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.
You're clearly not a professional investor. As I've explained a dozen times, it's all about RETURN. Not upside/downside. Your imagination creates this '100' figure and you dream of making that money. The reality is this stock has gone from 2 to 1. I think it will go to 0.50. The first return was +50%. The second return is +50%. Compound those two. Annualize that. On $1m, you will be a billionaire very quickly if you can do that continuously. Of course the size and scope of the companies you can short as you accumulate wealth diminishes. I have longs as well - I am buying Biomarin (BMRN), for instance.
Trading is a great way to accumulate wealth. Ask Icahn, Soros, Cohen, Simons or any other billionaire who made money trading. Chanos might be best for this one.
Some people don't believe in technical analysis. I believe in valuation. I value this company to be worth $15 million on a discounted-cash-flow basis. I am going to short until the return isn't worth it.
Antiviral drug development is a science, perhaps not a rocket science, but it is a science. EC50, SAR, Ki, you should know all of this stuff cold. You should also look at AVII - I don't like the stock but they are way ahead of NNVC.
You like really speculative, unlikely-to-work healthcare investments. These are two great shorts that will both end up with share prices less than 0.25/share.
Read this carefully: Should the pre-clinical studies of our Influenza, HIV, Viral diseases of the Eye, and Oral and Genital Herpes drugs meet managements expectations the Company will require substantial additional funding to take any one or more of these drugs into IND filing(s) with the FDA. The Company projects it will need an additional $15 million for the costs of hiring additional scientific staff and consulting firms to assist with FDA compliance, material characterization, pharmaco-kinetic, pharmaco-dynamic and toxicology studies required for filing an IND.
Read this carefully. IF the preclinical tests meet expectations (note, they have not met them yet)... THEN they can go through all of the PK PD required for an IND. Sounds like 2 years away with substantial risk it never happens. I am so happy to read this.
What's the problem? That's my account page. I don't know what else I can show you.
Seaside agreements - why not just do a secondary?
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1379006/000114036110038269/form8k.htm
Why would they issue Seaside stock to sell in the open market? This is a lot less credible than just finding an institutional investor to take stock directly. We all know Seaside doesn't hold the stock. At least an institutional investor would hold some stock.
Could it just be that Nanoviricides is pulling the wool over your eyes?
That's my point - there are hundreds of hypotheses in science. DrFeelgood thinks typing, searching and citing wins arguments. It doesn't work that way. Most biotech stocks don't work. Most drug projects do not make it. Most fringe hypotheses, like a virus causes prostate cancer, make no sense and are not legitimate to talk about in anything but a speculative and cautious manner.
Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Every medicine has side effects. In general, HIV drugs like Atripla, Truvada and Combivir are exquisitely safe.
Most cancer is not caused by viruses. Breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer (the big four) are not caused by viruses, for instance. There are isolated cancers, hepatocellular (1% of hep C infection leads to this cancer), and the obvious HPV-->cervical cancer, that are exceptions. Far and away, cancer is not caused by viruses.
Eugene Seymour, the CEO and CFO of Nanoviricides. I wonder when they will be able to get a CFO. Pretty Busch League!
FYI, yes, I do invest in a limited partnership as you noticed.
http://i52.tinypic.com/24vtik7.jpg
There is a link that shows all shorts are written in red. As you can see, I short a lot of stocks. You can't determine with the information I gave you if I shorted recently or not recently. That's for me to know. It might have been at the high or the recent lows. Either way, the continued declines in NNVC stock have been pleasing. The Seaside sales provide a nice cap on the stock and free up great short shares.
Finally, your disbelief is humorous to me. $500,000 is very little in the professional investing world. There are people desperate to short 10,000,000 shares+ of Nanoviricides but there is no liquidity or borrow available. I am breaking rank by trying anyway. I will fight to locate as many NNVC shares as I can to short.
All shorts are written in red in this program. Nothing is green, it's either black or red. I'm up a lot on this short and I'm looking forward to continuing declines in the stock price.
it says 363,000 shares.
I'd short a lot more if it were easier to borrow. Seaside is helping though. Their shares are easily shortable. Someone gobbles them up and shorts them very quickly, though. Hopefully TheraCour will sell some stock to you guys and then I'll short that stock.
http://i53.tinypic.com/153093c.jpg
Here's my report showing I'm short Nanoviricides.
You're right. Hep C does cause liver cancer. I was mostly thinking of the reovirus hypothesis, which is a fringe hypothesis. The point is there is evidence reovirus is a oncovirus. There is a lot of evidence that it isn't. Your collection of evidence always suits your illogical arguments. One can find evidence that mice are appropriate tools for antiviral drug development. The dozen or so researchers who feel so, publish so. This is called selection bias. You can't build arguments on it. The oncovirus example was a poor one because it needs to be qualified - most solid tumors are not caused by viruses. There are viruses that cause solid tumors. To say viruses cause cancer is in general, inaccurate. Your style of arguing is frustrating and leads to investment losses as it doesn't solve for the solution. The solution is much simpler - there is no evidence nanoviricides work.
