As more info comes out, its clear that the ideal patient population for brilacidin to show efficacy for Covid is a patient in the US (and therefore benefiting from the synergistic effects with R), one who presents with only moderate symptoms, and one who is not on heparin. There are probably others, but these are the 3 that are jumping out to me.

Out of the 120 in the trial, how many do we think fit this description? In my experience, almost every one of the trial patients would have been placed on subq heparin or lovenox since covid has a known risk of thrombosis. Also (I forget the exact numbers) the vast majority of patient were in Russia, and as far as I know, they did not also receive R. Finally, yesterdays PR states most of the patients presented with severe symptoms. There couldn't have been more than a few patients that were optimized if my above assumptions are correct.

I'm wondering how different the results would be if every patient showed moderate symptoms on admission, also got R, and were placed on different protocols for DVT prophylaxis.

Looking at the new research posted today on bioRxiv, it appears heparin has a significant effect on decreasing brilacidins ability to block viral entry.

I would really like to see another covid trial run, optimized with new info in hand. And who knows, maybe it was optimized. I'm assuming a lot here. Maybe they already new about heparin and trial patients weren't on it. I'm also assuming Russian patients did not get R.

Point is, it doesn't seem like Leo is giving up on Covid, and I agree. The more info we get, it seems this trial was doomed to fail, and could very easily be optimized. I'm very hopeful further trial analysis gets us into a government funded trial