Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VPHM - Viropharma Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (839)	12/17/2001 6:16:28 PM
From: Cacaito	Respond to of 2557

If at all the mechanism talks against picovir use: "These proasthmatic-like effects were also observed in ASM exposed to UV-irradiated RV16, wherein viral replication was completely inhibited." If the clinical signs will be trigger despite "viral replication completely inhibited" What good will picovir be? bolus or not bolus does not matter the virus particle will trigger anyway, it is more of the evidence why acute antiviral therapy is full of logistical problems. The case for prevention comes to another logistical problem: How long to use the prevention? daily seems to be the answer but that is not feasible since the "cold" season lasts months. Forget about "per known exposure" use since it comes back to the above TOO late even if "completely inhibited viral replication ". Picovir hardly works in the acute setting, prevention use is a fat chance. The abstract you presented is about the use of a blocker of ICAM-1, IF picovir blocks the corresponding ICAM-1 receptor at the viral site could there is MAYBE a chance for picovir, and that is not the case.