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.
Again, there would be far fewer "traps" exposed to the virus due to the much lower surface area to volume ratio.
If they do it that way, because of the relative size of the cells, there will be vastly fewer receptor "traps" exposed to the virus than with Nanoviricides' drugs which are much smaller and hence have a much higher ratio of surface area to volume.
IMHO there are very serious concerns about using carbon nanotubes in the the bloodstream (or in food or inhaled).
Last week wasn't good enough for you? What are you expecting,anyway? 20% gain with no news is not shabby!
Note that NNVC also has TWO broker cutoffs of margin support at $5:
The SP of $5 is a very common cutoff point for margin support. But some brokers (Interactive Brokers, for example) also cut off margin support at $250 market cap (definition of "microcap") which, for NNVC, happens to be at $5.
And IB"s cuttoff is doubly vicious: it's not staged in steps as many brokers do but a sharp drop from the standard 70% down to zero. Making that far worse is that IB does not calculate margin support at the end of each trading day and then give a day (or two or three) to meet the call, IB calculates continually in real time and gives no warning or call at all, just INSTANTLY sells AT THE MARKET to meet the call. Thus holders on margin at IB are very antsy and tend to sell preemptively (so at least the sale isn't at the market) when the price nears $5, making a sharp spike below it and triggering the automatic sales from those that weren't preemptive.
That double whammy around $5 acted like an anchor for the SP. With the SP in the upper 5's and above, it should be free from that pull (MMs are well aware of the double anchor and like to push the SP down to trigger the effect and reap a lot of cheap shares to sell when the SP recovers.
THe SP should be more free to react appropriately to fundamentals now, IMHO
EDGX is the MM that has been somehow illegally jumping the queue on every single one of my bids (always gets a bid in at the exact same price, exact same number of shares and exact same instant*
EDGX is doing something highly illegal.
*with order entry window and level II windows open side by side, I put cursor on "submit" but don't click til my eyes are focused on the appropriate spot in level II so I see my bid the instant it shows. ALWAYS at the same instant an EDGX bid at the exact same price and number of shares appears just above mine. If I change my bid, the EDGX bid makes exactly the same change in response but, again, always appears ahead of mine in the queue. THis is flagrantly llegal: the supposedly automatic trading system is either rigged or has been hacked.
TUNE IN AT NOON TUESDAY (Market closed MOnday)FOR A LIVE DEMONSTRATION, Level II for NNVC: I'll post when I'm starting: what you will see is a series of bids it which my bids (which I'll post the identifier for) will always be mirrored by EDGX except that THEIR bid will always be entered AHEAD of mine (so it could not possibly be a computer LEGALLY trading in reaction to mine, because then MY bid would be first in the queue.
I have been trading (or ATTEMPTING to!) in lots divisible by 100 but Monday will use very odd size lots to make the point crystal clear.
THe weakness of such a chemical approach is that it is generally easy for a virus to evolve around the therapeutic. Viruses have a very high rate of mutation and are notorious for evolving around such therapeutics. That's exactly why we have so few effective antivirals, why their range is generally limited and why resistance to them appears so quickly.
Nanoviricides completely avoid that problem because they work by using a part of a host receptor protein that is essential to the virus to infect to trap and destroy the virus. The virus cannot evolve around this approach because if it evolves to bind less efficiently to the receptor protein it thereby also evolves to have less ability to infect.
BOTTOM LINE: that approach will never effectively compete with NNVC IMHO.
Please wait a few seconds before rehitting the submit button!
I told him last time. Nothing whatsoever different this time.
It cannot possibly be just computer trading. The bids are jumping ahead of prior bids in the que. (NO AON bids are involved so that's not the explanation)
The "system" is either hacked or rigged.
He means NVAX (Novavax). That's the company that has by a huge margin, IMHO, the best vaccine technology and I consider it a complementary investment to NNVC (NVAX covers the vaccines and NNVC covers the therapies, both are< IMHO, very clearly the best in their areas.
(I'm using the recent rise in NVAX to provide BP to purchase more NNVC. And when NNVC gets on a similar tear plan to do the reverse to buy more NVAX.
They are unlikely to both leap ahead at the same time and when one does, I use the increased BP to buy more of the one that's (currently) behind.
Trading still being manipulated.
