"knowing there was an issue with Ebola based on the shape of the virus" keeps getting repeated without any proof that it is true.
We know that the EbolaCide candidates did not fare well enough in cell culture to warrant animal testing, but we don't know why, do we? It's all speculation, just like just about every other "prediction" made here.
In my mind, it's more likely that the EbolaCides never made it into the endosome to interact with the uncapped Ebola glycoprotein that attaches to the Niemann Pick C1 receptor (and the EbolaCide), instead of the EbolaCide interacting with the virus but unable to destroy it because of its shape.
I could make something up, like EbolaCide didn't work because Diwan made them to fail on purpose, so he could steal the technology for himself (oh wait, did one of you already say that?)
Regarding "accurate" predictions from "inside" sources, when do the sources predict nanomicelle scale-up to be completed and material sent for tox testing?
What specifically are the problems with scale-up? Is it a lack of reproducibility of the process?
When and where do the sources predict MERS testing to take place?
How much material will be needed for HerpeCide testing? Will they partner it? Will HerpeCide leap-frog FluCide, since testing takes less material and FDA testing requirements are much less stringent for topical drugs versus IV ones?
As far as I can tell, the predictions made here all say one thing only: no nanoviricides will ever pass through toxicity testing phase of development; the company will go bankrupt; Diwan and Seymour planned this from the start, and are scamming all investors.
To me, these predictions are complete rubbish. Remotely possible, but rubbish none-the-less.
