Replies to post #114814 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[Rawnoc]

"NNVC's current targets include herpes ointment, which can be demonstrated clinically very quickly."

~~June 2, 2010

[Rawnoc]

Regarding "accurate" predictions from "inside" sources, when do the sources predict nanomicelle scale-up to be completed and material sent for tox testing?

That's easy. April 16, 2014:

"The Company also reported that it is producing Injectable FluCide™, our most advanced drug candidate, at its existing facilities, in the large quantity needed for the Safety and Toxicology ("Tox Package") study. The strong safety observed in preliminary safety studies resulted in requirement of a very large quantity for the Tox Package study. Notably, the drug candidate was found to be safe even at the maximum feasible dosage level in a small animal study. The Company reports that it has successfully scaled up the production of injectable FluCide at its current facility."
http://www.nanoviricides.com/press%20releases/2014/NanoViricides%20won%20the%20IAIR%20AWARD%20as%20Best%20North%20American%20Company%20for%20Leadership%20in%20the%20Nanomedicine%20Sector.html

[Nanotoday]

We do know what management said about the results and what was predicted prior to that (yes the use of "shape" is not scientific, but it was dead on accurate to the problem):

"Management is not optimistic about Ebolacide2 because the shape of the virus is not as defined and symmetrical as other viruses, so the attachment points may not be as effective."
~~Rawnoc, January 2015 at $2.69/share

"It is also likely that the NPC1-binding site on Ebolavirus glycoprotein, which is thought to be buried, may have been substantially inaccessible to our drug candidates."
~~NNVC management, May 2015

As far as your other questions, that not how sources work.

But I still don't understand why there is so much demanded from "anonymous posters" on this board when management has not been asked these same questions or held to the same level of scrutiny? They give zero or vague information and that's accepted. Posters provide near 100% accurate information and are asked "why don't you have more."

Have you asked Seymour any of these questions?

I'll work on getting you whatever answers I can.

[Nanotoday]

I think I got some answers for you (yes I'm that close)

Regarding "accurate" predictions from "inside" sources, when do the sources predict nanomicelle scale-up to be completed and material sent for tox testing?

There is not even a target date being bandied about. They had several target dates but they have long since past and they are now hoping for "sometime in '16."

When and where do the sources predict MERS testing to take place?

PHE has not given them a date. The company believes it was based on PHE being busy with Ebola, but I personally don't agree. PHE stands for Public Health England

How much material will be needed for HerpeCide testing? Will they partner it? Will HerpeCide leap-frog FluCide, since testing takes less material and FDA testing requirements are much less stringent for topical drugs versus IV ones?

They have not met with the FDA nor have they submitted an INDA re: herpecide so they don't have the Tox panel requirements or any other requirements to get IND designation. The Flucide Tox will not be admissible for Herpecide and vice versa. They need to go back to the FDA (or go out of the country) but that is not the plan. They are in discussion to possibly partner, but still have commercial scale production issues to overcome before partners will engage.

Oh, and as far as your supposition as to why ebolacide didn't work, why do you suppose EbolaCide never made it into the endosome to interact with the uncapped Ebola glycoprotein that attaches to the Niemann Pick C1 receptor (and the EbolaCide)...um, is it maybe because of THE SHAPE!

I'm just making all of this up.