities. Additionally, there may be other toxicity-related reactions found in vivo that were not observed in vitro due to the unknown reasons. Because there is currently no standard for nanotoxicity, it is difficult for us to conclude whether the observed changes are serious or negligible. In general, it is demonstrated that the micelle systems tested here show diverse nanotoxicity correlated with their structures and their biosafety is different in different cell model. This study will certainly provide more scientific understandings on the nanotoxicity of amphiphilic polymeric micelles.
I am not too worried for similar reasons. I suspect there will be some interactions, as there is typically at least something that happens even when you inject saline into the body.
Like I mentioned in my post a moment ago, my biggest concern for NNVC is not the toxicity, but that other investigators and groups are exploring this area for anti-virals, and while Diwan and others have patents and miscellaneous IP protection, I know from experience in other areas that if someone with deep pockets wants to do something, patents dont always prevent it. First successful human trials is most important! Thus my previous statements about taking too much time. It is unfortunate that NNVC can get it perfect, or as close as humanly possible, but if someone else jumps ahead in some manner, that could present a challenge to them in the long run. We need to be the first to obtain successful human trials. With that, watch out, NNVC pops to a $200 stock, IMHO of course!
I think they are more postulates based on an understanding of typical and potential physiological responses. The in-vivo (within and actual living organism) test were done on KM mice.
I can't seem to copy links well anymore, the one paper title is:
Nanotoxicity comparison of four amphiphilic polymeric micelles with similar hydrophilic or hydrophobic structure - Oct 3, 2013, which states:
When these in vitro (on cells) and in vivo (on mice) results were compared comprehensively, we found that the toxicity in vivo was not as significant as that in vitro. There are several possible reasons: (1) The micelles in vivo exist mainly in the blood system, which is a dynamic environment, whereas the in vitro studies are performed in a relatively static environment,
I think there are some humna phase testing beginning for delivering cancer fighting compounds, but I am unclear on that or status of.
Again, I must caution, I am pushing the limits of my contemporary knowledge to allow me to keep it all in proper context. Addtionally, other activities are preventing me from delving extremely deep into the various on-going research efforts being made by many investigators.
My biggest concern is not the toxicity, but that other investigators and groups are exploring this area for anti-virals, and while Diwan and others have patents, I know form experienc ein other areas that if someone with deep pockets wants to do something, patents dont always prevent it. First successful human trials is most important! Thus my previous statements about taking too much time.
Good luck to all.
It could just be!
NNVC really has something. Mark my words, if NNVC does not develop it and bring to the world in a workable useable form, someone will somehow someway steal it from them an make it happen somehow someway.
As far as the foundation, I found the early chapters interesting but also found it to be a little boring in a tidious way and never finished the trilogy. The mule got a little too extended!
Which stage is NNVC in as far as a trilogy goes, and who is the likely mule?
More the latter I believe.
Again, I am not a medical researcher and out of my league on the details, but what I gleaned is that while the nano micelles show a promising future, as with all compounds placed in the physiological system, there are safety concerns.
I think the paper suggests the most logical concerns are uptake in parts of the immune system, as with monocytes and macrophages accumulation in lymph nodes and the spleen (I am surmising here). Also some concerns over the degree of allergic reactions and/or inflammatory responses, particularly with continuous exposure or long-term use.
Other papers suggest that toxicities exhibited during in-vitro testing are not typically appearing or obvious in in-vivo and suggest the body can tolerate the compounds in general. The gist I got was that if no or low apparent toxicities are initially seen, due diligence would dictate investigation the effect of multiple or prolonged dosages to look for accumulation and/or other physiological responses as indicated above. Sounds like pure common sense to me.
The take-away for me is that the duration of a highly complete and thorough toxicity investigation could have a need to be expanded, even if good news is shown initially.
However, it also appears that some of the extended dosing concerns might be more associated with anti-cancer therapeutic drug deliveries that many need to occur in many courses distributed over many years. Viral infections are more temporally acute issues.
As a side note, the attachment of the target ligands as discussed in the CRC publication also appear self-assembling such that they can produce a base carrier nanomicelle material that has extended shelf-life, where upon a new virus could be quickly engaged by simply adding the desired target ligand to existing batches of ‘blank’ nanovircides waiting on the shelves to be essentially programmed.
That would be wonderful and again, it means that Nanoviricides may actually be the most effective anti-pandemic defense system the world has seen under development to date.
The more I investigate this potential life saving technology, the more I am impressed.
Have a great day!
HS
Nanopatent...I finally got around to reading this paper.
The amphiphilic polymeric micelles, which I believe similar to what NNVC uses, are discussed. Overall this paper, coupled with the chapter on Nanoviricides in the CRC publication Bionanotechnology II ISBN -10: 143980463X makes me more comfortable with both the envitable scaleup success and the likelihood of low toxicity.
