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.
Thank you!
Thank you!
I have an Uncle with lung cancer that has apparently metastized to the brain and my cousin's wife has breast cancer that has apparently metastized to her brain. Does anyone know how I can put either or both of them in contact with the appropriate person regarding PV-10 and compassionate use?
I have an Uncle with lung cancer that has apparently metastized to the brain and my cousin's wife has breast cancer that has apparently metastized to her brain. Does anyone know how I can put either or both of them in contact with the appropriate person regarding the Kevetrin trials?
I paid for a five year LEF membership about 2 years ago and my wife and I spend almost $2000 per year with them on supplements. One of the reasons I am an LEF member is that I thought they could be trusted to keep me updated on cutting edge medical treatments. It appears that I was wrong...
Dino said...
LEF will cover anatabine when they can sell it. As of now, they sell competing products so they certainly aren't going to tell you how much better something else is.
I tried to read that article and finally just threw the magazine down in disgust.
Regis said...
Look at January 2014 magazine edition of LEF Cytokine Suppress TM EGCG and Mung Beans and Brain Damage Reversed in Former NFL Players. Everything but anatabine.
I emailed the Dr. Oz show last year and have emailed (and called) the Life Extension Foundation (LEF) multiple times. Now that the peer reviewed and published thyroid study is out, I can think of no reason for LEF not to cover anatabine.
MineAllMine said...
I emailed the show (Dr. OZ) and asked if he had ever heard of Anatabloc.
@ starcig
I was not at the ASM last year but the statement in bold makes sense.
Starcig said...
Nuke, at the 2012 ASM I recall JW saying something to the effect that if the human thyroid study validated the mouse thyroid study, then all mouse studies would carry much more validity/creedence---human thyroid validation was the brass ring. Did I understand him right? Do you recall that kind of statement?
Unfortunately no... I had to work.
From the company website...
Annual Meeting to be held Dec 9th, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
Venue: Hampton Inn
26 Mill River Street,
Stamford, Connecticut 06902.
NanoViricides has made rooms available at Hampton Inn & Suites, at a discounted price. Shareholders can book these rooms in a first come-first served basis.
I agree but the 1 hour constraint may not have come into play...yet. They may have been infusing the Cohort 6 dose in 15, 20, or 30 minutes and had some minor issue with a patient that caused them to slow the infusion for that patient. It still could possibly have been completed in the hour timeframe. In such a case, and knowing that I would be increasing the dosage for subsequent cohorts, I would request permission to use the longer timeframe.
I knew someone on chemo a few years back and as I recall his treatment was infused over a multi-hour timeframe.
As someone stated earlier. I think 6 hrs for higher doses to infuse into body slower, as to not shock the body is right on the thinking of asking for more time. It leads me to believe that they may have had some issues in cohort 6 with the higher dose and 1 hr constraint.
Do we have anyone from this board who is attending the ASM today?
Are you referring to the ASCO Annual Meeting in June in Chicago or the Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium in January in San Francisco?
I'm looking forward to ASCO 2014 when I believe we'll hear a major update on Kevetrin.
Excellent! And thank you for making the extra effort to get the issue addressed.
WOW! ...at the day to day price swings...
Therefore you can assume that if you were sent a proxy by your broker, then your shares have not been loaned out.
Yeah! I got my proxy in the mail a few days ago.
The Annual Shareholder Meeting is next Monday. Is anyone here planning to attend?
More peer reviewed evidence of efficacy... What's it going to take to overcome the shorts and the slander?
I really like the proactive PR policy that this company has. It stands in a stark contrast to Star Scientific. Star avoids issuing PRs and then when they finally do issue a PR, it is worded in such a vague manner as to be almost useless.
You are correct. With only a few stragglers left to report, it is clear that institutions significantly increased their holdings in the third quarter. And those who already held significant shares are the ones who added most significantly to their holdings. Out of the top 15 institutional shareholders, only two decreased their holdings (~240,000 shares total) while twelve increased their holdings by over 3,000,000 shares total. (One top 15 institution has yet to provide the 3rd quarter report.)
I guess this is another example of why the institutions beat out most retail investors. While the "noise" is apparently scaring away many of our retail friends, the big boys are loading the boat.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/stsi/institutional-holdings
Is anyone planning to go to the Annual Meeting?
Oops... I forgot. Thanks for the reminder.
Willow said, "Bizzy is a paid short poster."
@Bizzy - You "could be wrong" and you are. The fact is that ALL law abiding citizens cooperate with "the Feds" (and all other law enforcement for that matter.)
Bizzy said, "...and no one cooperates with the Feds like Williams did unless they are in deep trouble..."
