And it will be back as usual.

Then your are likely wrong and don't know it.

Nope. Disagree with your assertion as well. Repeated, One-sided interpretations don't count. They are just words.

There is mountains of data showing significant progress. You never report on that. The company has never been in a better position to succeed.

Here, Here !

Until it happens. The past does not equal to the future.

Except for Dr Boniuk. His entry into the equation throws water on your silly aspersion of the Diwan and Seymour scenario.

His integrity as a person, a medical professional, businessman and philanthropist is unassailable. He has put a small fortune into the company based on his due diligence. If it were a scam, with the only intent to make insiders rich, he would not be a party to it.

I happened to be watching TV last Saturday, and this show called Hidden Heroes came on. The topic happen to be teaching kids in school "anti-bullying". At the end, Dr Boniuk made an appearance to the class and was noted as a principle donor to the cause. See the link below.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chicken-soup-for-the-soul-launches-anti-bullying-program-in-schools-nationwide-300209277.html

His, effective endorsement of everything that NNVC is doing is polar opposite to your accounts of what the company is really about.

I propose you settle the concern of Dr Seymour's longevity, once and for all, with a 50 mile bicycle race. Mano y Mano. You pick the course.

The company has never been a better position to succeed.

Go with that.

All based on one yahoo article. No company, no tests, no patents and yet it gets your attention like it is here today. Any you complain about over hyping and no drugs to market for 11 years. Seems like a big biased disconnect to me.

So all this discussion grinding on the assignment of Diwan's patents, and now a consortium that has no patents, just an idea, is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

It's called vein speculations and are not factual or worthy to spend any mental energy on.

"For it's unmatched successful experience in the discovery, development and commercialization of anti-viral therapeutics. Thanks to it's versatile technology platform and it's virus-specific nanoviricides, it is able to create drugs with rapid and effective response against almost the totality of life-threatening viral infections. "

So true, there is nothing like Nanoviricides in the way they have developed a completely unique and effective technology to a commercial therapeutic for life-threatening viruses.

Depends of your definition of scale up. Making consistent batches of 500g can be different than making consistent batches of 500g that have all the process controls and associated documentation implemented.

The process controls and associated documentation is necessary to satisfy the regulatory process of new drugs to clinical studies and the marketplace as well as establishing a baseline for Big Pharma companies to replicate.

Producing consistent batches of larger scale, such as 500g, is the first enabling break through that demonstrates the feasibility of doing so as commercial product.

It's all consistent with the fact that the company has succeeded in making 500g batches that have repeatable characteristics that they are looking for. And they are still working on the process for large scale manufacturing that can be used for a Big Pharma for mass production.

Good for him.

He is smarter than all of us.

Maybe there is a frustration with the fact that non-founders or non-directors will never gain a controlling interest in the company.

Who's using PCP laden crack?

No operational cGMP facility with BSL2 lab was the reason.

Pathetic argument.

I got it. It is as simple as that.

I think those in the Short Cabal refuse to acknowledge anything positive about the company. Maybe it is just rhetorical on their part.

I will acknowledge that the technology that Nanoviricide's is maturing, is complex, however. Finding the exactly the right ligand key to bind to a specific virus can be done with analysis and modeling, but it is not a perfect science, especially for finding the optimal ligand. NNVC has taken hits on schedule for the time it takes to use third parties for that iteration cycle. Now they have brought that iteration cycle in house.

So they are actually doing something to improve their schedule execution. Yeah!

She'll be sunbathing soon.

Actually, doc, my reply was in response to the loanranger who could not reconcile these two quotes from the 10Q. They are perfectly consistent. I don't believe they are oversights or is it necessary to change Nanoviricide's website.

Yes, your first sentence, from page 38, is for world wide simultaneous demand for flucide if an epidemic where to occur. The second sentence is from page 30 which refers to the fact that the cGMP facility enables initial market entry for any of their cides.

1)

Refers to the production scale of Flucide after initial entry to market. The cGMP facility is not intended to provide the capacity of Flucide to a world wide market demand where millions of people could be infected at the same time.

