Replies to post #29485 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[Drano]

This is exactly what I meant about GNVC shaking up shareholders of a lot of biotechs, including NNVC.

And it's also why I keep saying people should not have so much money in any one stock so that if the stock tanks, it will affect their lifestyle.

Anyone who, like me, lost big bucks in GNVC has got to be at least a little worried about every one of their other biotechs.

[BonelessCat]

I know you are asking about something else entirely, but I want to outline the differences between GNVC. But, first the similarities:

1) Both were recommended by All Allan.

Now the differences:

1) All Allan recommended GNVC as part of a biotech basket, but recommended NNVC as a 5 year single stock buy and hold.

2) NNVC is in antivirals, GNVC is kind of all over the place with current focus on cancer treatments. Two indications are still in Human trials, but the Phase 3 failure adds doubt to the success of the remaining trials.

3) GNVC is developing vaccines and cancer treatments. Both require changes to the Human system to treat or vaccinate against the target disease. GNVC's technology has a whole host of problems and challenges, one of which is toxicity at therapeutic levels. NNVC's technology targets viruses and does not affect or impact the host system. In fact, there have been no indications of any toxicity or cellular damage in any of the animal trials.

4) GNVC has the backing of the NIAID and NIH through direct grants. However, its burn rate far exceeds that of NNVC, even during the early animal trials. NNVC has been unable to close on any direct government funding, but its burn rate is one-tenth that of all other biopharmas in animal studies.

5) GNVC's technology and target diseases require lengthy and expansive testing in order to demonstrate both efficacy and safety. NNVC's technology either works to target viruses or it doesn't. The gateway for approval is much earlier in the protocol; that is, if it works in Phase 1 testing there is absolutely no reason to think it won't have the same success in Phase 2 and Phase 3. For GNVC's technology, on the other hand, gateway was at the Phase 3 level where it had to demonstrate sufficient efficacy and limited toxicity in relationship to end of life diseases and extension of terminal mortality.

The comparison of the two with the intention of determining an indication of risk is a false comparison. NNVC has its own set of risks, albeit much lower risk:

1) In dealing with the FDA and the influence of Big Pharmas, the requirements and hurdles to meet standards outlined for final approval of a novel technology could delay advances and influence time lines to approval even more than they already have.

2) NNVC could fail to raise sufficient capital to complete Human testing. But, I doubt this, but it's a possibility.

3) Non-toxic nanomicelles in animals could have unexpected outcomes in Human trials. Again doubtful, but possible.

4) Human immune systems could react to nanomicelles as an invasive organism and attack the structure thus greatly reducing efficacy. Once again doubtful, yet a remote possibility.

5) The current 6 viral disease targets in development could react differently than they do in animals, even "humanized" ones, thus greatly reducing efficacy in Humans from the expectations learned from pre-clinical tests. Perhaps one might react this way, but it's highly doubtful that two much less all 6 would have the same outcome.