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.
"Batch-wise variation in NP-synthesis & effects
Previous sectionNext section
Maintaining reproducibility during synthesis at nanoscale is a challenging task. During such synthesis, control with high precision over the reaction is of paramount importance, which unfortunately is quite difficult to attain. Even the slightest of variations in reaction environment (e.g., temperature, pH, ionic strength, impurity/contamination, molar ratio of ingredients) can magnify into a perceivable difference in the final nanoconstruct with disparate properties, for example, drug-release profile. Furthermore, with emergence of advanced nanoformulations with diverse molecules (e.g., peptides like insulin, macromolecules) often requiring complicated synthetic techniques including encapsulation, use of biodegradable materials and surface functionalization (e.g., PEGylation), there is no stringent guideline on what should be an acceptable margin of error (e.g., PDI/polydispersity index). Roughly 10–15% variation in size is quite commonly encountered with synthesis of NPs around 100 nm, which is difficult to eliminate [15]. Moreover, a significant proportion of popular tools to characterize NPs (e.g., DLS) becomes ineffective at therapeutically relevant higher concentrations. Therefore, it is difficult to characterize an NP-dispersion with high concentration that is actually being tested in vivo. The current state-of-the-art practice is usually to characterize a comparatively dilute NP-dispersion (e.g., 50–100 µg/ml) and then expect that same behavior to continue at higher concentrations [16]. Unfortunately, this is far from reality and NPs, due to highly reactive surfaces, invariably agglomerate at higher concentrations unless surfactants are used. To a large extent it is impossible to predict the agglomeration patterns of NPs over longer time spells at high concentrations and even equivolume aliquots from same stock dispersion may show incomparable agglomeration. Such unpredictable agglomeration also results in unpredictable behavior, for example, dissolution, release profile and precipitation [17]. This adds further to the batch-wise variation in results. In the large collaborative research consortium between EU countries and Israel called QNano (Quality Nano), this batch-wise variation while synthesizing NPs has been identified as one of the major challenges [18]. Still, many papers in NP-synthesis continue to emerge without any mention of error occurring during synthesis or any statistical analysis of the raw synthetic data being mentioned."
http://www.future-science.com/doi/10.4155/ipk-2016-0017
Sound familiar?
"Most of the principles on how engineered nanoparticles (NPs) will achieve exciting feats within the animal and human body still continue to be described on cartoons and ambitious flow charts with very little actual experimental data to substantiate such claims or expectations."
http://www.future-science.com/doi/10.4155/ipk-2016-0017
Sound familiar?
The problem isn't quantity of drug -- it's replicating the drug. They already can make vast quantities of a useless, nonreplicated drug that comes in batches as unique as a snowflake.
"never have 2 batches been replicated...never"
Can't replicate then they have zero. Will they ever be able to replicate?
A friend of mine stated:
Wouldn't it be great if Seymour communicated the #1 show stopper for NeverCides instead of speculating on IHUB?
Seymour had 6 months to write his CEO letter and held an annual shareholder meeting and not once did he address in any meaningful capacity the greatest holdup in 12 years.
Every batch of meaningful size has been inconsistent from previous batches. It doesn't matter if the results are 100% the same if the batches (and therefore drugs) aren't consistent. NeverCides's own SEC filings warn of this. Hence TOX testing has been dead in the water for years no matter how big the inconsistent batches are created -- they are worthless unless consistent.
Maybe it's time to persuade Seymour to issue a lying PR and claim they can make batches consistently and start TOX. It's not like Seymour has a problem with begin dishonest. Just as one of the largest shareholders -- "Dave" -- from the AGM.
It's beginning to look like NNVC is going from under 2 clams, as called, to looking like rancid clam chowder.
Look out below!
BASI never got TWO CONSISTENT batches of any drugs because NeverCide cannot make them. This further means NeverCides as of now has ZERO.
I know this little point is inconvenient but at least if NeverCides is a total fraud there is hope for little pops on bullshit PRs because there is no hope as of now based on the nonexistent drugs.
