Replies to post #84513 on NanoViricides Inc. (NNVC)

[thefamilyman]

For diseases like the flu you may be correct. However, diseases like HIV and Herpes can remain dormant inside your cells for extended periods of time until something triggers their re-activation.

A single treatment of HIVCide could be a "functional" cure for these diseases for a period of time. But then later some of those dormant viruses would reactivate to start the disease process all over again. In those instances it MAY be advantageous to continue treatment over a longer timeframe to keep the disease from coming back.

However, I believe that even if you could only use the HIVCide periodically, it will still be a better option than the current treatment.

another voice said...

Robi, I disagree on the long term use of an oral Flucide. I can not foresee any need to take ORALFLUCIDE on a regular sustained basis.
What uses could you think of that might cause a regular use? With it's quick response to a cide the need to use it prophetically seems unnecessary.
IMHO

[robi-1-kenobi]

You make a good point, AV-2. Almost all would not be taking oral FluCide long-term. However I was thinking of the low-likelihood scenario of a longer-term epidemic of a breakout Flu strain with no vaccine where healthcare workers might need to take multiple doses of FluCide prophylactically.

So even though really unlikely, I would think NNVC would probably do long-term multiple doses for Toxicity testing of Oral FluCide. I could be wrong.

To FamilyMan's point, there would likely be other 'Cides that would be taken long-term. And already having long-term multiple use Tox data on one product could theoretically reduce the amount of long-term testing needed for the next 'Cide.