In addition, NanoViricides, Inc. is possibly the first company in the world in the entire field of nanomedicines to have developed a nanomedicine drug that is effective when taken orally (by mouth). Our oral anti-influenza drug candidate, NV-INF-2, has shown extremely high broad-spectrum effectiveness against two different influenza A viruses in animal models, in our FluCide™ program. We believe that the Oral FluCide drug development will follow the Injectable FluCide for hospitalized patients as the latter enters human clinical trials. We believe we now have the ability to manufacture sufficient drug material for initial market entry of our Injectable FluCide drug candidate when licensed by the FDA or another regulatory agency. However, an oral drug against influenza is expected to require very large manufacturing facility in order to address the large worldwide out-patient influenza market, comprising billions of cases every year. We intend to out-license the oral FluCide drug candidate when appropriate.

Regarding your second sentence from page 30 refers to initial market entry and smaller simultaneous demand for such viruses as ocular herpes. Hence, a partnership or buy out with a big pharma is a likely scenario after a cide has achieved initial market entry.

2)

Also, on page 48:

We anticipate that we have sufficient funding to take at least one of our drug candidates through initial Phase I and Phase II human clinical trials. At present, we believe that we may also have sufficient additional funding in hand to take at least one more drug candidate into an IND application stage.

Maybe this is why the Shelf Registration was terminated.

NNVC is like a hot but crazy girl friend. You can't take your eyes off her but she drives you nuts.... hahaha

Yahoo finance says NNVC 10Q is expected next week.

There is another more powerful argument that demonstrates Diwan’s intent and progress of commercializing his patents through NNVC.

Nope. BK very eloquently and efficiently dispensed with that repetitive BS about an apparent IP problem. The facts and the truth win out as usual. I have been a follower of BK and this board since 2006. BK has demonstrated his credibility for the facts of this company. The 7 have not. The 7 have the house of cards argument that just folded up flat.

But, like I said, it is informative to see the exchange and the positive flip side that won out.

I think BK handled that 7 on 1 without a scratch. Thanks for the info BK.

Dead cat bounces are typically due to short covering.

Stock price popping. Any reasons? Short covering? News?

4.6% - the ratio of shares short as a percentage of the float.

Like I have said before, the past does not equal the future. So, I agree with your assessment of the past. The break through in the ability to scale up, by virtue of the new cGMP facility changes the pattern for the future.

My argument is consistent with strong hands shaking out the weak hands.

Despite the short cabal peanut gallery rhetoric, the net effect is to accumulate shares at a lower price. They know the true value of company and what the future holds in terms of a disruptive pharmaceutical technology NanoViricides has and where the share price is headed.

I will seed a couple of points. After filtering out the hyperbolic rhetoric, there are some interesting findings they dig up, even if they are couched in a ridiculously negative context. If you don't get offended, there is usually a flip side that is positive. Additionally, I can see they are putting pressure on the company to produce or the stock price suffers. Not a bad strategy if you have the deep pockets, and the means to control the stock price, as long as you don't get caught breaking the law.

Have a good night.

I wouldn't be so sure. The first mistake that those that break the rules or the law is they don't think they will be caught.

Actually, there is evidence of stock price manipulation. I have watched NNVC trade all day for months while I do my day trading. What I see, especially on low volume days like today, are block trades that don't show up on Level II, on the order of 1k to 50k shares, both buying and selling that don't change the bid/ask at all or only a penny or so. I have multiple realtime stock bid/ask feeds so I see the bigger picture. Large block trades that don't change the bid/ask while normally there are instantaneous, significant changes in the bid/ask for larger block trades, that do show up on the Level II, is the telltale sign. This is also where the volume controversy comes from. Additionally, successive trades of 100 to 500 shares at a time, oscilating and spaced out over time, can bring the price down 10 cents or more in a fairly short period of time, ie 10-30 minutes without block trades. Someone called this the crab walk. The end of day trading is suspect as well. What I see are these large block trades, that don't show up on Level II coupled with the 100 share variety to drive the price down right at the close.

All this has been described by some to be cooperative trading between hedge funds. You get a few hedge funds doing this, they can control the pps on low volume. If the cooperating hedge fund scenario is true, then there is collusion between these hedge funds to do this, which is illegal.

It should be a matter of record for the SEC to sort this out if they were so inclined.

Again, your opinion based on the last 10Q

Well, zero commercialization is your opinion.

If the SEC does not have the staff or the time to look into the stock price manipulation on NNVC, they certainly don't have time to look into differences in definitions of comerialization.

Not exactly. You are looking at the last 10Q and the current website. Things may have changed since the last 10Q. How come that can't be the interpretation?

Good luck with that. There is a bullet is in the gun whether you want to acknowledge it or not.