NeverCides doesn't make drugs as far as the FDA is concern -- NeverCides makes unique snowflakes which the FDA has no interest in recognizing as anything more than unique art which cannot qualify for testing even for TOX in animals. PETA must be happy.
1995 -- not 1955
Actually his point his spot on -- NeverCides issuing PRs as "proof" is no more proof of validity as anybody else, including biowreck frauds, issuing PRs. One can issue a PR saying anything including Seymour claiming his farts smell like roses which would be more theoretically plausible than some other whoppers spewed out of Seymour's mouth.
All biotech frauds had scientists working for them. We can speculate why until blue in the face but in the end it obviously doesn't validate any biotech company since biowreck frauds are indistinguable from nonfrauds when it comes to employee count and their resumes...
That said it would be interesting to see some resumes and see if any of the rank employees came from big Pharma. If so, I'm sure Seymour would have touted this.
Well that certainly explains why Seymour approves posts and had no problem letting the public believe they were up to 1kg batches, made consistently, over 2 years ago and clincal trials were on deck.
Actually NeverCides has the burden of proof to prove to its investors who it's not a scam especially in light of awfully and consistently missing guidance while awfully and consistently giving themselves retroactive raises and bonuses.
No drugs have been shown to do shit since any "drugs" created can't be duplicated again. It doesn't matter if abone-time mishmash cured all cancer and acted as a foundation of youth and granted god-like immortality. It can't be recreated and is therefore useless.
Unless NeverCides can actually one day make a good that has consistent characteristics from batch to batch, anything they make and have ever made is completely useless and worthless. It certainly explains all the jumping around from different diseases and candidates.
The word "unlawful" sounds to me like a crime. While the SEC is a civil organization, they often work with criminal organizations such as the FBI.
Imaingery drugs indeed -- until they can make batches that resemble each other, they are nothing more than a random mishmash of useless nothing hence no candidates selected and TOX can't even begin.
The shorts would have no risk. Using "Dave's" scenario of a 1 for 10 dividend, the stock price would adjust to reflect any perceived value from the dividend. If a short is really concerned he can hedge his short nontransferable warrant buy owning an equal amount of shares long only he has the added benefit of flexibility and no restrictions. Being short a stock in the first place is far more risky than being short a warrant. The scenario laid out was a warrant far out of the money while a short position by its very nature is 100% in the money.
A short of a $1 stock still only owes $6 or 500% more if this scam goes to $6 while his $5 warrant short would only make him in debt $1. Worse, with the 1 for 10 proposal he'd only be in debt 10 pennies or 10% more from the warrant yet 500% more his short stock.
Not only does "Dave" not have a clue what he's talking about he apparently didn't bother to run the basic math and is instead hoping to bank on irrational emotional fear of a mythical short cabal which, even if existed, would likely consist of more sophisticated and savvy individuals who passed 3rd grade math.
When it comes to dividends, naked shorts are no different than regular shorts. Even "illegal naked shorts" have to sell their shares to somebody and that somebody is owed a dividend.
I would think it works the same way as an option after 4pm on the third Friday of the month. At 4pm, the call and put market closes for NNVC but options can still be exercised for a little while longer though nontransferable. The call/put options if exercised would only force the writer or short into owning the opposite position at the time of exercise. I imagine it would be similar with a nontransferable warrant dividend -- a potential exercise exists but nothing happens until and unless the warrant is exercised. True, the short can't ever cover in the open market but that's the same as options in after hours yet still runs smoothly.
In summary, I don't see why the short can't be short a nontransferable warrant pending potential exercise. He can't cover but he doesn't need to. As you point out the market price of the regular stock should adjust just like any other dividend.
The point was there are trillions of other legitimate possibilities for a deal in some dude's past to fall through.
No, "problem" isn't reality because the problem was made up. I certainty didn't need Google to figure out a company founded in Feb 2016 and starting its first project in 2017 didn't have any prior projects. All I need was the PR and a basic understanding of the English language.
