Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You should actually read the PR. The difference is the EbolaCide2 ligands target a conserved portion of the Ebola virus that it needs to enter and infect the cells. The previous version's ligand targeted portions of the virus that it shed to fool the immune system. Likely to be a big difference in efficacy.
Right. And if "hydration" wasn't controlled, there would have been a clear indication of that study limitation in the poster and scientific session it was presented at. Peers review posters and presentations to avoid such embarrassments. He's grasping at straws on this one.
EbolaCide1 increased survival time but did not result in full recoveries in this known 100% lethal Ebola test.
EbolaCide1 showed partial efficacy. The EbolaCide2 candidates have nice potential to prove out efficacy in this test model to a level that would justify further tests with primates and ultimately people. We will see.
Highly doubtful EbolaCide1 partial effectiveness was hydration-related only.
I don't have the protocol, but almost all animal studies ensure control animals are alike in every way possible except for the therapy to remove bias due to ancillary effects.
Therefore they almost certainly would have compared against control animals with the same fluid injection volumes and osmotic concentrations with saline or whatever other carrier fluid was used for the EbolaCide1.
USAMRIID has reputable scientists with knowledge of how to run studies and also presented their findings to their peers and superiors who also know these things. They would be embarrassed if they made such an oversight in their control animals.
So - No - this was almost certainly not a differential hydration effect due to inadequate controls.
It was a proven partial efficacy for EbolaCide1 - longer survival times but no full recoveries.
Based on the current treatments for Ebola which consists of maintaining hydration, it could just as well have been the fluid the Ebolacide was injected with that extended the life of the mice.
Nearly 600K shares traded again today, ~3x normal volume similar to yesterday for another large gain - this time up nearly 6% in share price.
Large and small orders, strong throughout the day.
I am still in - strong rise with momentum continuing. First resistance level is $4.00. I think we blow through it.
I expect some churning up to next resistance level around 4.50. By that time, catalyst may be shipment of EbolaCide2 candidates to USAMRIID.
Cheers!
Great day - 100k share buy at ~11:30am, nearly 600k shares traded today or ~3x typical volume. Nearly 10% increase in share price.
A CRADA with a government agency that can provide testing resources with BSL4 capability, collaboration with manufacturing, ability to knock down a few regulatory walls and get to human testing quicker...
This CRADA is the critical step I was looking for on EbolaCide development (see BK post below).
It is still also critical the efforts do NOT stop or slow on the FluCide front. But IF (my supposition) there is a delay anyway until they can use better reaction vessels for scale-up in the new lab, then this EbolaCide project makes perfect sense. And it serves a genuine, desperate human need and may help the company make a name for itself and its technology with successful testing.
This CRADA is very promising!
Quote: BK post 102835
CRADAs: A good place to start is here:
A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) is a written agreement between a private company and a government agency to work together on a project. Created as a result of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, a CRADA allows the Federal government and non-Federal partners to optimize their resources, share technical expertise in a protected environment, share intellectual property emerging from the effort, and speed the commercialization of federally developed technology.
A CRADA is an excellent technology transfer tool. It can:
* Provide incentives that help speed the commercialization of federally-developed technology.
* Protect any proprietary information brought to the CRADA effort by the partner.
* Allow all parties to the CRADA to keep research results emerging from the CRADA confidential and free from disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act for up to 5 years.
* Allow the government and the partner to share patents and patent licenses.
* Permit one partner to retain exclusive rights to a patent or patent license.
http://www.usgs.gov/tech-transfer/what-crada.html
True, Rawnoc? "USAMRIID opening door to anybody and everybody with the faintest of hopes for an Ebola drug."
I hadn't heard that. I've only seen one other recent Ebola company CRADA with USAMRIID and that was for a diagnostic by BioInnovation - not a treatment.
But your sources are so much better than mine. Can you list some of these "anybody and everybody" with USAMRIID CRADAs for Ebola drug development?
Thanks!
Thank you for a straight answer, BK.
Cheers!
Agreed - this readiness is not where they have had technical difficulties in the past.
And they have successfully tested quite a few of their drugs in these small initial in vitro and small animal tests - FluCide (multiple candidates), Dengue, HIV - to name a few.
So - when do you think they will make announcements of the MTA and partnership agreements?