To what specific "financing related transaction entered into on November 7th" is that referring?
I agree with the new drug possibilities presented by the isomer. However, the recently completed study appears to have proved the efficacy of Anatabloc when used by those who suffer from thyroiditis. I would hope that, at least with thyroiditis, there is only a short distance left to travel to get Anatabloc approved as part of the "standard of care."
Having every Endocrinologist in the country recommending Anatabloc to their clients is a sure way to achieve a substantial cash flow.
It is my understanding that the FDA does not determine what the approved "standard of care" is for any disease or condition. The FDA simply approves new drugs and Anatabloc is not a drug. I thought I saw someone post on here a while back the info on the organization responsible for establishing the "standard of care" for Hashimoto's? Anyone remember?
My responses below...
What I meant was that the shorts would cover before the record date if given enough time. Setting a record date two or three weeks in the future would cause a squeeze, but the products would still be given away. Only the slowest of the shorters would have to buy the products. Setting the record date as of the day before the announcement - perfectly legal - would screw the naked shorts and discourage them from ever doing that again.
It might still be worth it as advertising and discouraging future shorting even if the company gives all of the product away.
My response is below...
but the company would still have to bear the expense of the distribution. That profit you figured on would disappear.
My responses are below...
But what would happen after the short squeeze? What are we talking here, 20, 30%? 50?
It should go up much more than that if you wait a couple of years
My responses are below your quote...
"I previously owned a manufacturing company. For over-the-counter retail products, the packaging usually cost more than the actual product."
Don't you want to use cost of goods sold or something like that? Although you have experience, ultimately this is just a guess.
What's to stop the shorts just buying the shares back? And this may not cause a huge spike in the price. If you look at the trend in the short interest it has been decreasing whilst the price has gone nowhere. Doesn't this suggest that longs have been selling just as much as shorts have been buying?
Look, I'm not saying its a bad idea, I'm just critical. I don't think its totally thought out.
@Mugs - I want to hear more about this! Do any of you lawyers know the specifics about how/why this will impact the shorts?
mugs57 said...
"isn't a name change also a kiss of death to shorts since the certs need to be changed??? one way to skin a cat!"
This same thing happened to a company I followed quite a few years ago.....
I had some casino friends in Atlantic City....back maybe 10 years ago.....one of the guys I knew asked me about "naked shorts" being in a company called JagNotes and the 2 founders were guys who formerly worked as Investment Bankers with one of the Big 5 Firms and I told this guy that I didn't believe that "naked short selling was allowed", at least I was thinking that at the time based on our house rules......In any event, they changed the registration requirements on the stock so that they cleared the stock themselves instead of using normal clearing operations....such as Stock Clearing Corporation.....that's when I decided to take a gamble on it. The shorts were in Canada as I recall.
Bottom line: I bought 25,000 shs for 25 cents a share and sold out at $2....it was a cool ride.
The shorts (naked) got killed..... Anyway, Jagnotes.com is still around....but I don't follow it any longer......it's kind of like flyonthewall....... Thought you might be interested in this little story....
Response to Thales...
"I would expect that the actual cost to Star for the items in the bundle is less than $40 dollars" Absolutely not. Where are you getting that from? Is it a guess?
I previously owned a manufacturing company. For over-the-counter retail products, the packaging usually cost more than the actual product.
Also, if some people who have large amount of shares who needs 40 lifetimes worth of product?
I think you missed the primary point. If some shareholders get a large amount of product, so what? They can distribute it to family and friends or they can hoard it. The point is that the shorts will have to buy it and put money in the company's coffers to do so. If the net cashflow to the company is positive, why would you care that some shareholders got a lot of product?
I have just sent that info and the info below to Talhia. However, this is not the first time it has been submitted to the company.
Here is a little supporting information (with cites) pertaining to my post from earlier today...
Because that original investor who was kind enough to lend you the stock is no longer an actual shareholder with the company, the short seller is required to make up for any benefits the investor would have received had he or she actually still owned the stock.
In other words, if a company pays a dividend to shareholders, the second investor who bought the shares from the short seller would get the dividend check from the company. But because the original investor is no longer a shareholder of record (because the second investor owns those shares now), then the short seller must pay the dividend out of his or her own pocket. Quoted from Investopedia
A whole host of items can form the basis for your company’s next property dividend:
• bonds issued by the government;
• real property;
• the distributing corporation’s bonds;
• another corporation’s bonds;
• assumption of the indebtedness to a third party of a shareholder;
• transferable vouchers enabling shareholders to receive company products or corporate services discounts;…
Quoted from ChoChan.com
Definition of 'Property Dividend'
An alternative to cash or stock dividends. A property dividend can either include shares of a subsidiary company or physical assets such as inventories that the company holds. The dividend is recorded at the market value of the asset provided. Quoted from Investopedia
Well put! Unfortunately, it appears that unless our management gets more proactive in addressing the huge short position our share price will continue to languish. That short position and the resulting active manipulation, misinformation, and slander that is being used is costing us. It's costing us not only in a depressed share price, but also in lost sales and unnecessary dilution. By unnecessary dilution, I mean that at $2 per, you must issue 5 million shares to get $10 million; at $10 per share you only need to issue 1 million shares.
