Yes, most drug development programs take a long time.
Some technologies allow for quicker development, for certain "platforms" like the nanoviricide (nanomicelle + ligand; just change the ligand and you have a new drug against a new viral target), or certain gene therapies (one delivery platform and technology, just change the gene of interest that will be targeted and you have a new drug against a new disease).
NNVC was able to produce a new MERSCide drug relatively quickly (around 1 year?), and is going full-steam to develop EbolaCide2 as quickly as they can: to get it designed, produced, internally validated, and available in quantities sufficient for BSL-4 lab in vitro then in vivo testing.
I am saying that what isn't right is criticism that a drug is taking too long to develop when it's been less than 3 months in development, compared to the norm of 10 years. Agree?
NNVC has confidence that EbolaCide2 could be a breakthrough, and that they can produce it in record time; yes it could be a miracle cure the world desperately needs. Their history with MERSCide and apparent success in scale-up with a new plant makes them think they can produce enough quantities of a drug ready for clinical trials within a relatively short period of time (6-9 months?), depending on how urgent the situation, and how soon the BSL-4 lab(s) can test the drug(s).
Seymour has such confidence in EbolaCide2 that he apparently considered going to Africa himself to help test it in animals, and apparently now is on a business trip to see how they can rapidly expand drug production when the time comes. Maybe he is a master bull-shitter, but maybe he really just believes that strongly in nanoviricides. I just want to see if their drugs work as well and safely in humans as they have in animals, and I'm willing to wait to find out, despite all the noise from the doubters.
NNVC is working feverishly on their end, and I'm sure will update everyone when they have something they think is ready for testing at a BSL-4 lab, and have an agreement in place with a BSL-4 lab to start that testing against Ebola.
I don't know if they can have EbolaCide2 ready for testing before the current Ebola outbreak peters out, or even what will happen with the current Ebola outbreak - how long will it be a problem? Will it continue to get worse, as many health experts fear, with up to 10,000 new cases a week predicted recently? Will it spread to Latin America, The Middle East, China, India, or elsewhere? Will it continue to rapidly mutate? Will any drugs prove effective at treatment? Will a vaccine be ready soon enough in quantity? How soon do you think the vaccines will take before they are tested and shown to be effective? How much money is big pharma spending to take a chance on making an Ebola vaccine that may not be ready in time and may not work?
In terms of why spend the money, it seems only to cost them a couple of million, and it's been declared that it won't delay FluCide (unless EbolaCide2 looks to be wildly successful). It's a shot to get one drug from their platform technology into clinical trials much quicker, without as many hoops to jump through, against a virus that many think is a huge risk to the entire world. What's wrong with taking that chance?
I don't see anything wrong with having confidence in your technology, working hard to make a new drug as quickly as you can, and hoping for the best.