Will it be within the next few weeks? Or the next few months?
I'll ask a second time -
What do your sources say about a partnership agreement and announcement?
Which partner(s), TBA when?
My frustration with management communication exactly. Ambiguity - and probably intended. Some due to technical challenges, but good project managers can usually still provide hard dates for start, end, and durations for both best and worst cases.
So what is the signing of MTA dependent on? If NNVC does not sign until they are sure about delivery, that could still result in a further delay of almost as long.
What do your sources say about a partnership agreement and announcement?
Which partner(s), TBA when?
My concern now is - are they already in queue or do they have to wait until all the EbolaCide2 candidates are ready?
I would feel a lot better with an announcement that they have an agreement for testing starting on "X" date and they are working to get the the candidates ready by that date.
If they have to wait for the candidates to be ready before they can get their place in line, then there is an even greater delay to wait potentially ANOTHER 3-4 months to get even a start of testing.
I am looking for a partnership announcement that they have priority to test when they are ready and a fixed date. Usually not too much to ask.
Also, would be wise of them to indicate that FluCide efforts for Tox materials is still going full steam ahead.
They need to spend the money to hire the right people to get these things done. They have it in the bank.
A slow bleed siphons money without progress and leaves them at a disadvantage when they have to fundraise to complete clinical studies.
Faster progress begets momentum and access to additional funding sources - for Ebola, from potential FluCide partnerships, etc.
Short term scaleup is not likely a problem. Very little material from each batch is needed for initial in vitro testing and initial animal testing (should be less than their capability of 200g batches).
However, depending on how many versions (different candidates for testing) they are making, there could be a longer time to make all of them than first considered.
I think they want to (have to?) hit on a successful candidate on the first try for EbolaCide2.
Even though present efficacy and safety results with FluCide, DengueCide, and many other drugs have already proven out the concept, there is a serious risk to investor (and potential investor) perception and confidence if they have shifted all this focus to EbolaCide2 without successful results.
I get the impression they have decided to whip up a few more candidates for in vitro testing to get more shots on goal and a higher probability of successful results.
Perhaps (my speculation) they are adding candidates with additional alternating ligands to activate the glycan caps on the cholesterolase receptors to enable their specific NPC1 ligand to bind to NPC1 in a 2-step process. I noticed in initial releases they talked about ligand in the singular, but Dr. Seymour also emailed and Nanopatent also excerpted literature on the glycan caps.
Post 98930 (and assoc from Nanopatent, Steady T and KMBJN)
This is what makes the technology so difficult which is what Dr. Seymour acknowledges.
Other posts by Nanopatent have provided more details. I haven't had time to read the source material, but I think it was cathepsin that was involved in removing the glycan caps.
In theory, adding cathepsin mimics to the 'Cide in addition to NPC1 mimic ligands could overcome that difficulty.
I would think that is why Dr. Diwan created multiple candidates for initial in vivo efficacy screening. Unfortunately, these same efficacy screens in vitro did not point to the lower efficacy they saw in vivo in the previous USAMRID testing of EbolaCide1.
I am not sure how they overcome that - maybe the in vitro efficacy results can be quantified and ranked?
Thank you, INH. Really appreciate your contributions to the board. I have come to a similar approach to yours regarding NNVC. Also generally agree with your post to Biodoc.
We had bit of pause in NNVC volume on Friday. One day does not a trend make or reverse the several high volume up days in the weeks prior. Will continue watching with my trading position. I really hope they get their manufacturing scale up, technical expertise limitations and management focus and communication in order. The world could really use their 'cides - especially where there are no other good options like flu hospitalizations and treatments after contracting Dengue and Ebola.
Like Biodoc, I have a more than full time day job, too. So I am not into the short term VIX plays where you have to constantly monitor things. I do however add a little spice to my overall portfolio with some inverse mid-term vix buys (in ZIV) when volatility spikes (bought some last week). I do not have to be as nimble for this trade and there can be some benefits with contango as well.
I have also held BIB, 2x biotech for nearly 2 years now. That has been particularly helpful to offset diversifying foreign ETFs that haven't gone anywhere but are cheap long term.
Best of luck to you and all here!
Cheers!
INH-are you in, trading now? I am based on what looks like significant strategic buys throughout and at the end of multiple days and the potential of a partnership announcement with EbolaCide 2.
