Replies to post #77096 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[BonelessCat]

Gene left StatSure before while the first test strips were still in clinical trials. When he left, the shares were still trading at $2. They were never that high again.

The problem here is that in today's more tolerant climate, we cannot appreciate the tremendous fear that swept through the gay community in that first decade of HIV epidemic and AIDS fears. Gene had enemies on both sides as homophobes wanted to do little other than quarantine HIV positive in camps, while the gay community feared that the test strips would be used to identify HIV positive and result in active quarantine programs. Then, the FDA dragged its feet on the device due to political pressure from both sides for a product that should have been approved in just 2 or 3 years but took instead more than 10 years. It was an ugly time.

[ZincFinger]

What we KNOW is that the company Dr Seymour was running developed a valuable product and that it was marketed and is still being marketed albeit currently by a different company.

That is sufficient to definitively disprove the totally false claim that Dr Seymour had not produced a successful product in more than 21 years (I believe originally by Ovidus although you now are apparently taking up the cause)

Now that that was refuted the claim is being 'rejuvenated' by extending it to question whether the shareholders ever benefited from it. That does two things: 1) it distracts attention away from the fact that the original claim was flagrantly indisputably totally false. (which SHOULD IMHO put an onus on those supporting the false claim to check out their claims before stating them as facts and to be more cautious in speculations as well (the credibility you save thereby may be your own!)) 2) it constitutes an (IMHO desperation) attempt to 'rescue' a failed "problem".

It is very reasonable to assume that the other company acquired the product by either buying it or acquiring the company that owned it. That's by far the usual case. IMHO if YOU suspect or SPECULATE(very obviously you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER) that it was a deal from which shareholders did not benefit (which would be highly unusual) it's up to YOU to provide the evidence that that is so.


I find the idea highly implausible and am not about to waste my valuable time on what I consider a "snipe hunt".

If this issue concerns you, by all means do some Due diligence and check it out. And should you find any actual EVIDENCE, by all means post it.

PS: IMHO it is bordering on the irresponsible to raise such rank and implausible speculations about the company without any prior attempt to determine whether they are true or not. The way I interpret it is that if you were genuinely concerned about it you would have made some small attempt to determine whether it was really true.

If you find EVIDENCE or indications it might be true, by all means raise the issue. But otherwise it is totally groundless implausible speculation that adds no value to the board.