Same as last time: I have both my broker order window and level II window open side by side and put the cursor on "submit" but don't click til my eyes are focused on the appropriate point in level II.
The INSTANT I click, and EDGX order for exactly the same number of shares at exactly the same price appears BEFORE mine in the Level II queue!
This ALWAYS happens. If I change the order by a cent or two either up or down, the exact same thing happens: the existing EDGX order makes EXACTLY the same change I do except their change appears above mine so it's getting priority of execution despite being entered AFTER mine. (NO computer trading program can react AHEAD of you in time to what you do!)
It's corrupt, it's illegal and I am going to get to the bottom of it one way or another.
this is not a computer beating you to the punch. It's a computer REACTING to what you are doing and then jumping ahead of you in the queue!
WHAT IT DOES IS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GET THE BUY UNLESS YOU JUST HIT THE ASK. I suspect an MM is doing it so that they can pocket the entire spread rather than merely a part of it and/or increase the spread over what it naturally would be.
Wall Street is as crooked as a dog's hind leg!
Hemp seed oil has a perfect natural balance of 0mega 3 and 6. (It also tastes superb)
The only downside is that it can cause false positives in some drug tests (the seeds contain no THC but there are enough bits of leaves in the process to cause trace amounts - not enough to cause any effects other than false positives but those effects can be DEVASTATING in some circumstances: loss of employment etc.
Companies in the USA generally have no concern whatsoever about the possibility of false positives and are reluctant to make any attempt to make distinctions requiring judgement (that reluctance is exactly why they feel the supposed need for drug testing anyway. If drug use (including legal drugs like alcohol) are causing problems with an employee's performance it's far more effective to sort out the problems by the impairments in performance. After all, impaired performance is caused by a great deal of other things as well and you supposedly want to sort them out as well right? So spend the effort going after directly related evidence rather than some very poorly correlated evidence just because that's easier.
Of course a management incompetent at making distinctions on the basic of real evidence will go for drug tests because it's all they are competent to handle whether the results are useful or not (or even do more harm than good!) (and therein lies the real source of the problems)
That almost certainly does not apply to nanoviricides unless they want it to: "-BBB-targeted and brain delivery (receptor-mediated transcytosis across brain capillary endothelial cells)"
Note the "BBB [blood brain barrier) targeted". THe BBB is far from a passive barrier by size only. There are a number of mechanisms for excluding anything "unwanted" or "unintended". That's why drugs must be targeted to have a hope of passing the BBB.
NNVC might eventually make it standard to have two versions of each Nanoviricide drug: a general use one not targeted to pass the BBB and one that's the same, except targeted to pass the BBB when there were any indications or suspicions that it was needed.
If the drugs are not toxic enough in the brain maybe the standard version could be BBB targeted. If not there could be two versions.
I'm inclined to think that it's better to avoid passing the BBB unless there are good indications that it's necessary.
If the tox results are good enough to qualify for a fast track (i.e. no toxicity at a dose 100X the therapeutic dose) (which could still be true with considerably worse results than the current one) the PS will go above and remain above $8 at least IMHO (or 60% or more above whatever it's at at the time.
If you cannot understand the huge significance of low toxicity, especially low enough for a fast track, you are missing a major part of the picture. The COMBINATION of exceptionally low toxicity with the fact that the drug is HOST INDEPENDENT would put the odds of approval into the 80 to 90% or above range.
If the drug is used on a compassionate basis for H7N9 and gets outstanding results that could lead to an ICPT type move (i.e.: multiples in a day) before CTs are completed.
I meant to say NNVC in that sentence. (Note that later I included NVAX and SGMO as other examples)
I do large amounts of all but four of those on a regular basis. I should be "bomb proof"!
(PS) IMHO a potential problem which should be investigated has, AFAICS, been ignored:
Some influenzas cause a "cytokine storm": in essence, putting part of the immune system on "overdrive" so that it adds to the damage the virus is causing and actually aids, rather than fights, the virus. A vaccine alone for the same virus (and ONLY for it) would not be expected to significantly exacerbate an impending cytokine storm if a patient was already infected at the time of vaccination (just a bit more of the same antigens). But a potential problem arises both from vaccines for multiple conditions being included in the same shot (and thus further provoking the immune system right at the moment it's going into overdrive because on an already existing infection) and from an adjuvant, which is designed to increase as much as possible the reaction to a small amount of antigen: the question arises!: what is the effect of an adjuvant on an existing infection, especially if it's right at the critical time when the cytokine storm is begining?
