I think one of the key blockers would be the fear that the designers don't fully make sure that the virophages damages only the target cells and doesn't decide to munch on more useful parts of our internal ecosystem when its intended food supply runs out (or if it mutates).
Even if they have created something that definitely won't have adverse side effects (which isn't actually possible, I know, but bare with me on this for a second) they still have to convince the General Public that it is safe which could be an expensive PR job. Joe Schmo has seen too many zombie-virus movies and/or puts too much trust in things like Prince Commudgen's uninformed ramblings about grey goo, to trust anything they don't understand. Don't get me wrong: a fistful or few of such distrust is healthy for society, but from a commercial point of view it is just a potentially expensive problem to overcome.
They would also hit the nutty god botherer problem: this might only be a virus (and a modification of one, not the creation of one from scratch) but it could be seen as creating new life, something only the bi-polar sky fairy is permitted to dabble in.
And back to the impossibility of creating something that definitely won't have side effects for the patient and those around them: the companies need to be sure that the potential clean-up costs (i.e. litigation) or more than covered by the guaranteed profits - otherwise it is just safer to stick with the current treatment/business model, at least while it is turning a good profit.
(A quick note on my use of "nutty god botherer" and "bi-polar sky fairy" as they have caused heated discussion before: the many religious people I know, and I presume other otherwise sensible ones, take those as facetious jokey definitions (i.e. as they are intended) - the people who get offended by this sort of thing tend to be people I don't mind offending!)
Even if they have created something that definitely won't have adverse side effects (which isn't actually possible, I know, but bare with me on this for a second) they still have to convince the General Public that it is safe which could be an expensive PR job. Joe Schmo has seen too many zombie-virus movies and/or puts too much trust in things like Prince Commudgen's uninformed ramblings about grey goo, to trust anything they don't understand. Don't get me wrong: a fistful or few of such distrust is healthy for society, but from a commercial point of view it is just a potentially expensive problem to overcome.
They would also hit the nutty god botherer problem: this might only be a virus (and a modification of one, not the creation of one from scratch) but it could be seen as creating new life, something only the bi-polar sky fairy is permitted to dabble in.
And back to the impossibility of creating something that definitely won't have side effects for the patient and those around them: the companies need to be sure that the potential clean-up costs (i.e. litigation) or more than covered by the guaranteed profits - otherwise it is just safer to stick with the current treatment/business model, at least while it is turning a good profit.
(A quick note on my use of "nutty god botherer" and "bi-polar sky fairy" as they have caused heated discussion before: the many religious people I know, and I presume other otherwise sensible ones, take those as facetious jokey definitions (i.e. as they are intended) - the people who get offended by this sort of thing tend to be people I don't mind offending!)