Two words: one dose. If the first studies are borne out in the later phases, it appears that Brilacidin is equally or more effective (depending on dose) with ONE intravenous dose, as the current standard of care that requires 7 intravenous doses -- meaning hospitalization or visits to an IV outpatient center.

Brilacidin, if proven to be effective, potentially has a much broader range of applications. Just look at what they're discussing -- opthalmic and otitis studies. What if every cataract surgery includes a little jolt of Brilacidin into the eye? What if ear infections are treated by Brilacidin drops? How can one claim equivalent value for a multi-dose antibiotic for one specific type of infection (methicillin-resistant) with a SINGLE-dose antibiotic that treats multiple infections, with multiple potential applications, which seemingly will have far fewer problems with creating resistant bacteria, and which also seems to have anti-inflammatory properties (more about which we will know when the Bril-OM trial gives us some results)?

As far as Leo "admitting" that the antibiotic field is crowded -- really? Source, please. I don't recall any such thing.

And I doubt that anyone who is a researcher in the field would say that the world doesn't need any new antibiotics. In fact, isn't the FDA offering incentives for exactly that kind of research? **cough QIDP cough**