You might try writing to Dr Degrado. He has been very responsive to my emails (Bill.DeGrado@ucsf.edu). I suspect PolyMedix did ample research on this issue and Degrado would have been involved.
It's too late in the day to be debating about the topic you insist. Some may have tingling, some numbness, and other may feel orgasmic, though the latter may encourage repeat visits, Covid or not. But we would know for certain in a few weeks whether Brilacidin prevailed or not. So hang in there.
If a drug stops the coronavirus from growing in cells in the lab, researchers should test for phospholipidosis. If the drug causes phospholipidosis, it should be discarded as a COVID-19 therapy.
I have enough confidence in the Safety Committee overseeing the current trial, and the many other scientists working with Brilacidin, that I am not concerned. Brilacidin has been through several Phase 2 trials now and phospholipidosis has not been a concern before. The ABSSSI trial was administered via IV and was a resounding success. It certainly did NOT fail due to phospholipidosis. The current Phase 2 for Covid was also administered via IV and it was not stopped due to such concerns. In other words, Brilacidin is NOT a compound that would fail in a clinical setting due to it causing phospholipidosis because it has already been through multiple clinical trials and has NOT failed.
The article proposes screening repurposed drugs for phospholipidoasis as a predictor of poor Covid 19 performance.
Since an antiviral has not been found to be effctive researchers could have screened for any biologic entity and would have come up with the same result.
Why is screening for phopholipidosis any different?
Is an obscure reference to phosphlipidosis pertinent to Brilacidin?
No, we are only days away from hearing the results of another group of patients being treated by Brilacidin. We do not need more in vitro testing when we are about to finish a clinical trial.
In Vitro testing for phospholipidosis has been available for decades.