"support the idea of brilacidin functioning in a broad-spectrum capacity as an antiviral compound"
There are three things that mark this conclusion out as the triumph of hope over experience (or perhaps the triumph of hoping to get grants to do studies over honesty):
1) It's almost impossible to conceive that a substance that has to be administered by IV infusion on each of five days and therefore presents enormous logistical and economic challenges could be used as prophylaxis in exposed but asymptomatic and unconfirmed cases of possible viral infection
2) The side effect profile makes brilacidin a challenge to administer even therapeutically, let alone prophylactically (see the contraindications in the studies conducted so far). Severe hypertensive spikes and "mostly mild" peripheral neuropathy in asymptomatic people is not a risk/benefit ratio that looks very favorable, especially as the latter affects the majority of peole receiving brilacidin.
3) Then there's the small matter that in the only human study where brilacidin's anti-viral properties were tested, it failed its primary endpoint and showed no benefit over placebo.
I think most people who understand the field - including all of the business development folk at proper pharmaceutical companies - know this to be true.
The current noise about IPIX on social media is simply existing IPIX shareholders (and I suspect IPIX management's IRPs) trying to find unsuspecting victims onto whom to offload their own deeply underwater shares.