What can management do? They have several options. The option I like best at this point is to declare a product dividend.
It would seem that declaring a product dividend would be a win/win for Star and its shareholders. First, I think getting product into the hands of shareholders is a good idea. But more importantly, it may help address other significant issues for the company. For example, assume that Star issued a product dividend of its “Wellness Bundle” such as is found on the Anatabloc website. This dividend would be payable for every 1000 shares held by a shareholder. The “Wellness Bundle” consists of a jar of Anatabloc Facial Crème, Facial Serum, and 200 lozenges. The Wellness Bundle sells for $439.99. However, I would expect that the actual cost to Star for the items in the bundle is less than $40 dollars. Let’s look at the math assuming that the cost to Star is $40.
Star has about 169 million shares outstanding. Therefore, at $40 per, it will cost Star about $6,760,000 to provide this dividend. However, there are currently 28,500,045 shares being legitimately shorted. As I understand it, those who are short have to pay the dividend for the shares they borrowed. That means that if they had to buy product it would mean paying $439.99 for every 1000 shares they were short, their total cost would be about $12,540,000. Assuming they had to buy directly from Star at retail, that would be a NET PROFIT of ~$4.6 million dollars for paying a dividend!This would basically be a dividend of over 40 cents per share.
The shorts will not like it. Many will cover, which should drive up our share price. Further, once it’s been done for the first time, it would be easier to do again. Thus the threat of future product dividends would be a continuing disincentive to anyone thinking about shorting Star. (This should also shine a spotlight on any cockroaches who may be naked shorting our stock.)
Yes there are a lot questions to be answered before you pull the trigger on such a bold strategic move. And I am sure that the bureaucracy and the legal system will have “reasons” not to do it. But just like in every ultimately successful business venture, those “reasons” should be viewed as obstacles to overcome until they are proven otherwise.
Bought some more GALTW this morning. Shoulda waited...
Assuming that they were told at some point what they were taking; I would think that those study participants who saw the benefit from taking Anatabloc would want to continue taking it. If that's the case, it should be a simple matter of following up with those individuals (and/or their doctors). I doubt that such information would meet the minimum criteria used in the original study. But it would certainly be valuable information for the company to have.
LutherTiggs asked, "...but why the muted reaction?"
Here are a few reasons:
1) Back when Anatabloc was first launched, volume went through the roof. The FINRA reporting later showed that 8 or 9 million shares traded short AND UNCOVERED (naked) over the next two days.
2) Another time when the price was getting away from the shorts, a fake news item was published by Bloomberg saying that Star's stock was being de-listed.
3) We always have a bunch of paid bashers writing articles and posting on the message boards.
4) Now we've got to deal with nusiance lawsuit(s) by "a shareholder".
The shorts will use every tool at their disposal (both legal and illegal) to keep the price under control. And by now, Mr. Market has figured this out...
I fear that until the company addresses this heavy short position head-on, we are going to be stuck in this rut.
Added to my position today... Lowered my average basis!
Apparently, they have not yet issued any shares. The PR says that "the Company may issue and sell shares of its common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $30.0 million from time to time through MLV, acting as its sales agent."
The PR goes on to say...
Each time that the Company wishes to issue and sell the Company's common stock under the Agreement, the Company will notify MLV of the number of shares to be issued, the dates on which such sales are anticipated to be made, any minimum price below which sales may not be made and other sales parameters as the Company deems appropriate.
@BK - I did call it an "extremely simplified example"...
What I actually said was, "Its not a good feeling." I was referring to dilution resulting from being absorbed by a bigger entity.
Here is an extremely simplified example: Pfizer has a ~$200 BILLION market cap. NNVC currently has a ~$250 MILLION market cap. If our nano technology is eventually worth ~$50 billion that equates to an NNVC share price of ~$1,000. This would be an increase of 200 times (or 20,000%) from what it is today. However, if that same $50 billion were added to Pfizer's market cap, it would only grow their market cap by 25%.
25% or 20,000%... I am not invested in NNVC for a 25% return.