1)individual reactions to the cytokine storm effects very widely
2)if the critical period is short (which I suspect it would be) only a relatively small number of those getting vaccinations when already infected would experience the exacerbation effect (if such exists).
So you would expect the number of problems that resulted to be small but not negligible. And on an individual basis, tests would indicate that the problem was a result of the influenza infection and ONLY tests on a sufficiently large sample would be able to demonstrate that the vaccine and/or adjuvant was causing problems.
The solution would be to require patients to be tested just prior to vaccination when they'd had potential exposure to influenza during the relevant time period. That would require an inexpensive, easy to administer test with immediate, or near immediate readout.
If I ever get an influenza vaccination, if there's any possibility I'm infected, it won't be with a vaccination that includes antigens for other conditions, and not with one that contains an adjuvant.
PS: there've been some indications that the current Novartis flu vaccine may be causing problems possibly due to a bad batch. If you think you may have had a bad reaction from a vaccine I would recommend going to where you got it (with your receipt if you have it). Even if you don't have the receipt they are supposed to keep records of the names, dates, specific vaccine administered etc. And you might want to ask them to report your reaction. There are always, of course, false alarms, but the idea is that if there is a bad batch out, that will become very evident from the disproportionate number of reports of reactions. If you help ferret out such a problem you will be helping a lot of people.
Your statement is just flat wrong. You left out critical qualifiers that if included would have shown your statement to be either false or far more limited than what you are presenting it as.
The dose ranging phase of toxicology testing has been completed with stupendously good results (NO toxicity even at the maximum feasible dose: quite literally as good as it possibly could have been).
When you leave off critical details it leaves your comments open to gross misinterpretation.
Given that you don't even know the proper terminology (the "preliminary" tox study is a "dose ranging" study and the "real" tox study (or what you mean by it) is the "data gathering" study) I suspect that your contention that the deadline was (supposedly) for the "real" study is based on your misinterpretation of what was said.
If you claim otherwise please post an exact quote so we can judge whether the "deadline" you claim was really limited to the data gathering study or whether, as I suspect, it was for the start of the "toxicology study" which includes BOTH the dose ranging and data gathering phases.
IMHO you are working very hard to create an appearance of a missed deadline. (and we've been thru this a number of times before already.)
IF you have a claim POST THE EVIDENCE. Without a quote, you have only your unsubstantiated opinion.
This is the downside of being on a higher exchange: once options are available you get a lot of posters working the issues too hard (or just creating some)because of options threatening to expire worthless.
I've found it very important to keep aware of options expiration dates and take everything with far more skepticism as those dates approach.
(I don't know but judging from recent posting I suspect an expiration date is near.)
Vaccines are not a threat for NNVC.
1. No vaccine is 100% effective. For example, for an influenza vaccine, 60% protection is typical.
2. There are some people who can't benefit from vaccines: those with immune problems, etc.
3. For new emerging diseases, although there are ways to get crude tests of probable effectiveness, you can't do an accurate test of effectiveness until the disease in already in the population and spreading. Because of the way nanoviricides work (host independent) they can be tested before the disease even gets into the human population.
4. Not everyone gets vaccinated for a large number of reasons: fear of the technology, fear of government abuse of vaccine programs (USA), economic limitations, etc.
It will always be necessary to have both vaccines and treatments (which is why I'm heavily invested in both NNVC and NVAX (vaccines) because I consider each to be the best in its field and complementary rather than competitive technologies.
The problem with options is that deviations from expected timing are far more the rule than the exception in biotechnology.
Your options may expire worthless, losing ALL of your money followed by your company gaining multiples in short order.
From the typical cost accounting view (ugly but dominant in the USA) loss of liver function isn't that serious: the patient just dies, end of medical costs. Kidney dialysis is a very expensive treatment that must be done very frequently for the rest of the patients lifetime (barring a very expensive transplant). The kidney problems got more attention. (they were also more obvious since there are many causes of liver failure.)
Regrettably, our economic (so called) "system" tends strongly to worry far more about costs than lives and patient welfare.
