Replies to post #97538 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[drkazmd65]

The source article is a bit 'Rah Rah! optimistic' - but the claims being made about what an Ebolacide could be designed to do and the scale of synthesis that should be allowed by the new plant are right on the money.

Just have to get the work done, and clear the working time with a partner containment lab capable of doing the actual testing.

And in the meantime - keep right on plugging along to get enough Flucide material together to get the work at BASi started.

[Ubertino]

We need someone of influence to champion the NanoViricides (NNVC) cause particularly in relation to our Ebola solution to get funding, testing and recognition of our potential impact in these trying times.

But who?

The WHO for one and Erasmus for another. The CDC, NIH, FDA and the like as well. I don't count out anyone, all I want is for them to step up to the plate and hit a homer for NanoViricides (NNVC). Is that asking too much? You'd think this would NOT even be necessary in the circumstances.

[KMBJN]

"adding an extra viral receptor mimicking ligand to the nanoviricides designed to overcome the virus’ decoy"

I did read that and remember it, but was confused because it seems the author was saying they would have multiple ligands (the one they used before, plus an "extra" one) on the same nanomicelle, which I thought was not possible.

So instead of "adding an extra viral receptor," they are creating a new ligand for a new version of the EbolaCide, apparently, based on NPC1 receptor. (Unless my understanding is incorrect about how many different ligands can be attached to a nanomicelle).

Leif, good question about whether it is required that multiple viral surface proteins need to be bound by multiple smaller nanoviricides to completely encapsulate the virus in order to destroy it. Maybe it only takes one or a few nanoviricides to tear open the viral envelope to render it "dead," and it isn't required to cover the entire virus.