The back and forth on this board has turned into a mostly he said/she said or Right vs. Left same ol' same ol' argumentation.
Sometimes one party seems to have the upper hand, sometimes the other.
I agree with you that what we are all waiting for is for real progress on FluCide and EbolaCide2.
I am waiting with the rest of folks for the moment. What are you doing at this time?
Thanks!
They may be buying then, too. They seem to have deep pockets and motivation. Or it could be programmed for end of day. Or both. Unlike some here, I am not prescient enough to know, nor do I have a crystal ball or inside information.
However, it seems even more unlikely to say someone wants so badly to paint a series of higher closes that they are spending in $100's of Ks each day to just keep it level or barely up. What would be their motivation for that? I can't even think of a crazy reason.
Agree. Hoping, but agree.
Edit: But my patience is limited. Soon is not indefinite.
Smart money buying in over $100k increments at close is pretty convincing. If they are playing at manipulation, they are playing big time. More likely accumulation when >10% of average daily volume at the close - on multiple recent days.
Agree BK. With contracts still under negotiation (including timelines) at the time of Dr. Seymour's announcement, how could anybody mistakenly interpret Dr. Seymour's words on NNVC having EbolaCide2 ready for testing as meaning starting testing? I never understood how Rawnoc came to that conclusion despite the constant misinformation.
I am however waiting avidly for an announcement of the partnership agreement and will not be waiting long to pull out if there is not that announcement soon (to use an unpopular but sufficiently ambiguous turn of phrase).
I don't think anyone else is confused by "ready for testing" verses "testing."
Some kinda expensive paint/lipstick >30,000 shares over last 15 min both yesterday and today.
Isn't the close supposed to be the smart money?
As I predicted, there was tape painting into the close as usual.
Somebody desperately likes to put some lipstick on this pig every day into the close.
Do NanoToday next!
Ignore? Addressed - FluCide has proof of concept as do many others (DengueCide, HIVCide, HerpesCide, etc). That doesn't change with EbolaCide2 results one way or another with their one set of shots on goal. FluCide wasn't developed with one set of tests.
You are right, though, that there is more visibility and so weak hands may flee if poor results for EbolaCide2.
Correction - Costs other than FluCide as percentage of R&D got me worked up. Here are the correct figures from the 10K filing for FY 2014.
FluCide $2.0M
DengueCide $0.6M
EKC-Cide $0.1M
HIV-Cide $0.4M
HerpCide $0.6M
Other (Ebola, etc) $0.1M
So all other project costs for R&D add up to $1.8M - almost as much as the labor and spend for FluCide at $2.0M.
With delays and issues on their lead candidate, labor costs and spending for their lead candidate FluCide should have been at least 70-80% of their R&D budget spend.
And now they say there will likely be a capital raise (dilution) before clinical trials? Time for some focus on FluCide.
Ebola is fine as the spend is minimal for a potential to bring in outside revenue if initial (and low cost) testing is successful.
But FluCide needs priority focus, smart project management and execution.
We will see.
Maybe weak hands think "all or nothing", but the strong hands understand the significance of FluCide efficacy with 100% survival of otherwise lethal Flu exposures and orders of magnitude reduction in viral load over existing drugs (Tamiflu, etc).
I don't deny that the shareprice will likely decline if EbolaCide2 doesn't move forward. There is a 12-18mo preclinical timeline stated now for their lead program of FluCide and a management team that has always mis-estimated timelines.
But they have enough money to get to IND/CTx before I think they will want to raise money again and enough capital to put FluCide through Phase I/IIa if they pushed it to empty.
Successful preclinical work for FluCide and IND/CTx approval will see them through. If they are unsuccessful with FluCide preclinical testing (either safety or broad spectrum efficacy or completion of testing before next needed capital raise) then I might have to agree with you.
I think they did feel pressured to begin with partial Regulatory GLP Tox now. This pressure wasn't just from this board though. There has been stock price pressure and shareholders directly contacting the CEO.
There was a posting not long ago on Investorvillage from what seems a reliable poster (S_Colton) that stated Dr. Seymour said they were going to make material for GLP Tox in the new lab facilities.
That was also their original plan before the lab completion was delayed.
