NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[KMBJN]

You are making an assumption about a theoretical danger of nanoviricides that hasn't been born out in any of the animal safety testing so far - that long term use of nanoviricides will be "dangerous" because they "render the immune system dysfunctional." Have any proof for this idea?

Only those known to be exposed or potentially exposed would need the drug treatment, not the entire population.

"could possibly" is reality, given all the hypotheticals I brought up - "could possibly save more lives in the future (if the vaccine is safe enough, effective enough, if enough people take it, if the virus doesn't mutate enough, and if the virus is expected to be successful enough in the future to put a lot of people at risk)."

If a vaccine isn't safe, and it causes encephalitis or narcolepsy, or death, then that needs to be taken into account.

If a vaccine isn't very effective, it doesn't do as much good or save as many lives. The flu vaccine didn't save as many lives because it's not as effective this year.

If not enough people get vaccinated, then of course it doesn't do ANY good to the people not vaccinated.

If the virus mutates to something different enough from the vaccine, then the vaccine isn't very helpful then, either. What if someone is vaccinated for Ebola-Zaire, and the Ebola-Sudan virus circulates? What about this year the H3N2 flu mutated, making the vaccine less effective.

If the virus peters out or is not very prevalent in the population, and the chances of exposure to it are small, then of course, one wouldn't be helped by getting a vaccine against it. What are the odds that you or I will need a Ebola vaccine?


Anyways, always appreciate your discussion of the science, and good luck with your investments.