HIV drugs are a highly competitive market. There are already effective treatments. Admittedly with serious problems but that's not remotely like markets like H7N9, Dengue, etc where there are no currently effective treatments. (H7N9 is already showing resistance to Tamiflu which is only borderline effective anyway).
In addition HIV sequesters in reservoirs in the body where it would not be accessible to HIVcide. The effect would be that with HIV, Nanoviricides are going to be an ongoing treatment rather than a knockout cure (lacking some additional measures to flush HIV out of the reservoirs). HIV should be low on the priority list for NNVC targets until it has drugs on the market bringing in revenues, IMHO.
NUMBER ONE RULE FOR SUCCESSFUL BIOTECHS:
"First pick the low hanging fruit!" HIV is at the very top of the tree (just below cancer).
You see only what fits your agenda. NNVC met their projection for starting the preliminary toxicology study. (Last time I checked, "July, give or take a month or two" covers September.)
While it's true that "We won't know for sure whether Flucide works in humans until Phase II trials are completed" that's conveniently ignoring that the current evidence is very strong although not definitive.
1) 100% of Flucide treated animals alive after 21 days when all untreated animals dead in 5 and "standard of care" treated animals dead in 7.
2) since the mechanism of the drug is independent of the host (because it acts directly on the virus) that evidence is far more directly related to effects in humans than the usual case where drugs interact with host's metabolisms, giving a huge potential for results varying between hosts.
Again, you appear to see only what suits your agenda. That tends to give very poor results in the stock market.
Analgesics (painkillers) are not nearly as harmless as most think. THe reason that the rate of patients on kidney dialysis is sky high in the SouthEast is that for so many years factories just put out bowls of free painkillers on the cafeteria tables as an excuse for ignoring appalling working conditions.
MERS will not make it to the USA (IF it EVER does) anywhere remotely that quickly. Currently it is only very weakly transmissible between humans [and our density of camels is pretty low]. But, all kidding aside, MERS will have to develop a much stronger ability for H2H transmission before making it here. It will take awhile to do that (if it ever does).
The far more immediate danger, IMHO is H7N9 which already has stronger H2H transmission than MERS (but still fortunately not that strong).
The BIG difference in the danger from MERS and H7N9 is this: Saudi Arabia is a wealthy area with very good health care services and they will be monitoring this very carefully (although I have doubts about how well they will communicate everything they find). And camels are not raised in factory farm conditions. (Read "Bird Flu" by Greger to find out how the factory farms were essential to the development of H7N9)
China is a completely different story: very high population density, already greatly overextended health care services, the worlds biggest chicken factory farms mixed in with ducks (and worse yet ducks raised in rice paddies!) and live products going into Shanghai, with massive population density and severe smog problems (which both make EVERYONE more susceptible to infuenzas and gives similar symptoms to make diagnosis of flu more difficult) PLUS seasonal flu that already has genes for H2H transmission which it readily can share with H7N9 when both infect the same individual (which WILL happen and repeatedly this season). And the test for H7N9 is not that accurate. And H7N9 is infectious before symptoms appear.
And did I forget to mention that Shanghai is a major transporation hub?
The next pandemic could come from anywhere but Shanghai is highly likely to be the "point of departure"
Don't forget! One also ingests influenza virus.
An interesting question is whether it's worse when acquired from one route than the other. (I would expect it to be worse when inhaled but that's just a guess.) (for example the black death was far worse when acquired thru the respiratory tract than when from flea bites.)
Thoroughly washing all fruits and vegetables to be eaten raw is in order. (think about people coughing in the produce asile.) And salad bars are completely out of the picture AFAIAC.
Just as it did with the Vietnam "War" (which was never officially declared, BTW) the government has created an unofficial state of war (on "terrorism" a term that is being broadened daily to absurd lengths) that now allows it to do pretty much as it pleases so long at it does not unduly disturb the prevailing status quo of business. It is there where our protection against unreasonable government action lies and not in the PURE TECHNICALITY of the lack of a formal declaration of war.
When the POTUS can murder anyone he wants to with no oversight whatsoever*, killing innocent civilians in the process and the government can kill with drones which(even under the BEST of conditions) can't even distinguish a shovel from a rifle or a grandmother tending her garden with her grandchildren from a group of terrorists, what CAN'T it already do?
