Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : NNVC - NanoViricides, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: old 'n cranky who wrote (10044)	4/9/2018 12:54:24 PM
From: HardToFind	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12873

In other words is there a goal to have a single candidate going into GLP safety and toxicology and what is standing between now advancing and actually starting? Will any further efficacy testing be done to distinguish between the candidates between now and GLP safety and toxicology? Or is it the ultimate intent to secure the approval of multiple drugs to treat the individual "alphaherpesviruses"? I've been told that of the two candidates shown at the poster session a while back, one of them is easier to manufacture and one of them is slightly more effective. My guess is that it would cost on the order of $4 million of direct costs for each drug the company takes through human trials and submits for approval. And any schedule delays will cost an additional half a million dollars a month (or more?) in overhead. The last working capital number I heard was $12 million, and we've acknowledged that we'll need to raise further funds as we go into human clinicals. For whatever reason, Dr. Diwan seems to be more comfortable keeping his options open and moving forward at this point with multiple herpes drug candidates than selecting a single candidate with which to move forward. I sort of doubt that there's much (if any) advantage to marketing multiple herpes drugs that have basically the same effect. One could argue that there's reduction of drug failure risk by moving ahead with multiple candidates, but at some point it seems schedule and working capital risks will be materially adversely impacted more by moving ahead with multiple candidates into human trials. Personally, I hope they don't initially go into human trials with multiple drug candidates for the same indications. But I have to hope that management better understands the magnitude of these risks and will make the right decisions.