News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Its_lose_not_loose

05/01/20 4:11 PM

#143516 RE: leifsmith #143515

Again, as a non-scientific person, I must defer my skepticism to those who are more scientifically inclined.

I would think that if somebody, such as Diwan, came up with the miracle cure that he claims nanoviricides is, there would be so many bigger fish clambering for this technology.

BP took one whiff, gagged at the stench, and went on it's merry way (Remember, Seymour contacted BP about NNVC). If they don't buy it, I don't buy it.

Does that help you out?
icon url

Its_lose_not_loose

05/01/20 4:15 PM

#143517 RE: leifsmith #143515

I'm sorry, but I won't be able to help. I will continue to mock until I am proven wrong.

I hope the science and engineering done at NNVC and Theracour is not obscured by continuous mockery.


icon url

arvitar

05/01/20 4:48 PM

#143518 RE: leifsmith #143515

by asking why you thought the science was hogwash.



All anyone can definitively say about Diwan's "science", is that after spending 15 years and $100M trying, it wasn't good enough to generate a single candidate that could make it through IND approval.

To put this in perspective, there are many startup drug developers who manage to get through IND approval and into Phase-1 clinical trials within 18 months of identifying a lead, on a budget of $3-5 million. These ones easily get private funding from reputable investment funds, and delay doing an IPO until they have already created tremendous value through having hit major clinical trial milestones.

It's impossible for any scientist knowledgeable in this area to say more than that about Diwan's "science", since no independently verifiable scientific details have ever been made public.

e.g. Putting plots on a meeting-poster, showing that some secret compound with a secret coded name did something on cultured cells, is NOT science.

Announcing through a stock promotion firm that some lab got some results with a secret compound, but never publishing enough of the methodological details and data in a peer reviewed journal so that experts have enough information to independently judge the validity of the results themselves, is NOT science, it is only a PR.