Under the current circumstances a formal declaration of war would be a meaningless exercise. Uncle Sam never bothered with that during the Viet Nam "war" and yet did many things that were ONLY authorized under a formal declaration of war. (Laws don't mean SQUAT when they are readily ignored with no repercussions. (see also "Oliver North")
That being said, the government isn't going to mess around with businesses without very extreme and clear need. And for viricides, what would the need be to do anything unusual? Give BARDA grants as needed and make a stockpile order as soon as the data justifies it. THere's simply no need nor justification for the government to do anything out of the ordinary.
What restrains the government in this case is the need to avoid unnecessarily upsetting business practices especially when a goal can be readily accomplished without doing that. Whether or not there's been a formal declaration of war has nothing to do with it.
-------------------
*having someone he appointed rubber stamp a list is not "oversight" by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
THis is why there is such an urgent need for an EFFECTIVE viricide!:
From wikipedia:
"Oseltamivir's [Tamiflu]benefits in those who are otherwise healthy do not appear to outweigh its risks.[4] No benefit has been found in those with other health problems.[4][5] Prior to 2013, oseltamivir's effectiveness was debated as its manufacturer, Roche, originally refused to release the data from all of its trials for independent analysis (all data was not available to the official bodies that decided to licence/approve it).[6] Together, these published studies suggest that oseltamivir reduces the duration of symptoms by 0.5–1 day.[1] It is unclear whether this medication affects transmission of influenza in adults.[7] It does not appear to change the rate of complications from influenza, such as the risk of hospitalization or pneumonia.[5] However, it can increase rates of vomiting.[8]
As of December 15, 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported 314 samples of the prevalent 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu tested worldwide have shown resistance to oseltamivir.[9] However, the predominant strains of both influenza A and influenza B active during the 2012-2013 flu season in the US are sensitive to oseltamivir.[10]
-------------------
Medical uses[edit]
Zanamivir [Relenza] is used for the treatment of infections caused by influenza A virus and influenza B virus. There is low to moderate evidence that it decreases the risk of one's getting influenza by 1% to 12% in those exposed.[1] In otherwise-healthy individuals, benefits overall appear to be small.[1] It is unclear whether it affects the risk of one's need to be hospitalized or the risk of death.[1] An independent analysis of its effects by the Cochrane collaboration was awaiting release of trial data as of 2012.[2] The evidence for a benefit in preventing influenza is weak in children with concerns of publication bias in the literature.[3] As of 2009 no influenza has shown any signs of resistance.[4] Since then genes expressing resistance to were found in patients infected with Influenza A H7N9 and who were treated with corticosteroids.[5]
================
It appears that these are only used only because there is no other alternative at all. I.e.: Better than nothing but only marginally.
It makes you wonder how many patients ever bother to ask their pharmacists or doctors just how effective a treatment really is. Remember: all a drug has to do to pass a clinical trial is prover that 1) it's equal or better than the current best standard of care (and if there ISN'T any the bar is on the floor) and 2) that there is a significant effect (not a "cure" but a significant effect) to "statistical significance" (less than one chance in 20 the effects were NOT due solely to chance!).
A lot of drugs are about the level of using telephone books as a bullet proof vest. Might slow down the bullet and reduce the damage "significantly" at the cost of considerable debris in the wound. "Effective" doesn't mean it works all the time. It means it has a (detectable) effect a significant number of times above pure chance. I never take any drug without looking it up and knowing what the effectiveness really is and what the risks and downsides are. (The downsides are often ignored: for example wiping out the beneficial bacteria in your intestinal tract with antibiotics (which all too often you didn't really need in the first place.)
This IS the NNVC board, right?
The certitude of DNA testing is greatly overrated! For example, one woman got into serious legal difficulties because DNA tests supposedly said that two of her children were not actually her (biological) children. BUT THEY WERE: Turns out that she was a "chimera" (briefly: a person with more than one genome. (In biology there is almost always an exception to any rule (including that females are not born already pregnant!)
