"There really is nothing to argue."
Sure there is.
A non-industry insider....a potential investor, for instance....who reads this without further context could certainly be forgiven for thinking that NanoViricides had actually developed drugs to treat 11 different viruses. I think that's what it actually says:
“We have developed drugs against eleven different viruses.” Eugene Seymour, past CEO of Nanoviricides.
Wikipedia, which I rely on to relieve my ignorance regularly, says this:
"Drug development is the process of bringing a new pharmaceutical drug to the market once a lead compound has been identified through the process of drug discovery."
None of Seymour's developed drugs meets that definition. Yet you say "That meaning is used correctly by Seymour."
And you say this:
"The common use and definition of drug is a compound used or intended to be used to treat or prevent a disease."
The key to the element that weighs heavily on your argument is the word that Seymour used but that your definition left out: "developed". If Seymour had left that out you would be right about this:
"There really is nothing to argue. "
But he didn't.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