I think that was their ideal plan all along. So (IMHO) I think the following will be the compromise - testing of materials from both labs.
This ticks off a few boxes from the standpoint of meeting FDA (and other Int'l Reg Bodies) expectations and requirements. The testing should include materials made in pilot scale batch sizes (~1 tenth the size of planned commercial batch sizes) and meet some aspects of cGMP. This is the next size up - 1 kg scale - to be made in the new lab with some cGMP controls. Starting with some material from the old lab can check off some of the FDA requirements and reduce the time and materials needed to complete the study with materials from larger batches made in the new lab with better cGMP controls.
This is speculation on my part, but the way I would approach it from my understanding of the regulatory requirements and project timeline pressures.
Yes - like a project manager with power to veto $600 million in dollars and people resources to further work on HIVCide development and testing when FluCide is delayed.
They actually had more than a year. This should have been clear after their Pre IND meeting with the FDA in April 2012.
Good project managers look to their long lead time items and those tasks on the critical path to make sure they don't get caught like this.
These tasks can still delay timelines if the technical challenges are particularly difficult. In this case there could be background PEG levels difficult to separate from the drug signal detection. And the ligands are similar to naturally occurring sialic acids so difficult to measure as well.
But there are technical options around such difficulties that could have been explored and answered much quicker than the 2.5 years passed since Pre IND - such as fluorescent markers in place of a portion of the ligands.
This development effort needs to happen quickly now to fall within their 12-18mo timeline for preclinical studies. My understanding from the 10K is that this is included in that timeframe and is not anticipated to extend it. We will see.
For the most part, I feel the same Grover. I also lightened my load - even more so - into the R2K institutional and fund buying. But there are a couple of potential bright spots here.
First potential positive, the company reported in the 10K that they have resumed the CRADA MTA with USAMRID. They also reported they are manufacturing the needed small quantities of EbolaCide2 candidates and finalizing contracts for the initial in vitro testing. This gives them a shot on goal that if successful would generate its own momentum with funding for further testing. This could accelerate development and raise the profile of the company given the ongoing epidemic and likely long timeframe for resolution.
A successful EbolaCide2 potential outcome is uncertain, but if it plays out, we will never see lower share prices again. On the other hand, if it doesn't happen, the SP path is likely a fits and starts continuous bleed lower - as you expect - due to the now communicated longer timelines to clinical trials for FluCide.
Second potential positive, in terms of capital raise and dilution, I don't think we will see this until IND approval or more likely Australian CTx approval to begin Phase I/IIa testing in which case the promise of starting clinical trials will offset the dilution of the capital raise.
I hope the 10K is a new leaf for better executive communication, project management and execution. We will see.
Not what I said. NNVC is not screwed if passage across the blood brain barrier occurs.
They will however have to show that there are no adverse effects over the time frame of clearance. Existing animal studies up to Max Feasible Dose showed no behavioral or cognitive effects. Suggestive of good results in Regulatory Tox, but not definitive.
And the concern from a timing standpoint is development of analytical methods of detection of FluCide in the various tissues of the body. The testing timeframes are not affected to my understanding - unless there is distribution to specific tissues that does not metabolize or excrete in a reasonable time frame. PEG studies I discussed about a year ago are strongly suggestive of both safety and a relatively short time frame for excretion by glomerular filtration through the kidneys. And these safe molecules are likely to have passed through the blood brain barrier as well based on their size (molecular weight).
And don't forget - as this is an injection, Cmax occurs effectively immediately, so there is no need to calculate the timeframe of Cmax with absorption experiments. Distribution, Metabolism (should be minimal) and Excretion are the only real things to test here for ADME in the PK studies.
Attaching fluorescent molecules is fairly commonly done, although you are right that it is not preferred because it usually adds significantly to the molecular weight of the molecule for typical small molecule drugs.
In this case, this is not a small molecule but a relatively large micelle. Adding a small side chain or few to each micelle would not significantly change the size of the micelle. And they could do it by replacing a ligand or few, instead of addition.
Remember the size of the micelle is 3D so a small change in MW (one dimension) is insignificant to the volume of the micelle. Diameter change (2D) is insignificant as well.
All Toxicity and Safety testing for regulatory submission require assessment in various tissues including the central nervous system (CNS).