The SERIOUS problem with "scientific" tests in law enforcement is that some of it (MUCH of it) has no scientific basis whatsoever! Arson is a good example. A large number of people were convicted on the basis of "science" that was nothing more than a wild @ssed guess and when the "science" was actually tested it was proved flat wrong. People were EXECUTED on the basis of a guess that was misrepresented as "science" (and those doing that misrepresentation should have received active jail sentences, but, of course, ,did not.)
ALWAYS insist on seeing the actual evidence.
In a civilized health care system (does NOT include the USA) the treatment would be covered for everyone. The costs of NOT doing that are vastly higher than the costs of doing it.
Anyone who claims that the USA health care system is efficient is just plain delusional: the most expensive per capita in the entire world and below all of Europe (except Turkey and a handful of former Soviet block countries) in quality delivered.
With civilized health care the companies producing drugs would profit more and the level of health would be far better. The ones that would profit less are insurance companies and BPs that make a large percentage of drugs for manufactured conditions and spend more on marketing than on research.
There is already an effective vaccine for H1N1 (in fact, one is include in this year's seasonal influenza vaccine. (H1N1 is a seasonal flu that's been around for years now. Due to a high level of existing antibodies in the population (which would give some protection against even a changed H1N1 due to cross reactivity) the pandemic potential is much less that H5N1 and H7N9 (and now H10N8) which have not circulated in the population for at least 3 generations).
Both because there is already an effective* vaccine in general use and because it's seasonal, H1N1 should be very low on NNVC's priority list. There are many other viruses for which there is neither an effective treatment or vaccine that are killing far more people than H1N1 threatens to.
PS THere is now a FIFTH variety of Dengue.
A major contributor to the problem is the deliberate systematic gutting of science education (especially biology) in the USA by interests best left unnamed (we all know who they are).
Another major driver is that some powerful economic interests that make high profits from doing exactly the opposite of what is in the best interests of the economy, the country and its people. And they don't like science education because it empowers people to see thru their disinformation campaigns (the oil industry's disinformation campaign on global warming is a prime example.)
Investing in high tech companies like NNVC with very well founded science is one way for those who do have good science educations to profit from that.
No, they won't let just anybody write it. If you have a scientific background, you are not allowed to.
That's all for today. Tune in same tomorrow 7:30 AM EST for more fun and games on the exchange. It appears that things do not work exactly the way we;ve been told they do.
Maybe those computer trading programs are doing so well not because they PREDICT your trades, but because they INTERCEPT them and get in front of them.
PS. My default options were at all times set with AON *NOT* selected and every change was checked before submission (my options are set to require confirmation) to ensure AON was not selected. (AON could lower priority. But even a lower priority could not explain why EDGX's REACTION/MIRRORING of my changes always showed up just ahead of them. Every time for dozens of times always between the instant I hit "submit"and the instant later when mine showed up AFTER EDGX's. ALWAYS at the exact same price and I changed in random amounts between -7 cents and 7 cents.
Very interesting.
PS you too can play this game at home boys and girls! Enjoy!
As enzyman on SGMO IV says:
"Be grateful!
So many things in America seem to be broken now.
At least the stock market gets fixed even before its broken."
Now LIVE: watch market fixing
Go to level II on SGMO
I am changing a bid in the region of 13.6 to 13.9 (purely as a test)
My bids are thru TDA and show on level II as " 070204..."
EVERY TIME I change my bid, "EDGX" makes exactly the same change for exactly the same number of shares BUT their bid always shows up an instant before mine and gets priority (higher on the list at the same price) WTF?!!?
Just watch it awhile (PS you can probably play this fun game yourself. Do it in the AH when the bids don't mean anything (it gets "lost in the noise during market hours) and activity is slow. Watch YOUR bids get blocked every time!
Premarket figures of up to 5.17 were WRONG. To late to delete the post.
This was a local error on my computer which was doing only partial screen refreshes. The area of the window showing the stock was showing "NNVC" but the graph and trading data were still NVAX. The SPs were close enough that I did not question the stock code at first.
My deepest apologies for the error. (I've rebooted my computer offline and removed all cookies (and closed excessive windows open) which appears to have solved the error.)
Again, my deepest apologies for the error.
WAY past time to upgrade my computer!
My TDA "Think or Swim" NOW not showing any of the 6,000+ shares of trades trades it previously (as of 20 minutes ago) showed!
I'm going to contact TDA tech support to find out WTF is going on.