The wording in the PR leaves a lot to be desired -- no question there -- but since the same PR says the company was founded in February this year and "initial" projects haven't begun yet it should be clear enough without Google that there are no other previous projects and the word "leader" is a just an empty marketing term that is certainly a poor choice of word in an already dull PR.
I have no idea about Bolt's prior project -- maybe the financing fell through. Maybe he decided to live up to his name and bolt because Ohio is too cold. I have no idea.
UPDATED NNVC CHART:
https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B_rkZZ5UIAEPMiz.mp4
Has NeverCides been able to make two usable consistent batches of Flucide yet?
If not, they don't even have a drug. Instead they have a variable random output like a unique work of art. Unfortunately unique works of art don't become FDA-approved drugs and can't even enter TOX.
Certainly explains the drug shifting though.
Seymour is on record saying even with an Ebola vaccine he still wants his snake oil to move toward because who are you going to give the vaccine to -- 100 million people?
Not one person has sold since summer 2014?
"Bottom Line: Every buy side order has been shorted since the summer of 2014!"
LOL!!!!!
In your opinion or factual knowledge, what would happen to shorts facing a nontransferable dividend?
Florida is expected to be the first:
http://williamsonsource.com/5-questions-with-stephen-r-bolt/
New Ebola Vaccine Gives 100 Percent Protection
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/health/ebola-vaccine.html?referer=https://t.co/PD4RUsOFFi?amp=1
Is that the happy dance news?
"A major problem in the field of nanomedicines has been that most nanomedicines have been found to be notoriously difficult to manufacture in a consistent manner from batch to batch. This is because of the complexity inherent in making large molecules, and the very nature of polymer and particle making processes."
--NNVC 10K
According to the same 10K, NNVC is having the exact same consistent batch problem and only sent one batch to BASI because they've been unable to make even two batches of any size consistently. There is no evidence nor reason to believe NNVC is better off after 12 years than any other nanomedicine failure that also struggles with batch consistency.
My "assessment" came right from the SEC filings. As usual, I'm 100% correct and think what I want because it's actually accurate.
Loanranger -- are you saying if the warrant dividend did work it would have been done by now with another stock by wise financial wizards of Wall Street?
If that's your point I believe it's a good one.
I'll add -- what's so special about a non-transferable warrant? Why not just issue a non-transferable original autographed picture of Seymour as a dividend? The shorts will be forced to cover since they can't come up with an authentic one themselves -- or not.
Would the non-transferable status set by the company pertain only to shareholders of record? Either way it would seem the corresponding short would just have to make the long whole upon exercising but with an original autographed copy of Seymour'a picture that may be more difficult. Or does the short just stay forever short until a public market develops just like a private spinoff?
Being close to progress is like being close to pregnant. It's bullshit. They either can or they can't make consistent batches, and they didn't even address that at the shareholder meeting despite it being the number one and only important topic.
NeverCides appears sterile.
Based on all that bullshit, the only "progress" that matters has been a 100% failure for NeverCides. They have not and so far cannot make CONSISTENT batches of any of their so-called drugs. Without that crucial first step they have nothing and can't progress anywhere.
It's easier for the SEC than that. If there was no "reasonable basis" for Seymour's impossible forecasts then it is a clear SEC violation. Perhaps that's why the SEC began investigating NeverCides.
Bigfoot is more believable than the shit NeverCides is peddling.
Are you suggesting NNVC ever said something inaccurate?
I mean, they claim to have the cure for the totality of human infections. Isn't that accurate?
I'm not interested in the next set of bullshit -- I was addressing, refuting, and crushing this nonsense:
Well that's a good point -- it's not like they've made any clinical progress in 12 years and ever will so why not give a warrant manipulation scheme a shot?
What bullshit -- the SEC has a "Microcap Fraud Working Group" formed in 2010 specifically to nail smaller scams such as NNVC.
It's beyond laughable to suggest the SEC -- which has entire task forces decided to going after microcap fraud -- can't possibly be interested in nailing a microcap fraud like NNVC.