It sounds like there could be a need to check the effect of repeated or extended dosing periods. But overall, not too bad. Nothing jumps out as an oh crap, thats a bummer!
Thanks a lot for finding this very recent work published in the International Journal of NanoMedicine on February 20th of this year!
I have been mostly focused on NNVC's animal testing results to date to give me confidence. Some of the detail in the assembly and issues surrounding the actual materials themselves is rather facinating. I can follow much of it, but I lack enough fluency in specific areas to really bear down on it as I would like.
Thanks again!
why this survives and others dont, is anyone's not much of a guess.
Sounds like 14.313
NNVC is much better than that.
I hope so, ISCO has been in a very tight trading range. Amazingly tight. They do need to keep growth in sales of their side product to maintain themselves as being apart from others in the industry and to help them out with their burn rate that is higher than desired. The latest interim results from the primate study is very very encouraging.
The doctor that is amazed is not part of ISCO, but is a leading independent specialist in the specific field of investigation! That is always a very big plus!
ISCO remains a stock under many radar screens. If they maintain positive growth in their side dealings and move their primary to the IND, watch out. I would not want to look back then at being a seller at these prices.
Wishing all the best of good buys!
HS
Thanks, and I agree it is an eventual critical gate that must be succesfully navigated. And while it is indeed a near term issue, I think that with interest growing, we have a little room and possible near term options to allievate somewhat.
I also must stress that my expertise in this area is extremely limited. My relational experience is with other compounds typically larger sized. I assume they are using some sort of liquid fluid media, potentially an aqueous media. Even in those cases, maintaining consistent dispersion and contact kinetic characteristics as batch sizes increase can be difficult. I wish I had more direct experience with the realm of techniques they are in need of exploiting. I would sign any confidentiality agreement and offer time free of charge, just out of curiosity. However, I honestly doubt I have the direct needed qualifications to be of much help. I could provide some emotional help. I am good at crying with people when something does not work and partying with them when it does!
All in all, this is probably the most interesting company I have ever invested in over the last 40 years of my investing experience.
Best of luck to all.
Some time back I mentioned that scale-up of the specific nano-micelle material manufacture could be giving them a problem.
In reading the letter to shareholders, I noted their discussion of that and classifying the scale up problem as having been anticipated, but remaining a bottleneck of sorts regardless.
I would advise based on my experience that this is rather typical. While I have been involved in sub micron fine particle handling, I have not been involved in its manufacture to rigid requirements I suspect NNVC desires.
This is one of the areas I think additional funds could help with. However, I would think it might not be a major critical path problem at the moment. I believe they have parallel paths going. One is to keep up the investigative process into basic efficacy testing with the other highly interested entities they describe, while the other is to pursue the manufacturing issues as cost effectively as they can at the moment.
This is probably the single biggest reason for any delays in toxicity testing and evaluation. Attempting to build a facility that manufactures a consistent superior nano-scale product without a known blueprint of how to do so in the best fashion is quite difficult. Ultra-fine materials have behaviors that can create significant equipment selection and operation issues. Many of the issues are seldom initially apparent. Primary agglomeration from static and van der waals forces is only one issue that comes to mind.
While I think this is a problem for them, I am actually not that concerned. The biggest concern is how it impacts their production quantity and quality for the next more demanding testing phases. It is vitally important they don’t drastically change their process, even if it takes long to create the needed batches. We had to manufacture a material for a about 8 months in a lab scale process to make enough to run one quick process opeation test. It took so long we had to be concerned about deterioration of the initial material by the time we completed enough to fill our test reaction chamber.
This is vitally important so that the efficacy, which is likely tied to the product quality and consistency, is not impaired by any such possible changes in manufacture. I have seen material characteristics change rather remarkably after scale up to large batches.
From an ultimate production standpoint, when proven in humans, the technologies and material processing expertise that can then be brought to bear will be either knocking down their door or be much more easily afforded by them.
It is important to understand that specific nano-material manufacture is a relatively new process with specialized unit operations that are not widely known or developed by the chemical and materials process industries. In performing their scale-up trials, I hope they also keep a look out for patentable unit operations and manufacturing techniques as well.
I know how you feel. I have a 401K and an IRA. I have lost 85 percent of my IRA having gone deep in both stocks of highly speculative nature and in those that were thought of as blue chip.
I have made money on an irresponsible emotional burst investment and lost money on a well thoughtout logical contemporary investment.
I cant tell you what to do.
