NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[drkazmd65]

You have answered your own question already:

If they haven't synthesized the material and haven't conducted tests, what results are they working on? The ones from ebolacide1 that were at best mildly effective? Really?

Yes,... really. It is a normal part of the process of science to publish results of tests, even if the results of those tests were not completely satisfactory.

In fact - Ebolacide I did 'work' fairly effectively in cell culture systems. The fact that it worked much less effectively in vivo reveals something about the nature of the virus, and how it interacts in a 'real' system.

So - yes - In Fact,.... they are claimed to be writing up the results of those old studies. The fact that the designed drug was not completely effective in vivo is still useful data for those who seek to understand how the system works as they might chose to build upon those findings.

Sometimes,.... more about how something works in science is revealed when the hypothesis being tested is not supported. A reassessment of the data,.... the discovery that the NCP1 gene may be the actual target that should have been aimed at since the Ebolacide I work was stopped led to the conceptualization of the new target to be used in Ebolacide II.

A simple understanding of how the process of science works is all it takes to understand this sequence - a series of questions, hypotheses, tests of hypotheses, and reassessment of them after experiments are conducted is the normal process. Often the results lead to re-designed questions and more hypotheses.