I'm kind of agnostic about whether I want to see Flucide go forward unimpeded and with no distractions and whether (assuming solid Government underwriting appears in support) Ebolacide2 goes forward into a more rapid development & deployment.
Sans outside (Government) fanincial and logistical support to get Ebolacide up to scale - going forward with Ebolacide is a distraction.
However, either going forward successfully is good in the long-run for the company IMO - and by proxy good for those of us who hold shares.
Flucide IMO is where in the long-run NNVC makes it's biggest financial impact for us and probably also has the biggest long-term benefit for world health. As Flu is much more widespread, and kills many more people worldwide than does Ebola,.... that's where the best revenue generation market lies.
Ebolacide2 - if it works and gets moved forward drags the company's name out there with a clearly defined demonstration of the potential that the company uses,.... and cuts through a lot of red tape to get there.
Either 'Cide going forward on as rapid as possible scale is good for us here, and provides some benefit to people in need of a solid anti-viral treatement.
Win - win,.... but risks still inherent in both pathways.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