Maybe buy a 1000 shares for under 4K. I cant promise, but I sure expect it to be at 5 sometime in the not too distant future. Sell 800 to get your money back and keep 200 to ride to the ultimate conclusion. If that works and it drops, try it again, only risking what you want each time, always keeping the original 200. Some people do quite good with that approach. Find a stock you think has some underlying value that is temporarily depressed, buy enough to sell some and keep at least 100 shares. I knew a guy that built quite a nice super diversified mini fund for himself over a 15 year period. He must of had about 100 or more different companies, all with 100 shares each. Some only worth about a 100 bucks, others worth about 8000.
Find a strategy you can feel comfortable with. Watch out for the message board addiction that can waist time, spur emotions, and prevent true research into NNVC and many other companies out there.
Good luck. Even the best are useless without it!
HS
The answer is obvious
Take a fraction of your portfolio, no matter how small, buy some and forget about it.
In the process it is then possible to go outside on a beautiful day, look up at the sky, and think; "thank god I have had the chance to be alive".
Mid 2015 I would guess. I wish sooner, but it could be a little later as well. I think they are correct in the time for human phases to be completed in relative short order once commenced.
There will also be more from Viroclinics and others coming in in the meantime as well.
Best of luck to all NNVC longs!
Best of luck to NNVC in their honest attempt to save lives in a major way. They are on the forefront of producing Anti-Pandemics.
HS
One of the best letters to shareholders I have seen in years.
A MUST READ!
Thanks for NNVC for making this timely and informative effort.
Nanoviricides Inc., NNVC on the AMEX , Ranked BUY
NNVC has been verified long ago not to be scam, cheat or fiddle of a company. Scientific reference books have explained and delineated the fundamentals and legitimacy of NNVC therapeutic advancements (ref - CRC publication Bionanotechnology II ISBN -10: 143980463X).
Institutional investors have made review and purchased shares after having demonstrated acceptance to the NYSE/AMEX. (Ref - Vanguard, Goldman Sacks, Deutsche Bank, et.al.)
Working within the pharmaceutical industry protocols to perform in vitro and later, animal testing, prior to human phases, NNVC has been documented to have had excellent success in both. (Ref – H5N1 & Rabies at the National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology in Hanoi, Ebola studies with the United States Army Institute of Infectious Diseases, Epidemic Kerato-Conjunctivitis EKC, anti-Herpes clinical study with THEVAC and Herpes Simplex Virus HSV with Dr. Rosenthal at NEOMED, anti-HIV therapeutics testing with the University of California in addition to KARD Scientific, Dengue Fever tests with Dr. Eva Harris at the University of California, Berkeley, et.al)
The majority of all testing has reported excellent efficacy against the viral types targeted, with no apparent toxicity issues. In proceeding with the normal course of new drug development the FDA granted a pre-IND meeting, which upon being held gave guidance for facility and testing requirements to proceed to first human phase testing. After much effort, NNVC is currently finalizing the facility and preparing for such testing. The FDA and the European medical agencies were also impressed enough to grant NNVC’s Denque Fever anti-viral an orphan drug designation.
The Chair Professor of Ophthalmology at Baylor College of Medicine, and a Director of the Company, was asked why he invested a total of $7M ($7,000,000.00 USD) in NNVC during the 2013 calendar year. His answer was, “As I became familiar with the technology and the various on-going programs that the Company has, it became apparent that the potential was nothing short of amazing”.
It is possible that as a director, he could have some bias, but it is the writer’s understanding that he was originally made aware of the company by a family member that impressed by the testing she was doing on one of the company’s anti-viral compounds. The point however, is that this well respected doctor, doctors and institutions in other countries, Dr. Harris, Dr. Rosenthal, as well as others, including financial institutions like Vanguard and Goldman, including the FDA, find NNVC credible and worthy of note and respect due.
It is in the writer’s opinion, that if some person, or group puts forth the suggestion that NNVC is a company built upon a scam or a fraud, or is a ‘snake oil’ stock, that their statements or actions are more apt to be based on deceitful ulterior motives designed to promulgate their own scam or fraud, however large or small, than based on the reality of the company or its technology.
It is the writer’s opinion that from a developmental company standpoint and from an industry comparative and historical perspective, NNVC has shown good stewardship of funding by achieving excellent efficacy results for the total invested dollar value to date.
It would also be naïve of the writer to assume no missteps have been made and/or clear skies lie ahead. Like all companies, NNVC has been presented with its own set of corporate, technical, business and legal issues. Some likely brought about by their own mistakes or imperfect actions while others made by the assortment of those outside with their own agendas, good or bad. So far though, NNVC appears to have managed their funds effectively to be on the doorsteps of human trials of a potential game changing anti-viral therapeutic product. For that they should be commended.
It is important for all investors to do their own due diligence. It is best to avoid tendencies blindly follow or blindly assume accuracy and legitimacy of positive or negative commentary. It is also critical to understand one’s risk level and beware of misinformation. Recognize that not all misinformation is intentional, while other cases are indeed malicious and/or manipulative in nature.
