"I would choose the scientists comprehension of their own data every time."
Normally I would agree, not least because as I started my working life off as a scientist.
But when the data show that, and I quote:
"brilacidin had no effect if it was added after viral infection. Additionally, the anti-viral activity of brilacidin against replication competent SARS-CoV-2 viruses was reduced at 48h post-infection, suggesting that increased viral loads from the multiple-rounds of infection overcame the anti-viral effect of brilacidin."
then clearly the conclusion that:
"brilacidin might be a promising candidate to be developed as a multi-functional agent to target both viral and bacterial infection and to mitigate pathogen-associated inflammation"
is incorrect.
I suspect the IPIX authors had an undue influence in the drafting of this paper. It's the only logical conclusion that could explain this apparent contradiction between facts and hopes.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
