NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[ZincFinger]

I have presented a highly detailed and well supported argument for why vaccines are highly relevant to any company that produces drugs. And you have not addressed those arguments in any way whatsoever despite repeating your contention that they are an off topic subject.

In addition you have presented no reasons or arguments whatsoever to support your claim. I can't address anything because there is nothing there to address.

RE: "As per the specific case of the measles vaccine: you claim that somehow, had more people been vaccinated against measles, there would be no outbreak now. Yet 2/3 of the measles patients in my state WERE vaccinated, including a college student who was condemned by the media for exposing dozens or hundreds of fellow students -- before it was revealed that indeed he WAS vaccinated. How would vaccinating more people with an ineffective vaccine have prevented this outbreak? "

I have presented a very sound (and universally accepted among the scientific community) explanation of exactly why antivaxers were clearly and indisputably (on scientific/medical grounds) responsible for the infections among those that were vaccinated. You did not address my argument in any way, other than to make a totally unsupported claim it was false. I suspect that's because you do not understand the basic concept of "herd immunity". I've given you references where you could learn what it is but you appear not to have checked them out. Unless you can understand the basic concept of herd immunity there is no way you can understand my argument. It is medically sound and IMHO no knowledgeable person would dispute it. if you disagree with that PLEASE PRESENT SOME LEAST VESTIGE OF A COUNTER ARGUMENT. (Which is entirely your right and I very strongly ENCOURAGE you and ENTREAT you to do it. I'm only noting that you have so far failed to do so.

RE: "You also fail to respond to my points that there are NO vaccines currently approved for many serious diseases" That's because that observation is totally irrelevant to the question under discussion: i.e. Whether an effective vaccine would be serious completion for a drug's market and hence a valid topic for discussion.

As for Ebola for example, NNVC currently has no approved drug for that disease. So your observation that there are no vaccines (currently) available is totally irrelevant, a complete unfair comparison! There are not any approved vaccines currently available BUT there are vaccines under development (just as Ebolacide is UNDER DEVELOPMENT) and, as I explicitly noted (and you appear to be overlooing) t[b[color=red]]here are multiple (at least SIX currently) Ebola vaccines MUCH FARTHER along in development that Ebolacide is.[/color] VERY much farther along:

http://www.biopharma-reporter.com/Bio-Developments/Ebola-which-are-the-leading-vaccine-candidates

(note that they say"LEADING" there are even more at earlier stages!)

RE: "You also fail to respond to my point that it would be difficult or impossible to inoculate large populations in third-world countries who believe that illnesses like HIV and Ebola were caused by Westerners who (in their opinions falsely) claimed to be providing medical care."

I considered that comment so flagrantly insignificant as to be not worth addressing. But since you insist on making an issue of it:

All of those comments apply to Polio vaccination. And yet the campaign to eradicate polio by vaccination is continuing, and with good results despite all of that. IMHO that clearly demonstrates that your concerns are irrelevant/invalid.

There is a great deal of variation among the readers of this (and any other) board in many respects. Each will draw his/her own conclusions based on his/her abilities and biases. I'm just trying to present evidence to support what I feel is a very valid (and very well supported) viewpoint.

RE: your highly personal definition of long term study: It is very different from the currently applied standard which is equally applied to BOTH drugs and vaccines. I addressed the conventional standard BOTH because that is what is currently used, for both drugs and vaccines AND because it it totally unfair and misleading to apply your individual standard to vaccines BUT NOT TO DRUGS as you were doing.

Interestingly I happen to agree that the much longer and thorough studies you suggest should be done. I'm only saying it's totally unreasonable to apply that stand to vaccines and NOT to drugs. See the "China Study" for an excellent example of how it should be done (SURPRISE: I'm actually both well informed on that topic and even happen to agree with you EXCEPT when you attempt a "double standard" and try to hold vaccines up to that stand while ignoring its application to drugs.