HPV is, indeed, an exception. Maybe even Kaposi's sarcoma...
Run of the mill cancers like lung cancer and colon cancer are not caused by viruses. There is specious evidence to suggest cancer is caused by hundreds of different things. Pointing to said evidence doesn't prove anything. You can find a shred of evidence to support any hypothesis - this is my point. You have a gift for reaching for evidence before thinking about the gravity of it or the hypothesis itself.
HIV drugs are safe.
Cancers are not caused by viruses (except HPV).
Mice are not useful in antiviral drug development.
Can you find papers that contradict this? Of course. That doesn't mean you're right. I hope I have taught you something.
ONCY is a great short, too. Cancers aren't caused by viruses.
You know there are standard terms for ligand affinity, measured in Ki and EC50. I'd love to see the SAR modeling NNVC did, which I'm sure they did do, as all great chemistry teams design their target-receptor profiles strategically. So what's the Ki and EC50/EC90?
You are doing what you always do. There are side effects with HIV drugs. They are very minimal in the context of the disease. Your inability to understand this is obscured by the following:
1) Lack of real world experience, general knowledge of medicine.
2) Need for everything to support your NNVC long thesis.
3) General inability to compare opposing pieces of evidence and select the stronger case.
4) Willingness to click 'search' with a selection bias until the position you're arguing is 'proven' with evidence. One piece of evidence doesn't suggest victory. There is overwhelming evidence that supports the cause of cancer. Despite this, there are scientists who believe cancer is caused by a virus. You can type 'cancer virus' and click the search button and find some evidence. This doesn't mean cancer is caused by viruses.
ok...
You can just block me as you don't seem to interested in having a conversation.
Aren't you the guy who thought Truvada, Atripla and Combivir had life-threatening toxicities? LOL. Oh no! Not a really safe, reall convenient anti-viral! This new intravenous drug developed by a company out of a shack in CT sounds like a better idea! Human data?
You know Atripla gets you to undetectable viral load very quickly with no side effects? There is no need for a new HIV drug.
I don't have a cause. NNVC will go to 0.05 with or without you and/or me. My fantasy would be this stock at $3/share again.
Management can't get tox screening online, let alone file an IND. Getting a drug into phase 1 might be the easiest thing to do in the pharmaceutical industry but it's taken these guys years to even get to the rate-limiting steps (tox).
How do I prove it to you?
Very well said - too bad there are no major shareholders to keep a tight leash on them. Why aren't there any institutional shareholders who own 1% or 2% of the company, anyway? Even very early-stage companies have these. Odd, don't you think?
How does it take any company on the planet 6+ years to file an IND? When has anyone ever seen this before in the history of medicine?
I think there is a 0% chance an IND will be filed by 2012. There are many posts of your attempts at predicting the future available. Seymour has never done this before. The idea that he will do it right the first time, with a staff of a few people, governing from his home in California, is laughable. Getting a drug approved is not a part-time job.
How is Dr Seymour qualified to run a company? In any way, shape or form? I would take a third string Pfizer scientist over him any day.
I'm just a tough as nails capitalist. You could learn a lot from this attitude.
Patrick Cox? Having this person involved is somehow a good thing?
It's a real job, I'll concede that. Being a physician doesn't prepare you for running a healthcare company. Poor Seymour. Thankfully he doesn't actually do anything to further Nanoviricides. Just works out of California doing little to nothing.
I'm short 400,000 NNVC and made a few bucks. Nothing big or worth the time, this is more entertaining than profitable. Up $150,000 or something I think...
I'd go toe-to-toe with Seymour and obliterate him, any day. The guy is a clown and hasn't had a real job in his entire life.
What's confusing to me is I thought all the IND-enabling studies were done. Why do we need them done in-house again? (replication...). Sounds like another year before an IND. Toxicology can take months to simply find a site to start the toxicology process! (Sounds like he has just learned this).
2 years before IND? $10m? This is what happens when you have a 3 person company with no experience. Menon is too busy working at CTIX.
They're sort of screwed. Without legitimate in vivo tests they can't file an IND. These experiments cost millions and take time. The idea that he's not ready at the moment is quite alarming. I thought we were ready for an IND right now?
Every company has universities and scientists reporting it.
What's your point?
What a joke. There is nothing nanotech about this. All biology is already done on the nano scale.
Any 'ligand' that is supposedly preferential for 'capturing' the virus. I think this whole idea is a bit of a farce. Might work in an in vitro experiment. Check out AVII for hundreds of experiments just like this - 5x better than Tamiflu, etc. There's a reason these drugs don't get approved: ADME. The results vanish in larger animals or humans. One can only administer said drugs intravenously (look at the monster polymer in nanopatent's patent--it would never make it through the GI tract, or through any esterase, polymerase, etc).
I would be screwed!! If this works I'd lose millions of dollars. I think the lack of financing and low manpower the company has limits their potential. It might work, though. Thankfully I have made millions selling short companies just like this. I'm here to make sure "there is nothing to it". There might be something to this, who knows... I'm curious and like getting to the solution. The document nanopatent displayed is really the secret to figuring out the whole thing.