Replies to post #129947 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[loanranger]

I glanced at your links. If I understood any of what I read I'd flag it as off topic. I didn't.

The only things that NNVC and Brilliant Light Power seem to have in common is that 1)I'll never fully understand either technology and 2)neither has a marketable product...although I think that BLP is privately held so that's not so clear (It's crystal clear re:NNVC).

At various times of my life the same things could have been said about the companies that eventually developed the cell phone and the microwave oven. I'm sure that I wouldn't have invested in those companies either. Risk levels are based on individual needs and perceptions.


You say regarding Diwan, Seymour, and Mills that you "have examined the evidence, and choose to believe their claims". To make this topical, can you say exactly what the Diwan and Seymour claims are that you choose to believe? Is it the concept, which is taken from the company's 10-K for FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2007....
"A “nanoviricide” is a flexible nano-scale material approximately a few billionths of a meter in size, which is chemically programmed by a “ligand” to specifically target and attack a particular type of virus. A nanoviricide also is capable of simultaneously delivering a devastating payload of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) into the virus particle, to destroy its genome (RNA/DNA)."

...or are there more specific claims for which you have examined the evidence that you had in mind when you expressed your belief?

[Trendliner]

KMBJN

Yes, it's possible that Randy Mills has broken ground that all prior physicists have missed. This does occur in science. But it is rare and so just on the basis of the history of science the probability is exceedingly low. Moreover, physicists, one of whom I know personally, who had no financial axe to grind looked into it and found Randy's writings to be "worse than wrong". When there is not a single trained physicist willing to say that Randy's work has even the remotest chance of being correct that evidence can't reasonably be tossed aside.

You assert that Randy's new theory has not be proven wrong yet. I take this to mean that his theory has made predictions that existing physical theory have not made, and subsequent observations have been consistent with those predictions. Has this in fact occurred?

This would be like when Einstein predicted the exact degree of deflection in the path of a ray of star light on the basis of his new theory of General Relativity. No prior theory had done this. Then during an eclipse of the sun in 1921 an astronomer did confirm the deflection was exactly as General Relativity predicted. It was front page news all over the world.

Why have the news papers not carried the story of Randy's confirmed predictions? Certainly that would be front page news. Or maybe they have and we all missed it. Can you cite the date?

Now a personal question and of course you don't have to answer. But the answer would shed light on a potential bias. Have you invested any actual money in Randy's venture. Or are you waiting for that opportunity?

I hope you did not take my prior posts, which were mocking in nature as offensive. If so I apologize. I thought that you might be having fun with the rest of us. But now I can see you are serious about your belief in Randy's work.

Trendlier

[Trendliner]

A PREDICTION ABOUT THE DEMONSTRATION OF BLACK LIGHT

Randy Mills is saying he is going to do a demonstration this year of BLP's technology.

I predict the demonstration if it occurs will not demonstrate anything material OR that the demonstration will be called off due to additional fine tuning of the engineering.

Notice anything similar to NNVC promises about what will be accomplished and when?

Trendliner