Replies to post #117565 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[Rawnoc]

Interesting that this important research that can't get any funding (true to me) is to be lauded, while NNVC with equally important potential but with funding - is to be mocked incessantly with numerous personal attacks on management?

As far as I can tell, Dr. Rider isn't lying to investors and trying to pocket a 30% return on his research while collecting two salaries and then switching projects midstream. NNVC management's scorn is well earned.

Dr. Rider pleads his case with published results and through the M.I.T. news. MIT is one of the most respected universities on the planet. Seymour pays to have Red Chip let him pump his stock. Red Chip has never featured a single biotech that went on to be a success. It, like NNVC, is a joke.

[JG36]

Interesting that this important research that can't get any funding (true to me) is to be lauded, while NNVC with equally important potential but with funding - is to be mocked incessantly with numerous personal attacks on management?

Dr. Rider's work was actually published in a refereed journal:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022572

NNVC has never published anything in a refereed journal. So naturally Dr. Rider's work has greater credence among real scientists.

It sounds promising for sure. There are pros and cons of killing every cell that is infected with a virus - good to be rid of viruses, but one possible downside is that could be a lot of important cells that are killed!

A cell infected with a virus is a virus producing factory. When the newly created viruses burst out of the cell it dies. So you may as well kill it. Nanoviricides can't kill viruses that have already inserted themselves into cells, so even if you use nanoviricides any cell already infected with the virus is a gonner already.