The writer currently maintains a small equity position in NNVC common stock and as such could be suspected of bias. While not in the medical or pharmaceutical field, a background in science and engineering, including chemical process R&D experience, has been of immense help to the writer in recognizing true technical merit in areas investigated over the last 30+ years. It is a humble opinion that NNVC has a valuable new therapeutic platform and would be a loss to humanity if it were to ultimately be unsuccessful.
It is also a humble opinion that NNVC, like many others, will have headwinds by the relentless capability of the business and investing world to put forth a nearly endless list of obstacles to almost any endeavor, regardless of the underlying technology, worth, or legitimacy.
All said and considered, it is the writer’s opinion NNVC is BUY in the speculative biotech equity category.
This morning!
These was an excellent board for the exchange of ideas and information both pro and con until a few weeks ago when childish actions began occuring after the SA short attach article.
NNVC has a good following that is growing however.
Patently false
I am very sorry and do not intend to offend, but that statement is false.
If someone libels a company with lies and misrepresentations the 1st amendment does not protect them.
Especially, but not necessarily, if it is done for personal gain.
So would I if I thought the offer was coming tomorrow and they would consider it! I doubt they would consider it. Please dont tell me that if their pipeline is proven in humans, that is all you think this company is worth.
I tend to disagree. I think many on the board would accept 4 Billion at this stage, but honestly feel it is worth more if and when the science is brought to its full potential with all the applications it can address.
10 Billion is my estimate for their worth at first successful phase 1 human trial. Since their platform is of the type that is transferable to almost any virus, then efficacy and lack of toxicity would allow for significantly more worth with any successful trials thereafter.
The science is REAL, the efficacy demonostrated in animnal biological systems, of which humans are a part, is REAL. Regardless of what one thinks about management, management made that happen, and IT, the REALNESS of the SCIENCE is what is worth the BILLIONS in the long run.
None of that is NNVC's fault.
They have been minding theri own business, moving forward according to plans. Rouge SA contributors have been the circus people.
Clue, I remember that game, or was it Pig Mania!
Well, it will be interesting to see what comes of the latest from seeking alpha on the buyout.
I threw a double porker, what do you have?
I think it is worth more than 60/share BEFORE the drugs are on the market at first successful phase human phase testing.
NNVC being Acquired?
We will have to wait and see. If the company does not issue a statment by Monday, that might be a positive for such a buyout potential. The writer of the latest Seeking Alpha post that indicates the acquisition talks are underway could get in a lot of trouble if false and he recently covered shorts or bought in.
Strange days for NNVC stock. At 3.375 billion and 54 million, lets say 60 million shares, I think $56.25/share would be nice, but far under its true value!
From the Seeking Alpha Post/Article:
NanoViricides (NNVC) Acquisition In Review 0 comments
Mar 5, 2014 5:23 PM | about stocks: NNVC
A source close to the matter has stated that NanoViricides (NNVC) is in the process of being acquired. "Due to recent developments in the company, we are intent on acquiring it for defensive purposes along with expansion of our drug line-up, among other development based factors. We have valued it between 2.25 and 4.5 billion dollars, although we are yet to reach an agreement."
The source has said that the full details will "hopefully be agreed upon and fully disclosed by the end of this month", and that this acquisition will entail all aspects of the company, its stock, and licenses. The financial promise that this acquisition brings along is uncertain although this valuation is multiple times larger than NanoViricides market cap, but we must keep in mind its market cap may not reflect the value of its licenses and technologies, and whatever this "recent developments" means for the companies valuation. This source has disclosed that they are "unwilling to disclose any further information" due to their key role in the acquisition which may reveal their identity in a still unsigned deal.
I am also not sure he is not annonymous
His says his name is Matt, his screen id is mathewrohlad, whatever that is. He is followed buy 1. But he does have an email link.
My name is Hari and I was born on the planet Helicon in the Arcturus sector where my father worked as a tobacco grower in a hydroponics plant
I was found dead, slumped over my desk in my office at Streeling University in 12,069 (1 F.E.).
The post writer has a limited number of followers at a value of 1. This all sounds a little odd to me. Time will tell I guess.
It is tomorrow.
I know because I just worked Alex (UR4MSF) in the Ukraine on 14.242 megacycles!
He is hanging in there!
Wonder how that will influence NNVC!
Wishing all the best of good buys!
HS
U mean 35 BILLION!
This is really a strange night on the old Ihub NNVC board!
Go NNVC
Hummmmmm is right!
At least we agree on something.
We are making progress!
By the way, I have an interociter for sale. Just check with my buddy Exciter, he has all the details!
Go NNVC