>>"Why did the viricide for rabies only save 30% of the dogs in Vietnam (and not 90%)?"
First, the test was conducted on mice, not dogs.
The protocol was a highly agressive design intended only to determine efficacy by that rate at which animals expired after treatment. The 1000 LD50 (1000 times the lethal amount needed to kill 50% of the animals) dose was injected directly into the brains. There were two groups of viricide treated mice for each viricide type, FluCide, RabiCide and FluCide-1 the base micelle formed with a sialic acid ligand. One group was treated by injecting the viricide into the head (intracerebral treatment) while the other treated abdominally (intraperitoneal treatment). For each method of treatment the results were the same. The comparative groups, those treated with a standard RIG, and the untreated control group died much more quickly than the viricide treated group. The best viricide group had 30% survival with other groups ranging from 10% to 30%. Oddly, the most effective treatment was the base nanomicelle, FluCide-1.
The deal is, the mice never should have survived because the test design insisted that all die, which didn't happen. Second the treatment was after the prodromal phase (the onset of symptoms, and after the symptoms manifested in clear signs of neural damage. Again, even with the standard RIG, all animals should have died even with the more common 5 LD50 and 10 LD50. Third, there was a question about whether or not the blood brain barrier would block the viricide from entering nervous tissue from the circulatory system. The results indicated that there was statistically little difference in survival rate between cranially and abdominally treated animals. Fourth, the 30% that survived were both gaining weight showing signs of reversal of nervous system damage.
.."why did I read somewhere that Dr S said that when attaching Ebola, the virus secreted some kind of compound that effectively counteracted the viricide?"
Ebola sheds proteins that are appropriately called sheddase. These proteins form a cloud around the virus particle that acts like a protective set of decoys that attract and neutralize host system antibodies, and other immune system responses. The sheddase is made up primarily of the chemical attachment points for the ligands on a viricide nanomicelle. Thus, just as it would for any immune response particle, Ebola viruses neutralized the viricide. My understanding is that the docs have come up with a way around the sheddase. That is, they have designed a set of ligands that are not present in the sheddase cloud and therefore should penetrate the cloud and effective attach to and destroy the Ebola particle. I believe recent PRs and Qs said those studies using the redesigned nanomicelle are underway.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