The 10K filing covered that there is ongoing development to monitor the levels of Flucide drug throughout the body during PK studies of ADME.
I think the clearance rates will be more important than the partitioning (or lack of it) into various tissues and end organs - including the brain. If it clears from the brain and elsewhere with typical kinetics in reasonable times (non detectable at ~3 to 4 weeks), then it should not be a problem. If it remains partitioned in the brain for longer periods, then maybe there will be more of an issue.
So will the physical mechanics dominate (particulate micelles distributing evenly and clearing through glomerular filtration through the kidneys)?
Or will chemical interactions dominate (sialic acid mimic ligands partitioning more toward areas of higher sialic acid concentrations such as the brain)?
I do not know and neither does the company until they can develop the analytical detection methods to monitor FluCide in the various tissues and run the animal studies.
What prop for share price? Ebola testing with USAMRIID as stated in the recent 10K finding (in red below). Good results will rocket the SP with expectations of grants and more, bad results will tank the SP:
From Page 5 of 10K:
In September 2014, we announced that we have already completed design of novel anti-Ebola drug candidates, based on “in silico” or molecular modeling approach, and synthesis has also begun. We believe that we will be able to work with our previous collaborators at the USAMRIID, and also at the NIH, to begin testing the potential utility of these drug candidates in cell cultures and animal models soon.
In July 2010, our collaborators at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) presented the data on evaluation of anti-Ebola/Marburg nanoviricides. Significant efficacy was reported to have been achieved in cell culture studies. Animal studies indicated improvement in lifetime in the uniformly lethal mouse model. Further improvement in chemistry and dosage levels may be expected to lead to significant survival.
To date, we have entered into the following collaborations.
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for Material Transfer, dated October 15, 2007, between NanoViricides, Inc. and United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (“Laboratory”).
The term of the agreement was for one year initially and extended for an additional year. It has been extended again, based on positive results. The Company shall invent, develop, and provide to the laboratory, Nanoviricides® that are expected to be capable of attacking a multiplicity of different Ebola and Marburg viruses. The Laboratory shall assess in vitro and in vivo activity of the anti-Ebola Nanoviricides® provided against the virus.
There is no payment by the Company to the Laboratory, nor from the Laboratory to the Company. USAMRIID has federal funding to support their part of the work.
Forz, you may want to put a little context from the previous posts next time. I chuckled a bit when I first read it! Cheers!
Good view AV and actually consistent with my post. You've covered a more mechanistic angle. Not exactly the terminology I would have used but I think correct in the broad strokes.
The mix of correct and incorrect 'facts' on the back and forth postings here is just going to confuse people. See bottom of this post for what is the truly important difference between vaccines and EbolaCide2 (IMH speculation).
Here is what we know and don't know - from memory, so hopefully I can get through without a mistake.
1. CASE 1: For EbolaCide2 given to patients already sick with Ebola.
a. EbolaCide2 would eventually destroy some or all of the virus (assuming efficacy).
b. The immune system would produce a broad spectrum of antibodies to multiple sites of the fully virulent form of the virus.
c. Patients would have immunity to that version of Ebola.
d. High probability that patients would have at least partial immunity to mutated versions of Ebola.
2. CASE 2: For EbolaCide2 given prophylactically to e.g. healthcare workers
a. EbolaCide2 would circulate in bloodstream for maybe a month with initial high but diminishing protection should they be exposed to Ebola.
b. If not exposed to Ebola, workers would NOT develop antibodies to Ebola and eventually not be protected unless given additional EbolaCide2 doses.
c. If exposed to Ebola, workers would have some EbolaCide2 protection, develop immunity to that version of Ebola and likely at least partial immunity to mutated versions (same as above Case 1).
3. CASE 3: For some other company's vaccine given to healthcare workers
- Vaccine options would include: a weakened (attenuated) live virus; or dead (inactivated) virus; or parts of virus (proteins, genetic material, etc. often made in laboratories). For Ebola, the only viable option is the latter (man-made parts of virus).
a. If the vaccine is made from portions of the virus that can mutate without the virus losing viability, it will not be effective against mutated versions of the virus - or may not be effective at all (e.g. if it targets the chaff like the soluble glycoproteins sloughed off by Ebola).
b. If vaccine is made from highly conserved portions of the virus that are necessary for infection to remain viable (and if those portions are accessible to antibodies in the bloodstream), the vaccine will provide protection from not only the version modeled, but also at least partially to mutated versions of the virus.
