Replies to post #38862 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[NNVClover]

The thing is when they do get used, chimps are by far the best surrogate. Talk to companies like VPHM, ANDS, VICL, AVII, ACHN and you learn these things. The funny part is using chimps is just as expensive as going straight to humans. Chimp clinical trials require paying for healthcare for the chimp for its lifetime.

If you spent time talking to the rest of the industry you'd know all this. I'm sure you can dig up a paper or two on attempts at getting mouse models accurate but your standard procedure is to skip it because there is no 'mouse HIV'. It's not homologous, etc. By the time you change the mouse's immune system to the point where it's somewhat human you've really missed the point. I'm sure it's someone life's work, so I'll pass on commenting on it, but as of now it's just not a part of the industry.

[BonelessCat]

Did you bother to read the studies? Oh, studies don't count. We are to take your word for this, a word that contradicts practice.

Oh, wait. I get it. You're talking about vaccine development. You're right. Mice and vaccines aren't a good combination for indicating human response.

A nanoviricide is not a vaccine.

You do know that the entire HAART cocktail was developed by testing on mice? You do know this, yes?

"The SCID-hu Thy/Liv mouse model of HIV-1 infection is a useful platform for the preclinical evaluation of antiviral efficacy in vivo. We performed this study to validate the model with representatives of all four classes of licensed antiretrovirals."
--Cheryl Stoddart, et al, Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California,

[Ubertino]

We'll sale through those 1 and 11 trials!

I predict-based on the past results with no hint of toxicity.