Case 3b is analogous for vaccines and EbolaCide2. If either option is to work, the right portions of the virus need to be targeted and either accessible or made accessible to either antibodies or 'Cides. Neither option - 'Cides or vaccines is truly unique for protection against mutated versions of viruses if they both target conserved portions of the viruses necessary for infection.
However, 'Cides do provide another potential advantage over vaccines. What I am talking about are the glycan caps that mask attachment to the NPC1 portion of Ebola.
Vaccines could mimic the NPC1 portion of Ebola to generate antibodies to it. But unless those caps are removed from the virus somehow, the antibodies may not be able to attach and summon an immune response in circulation (although maybe in a more limited way through attachment when the caps are removed in the endosome before release of the viral genetic material into the cytoplasm of the cell).
EbolaCide2 could mimic the receptors to NPC1 to attract attachment by Ebola. But unless the caps are first removed, Ebola will also not chemically attach to EbolaCide2 in circulation (although maybe in limited quantities in the endosome).
This is where EbolaCide2, in theory, may have its true advantage over vaccines. Additional ligands can be added to EbolaCide2 to remove the caps prior to NPC1 ligand attachment. As Dr. Seymour pointed out, there is literature now elucidating the sequelae of Ebola infection. Cathepsin has a known role in cap removal prior to NPC1 attachment. It is likely (IMHO) that Cathepsin and/or other ligands were added to EbolaCide2 to remove the glycan caps and allow subsequent attachment to the NPC1 ligands. If so, there is more promise with EbolaCide2 than with the vaccine alternatives.
We often joke with a grain of truth that Marketing folks are happy with making their point by testing N=1, R&D with N=2, but Quality needs statistically supported sample sizes for design verification.
Maybe your true calling is marketing?
I'll tell you what I would do - get one Ebola infected gorilla and cure him with EbolaCide2.
Verification of efficacy.
Then go for the whole population with bait everywhere laced with EbolaCide2.
Do the same with the human population - put EbolaCide2 in the milk/drinking water like fluoride for us.
Makes sense to me.
FWIW - they always do the safety and efficacy testing first to know whether it will do any good. Maybe that will get done first for EbolaCide2 as well, but it would seem a waste to just start shooting primates with EbolaCide2 without the initial work done upfront first to know it will help.
FWIW - to counter Rabies they (animal control people) have thrown bait containing anti-rabies drugs from planes/helicopters into areas with rabies infected animals (wolves?) to try and stem the outbreak.
Thanks L Vus for the update. Great if FluCide finally gets into GLP Regulatory Tox studies at BASi "very shortly."
Curious, there seems to be mixed signals here -
- initially GLP Tox was to be done with materials from the new lab
- then from the old lab (when the new lab was delayed)
- then (from InvestorVillage) supposed communication from Dr. Seymour to S Colton that materials would come from the new lab now that it was done
- then the latest from Dr. Seymour to you that it would be "very shortly" without an announcement of completion of validation activities in the new lab let alone presumed time to complete manufacturing of multiple lots so would have to be from the old lab.
Hopefully - very shortly means Monday as Nanopatent predicts - then we should get some answers in a PR rather than (annoyingly) second hand. I for one am getting very tired of secondhand info that should have been communicated clearly in PRs with firm commitments on decisions and timing.
I am still confused as to the details of the primate studies. What is unclear is how they would find and recapture the primates if they were to be injected with EbolaCide2 with darts (and presumably allowed to continue with their lives in the wild).
Not faulting you (and appreciating your taking the time to go to the luncheon and report back to us), I am guessing some of what Dr. Seymour was saying was lost in translation. Still - sounds like an effort is being made on the Ebola front - which is good if it doesn't impact FluCide progress toward use to ultimately help more people and address a bigger market and get NNVC in a position to work on other lifesaving products.
What is really needed is to attract a partnership with a government entity to help with access to BSL4 facilities, allow for reduced safety/tox studies, and sponsor use without the usual complete requirements to export drugs for use in people. Without that, there is no rapid progress on EbolaCide2. [A grant to accelerate progress wouldn't hurt either.]