"as an adjunctive to a treatment with a vaccine...

"as an adjunctive to a treatment with a vaccine..."
Nope.

This is not going to be "treated" with a vaccine that does not exist, and will not exist for at least a year.

It's not going to be "treated with a vaccine" even when it's developed -- a vaccine will be used as a preventive measure.
The victims of the virus are going to be treated with whatever protocol they discover works best on those unfortunates who are the first ones to get the disease in its severe form, in this unavoidable experiment on human non-volunteers who they're trying to save now.

Yes, Brilacidin may be useful as a treatment, for its anti-bacterial action and/or anti- inflammatory properties, or if it turns out to have anti-viral properties after all. But along with administration of a vaccine? When you get the flu, does the doctor give you Tamiflu and a flu shot? Nope. They won't even give you a flu shot if you have any kind of mild illness, like a cold -- think that when you're very ill, stressing your immune system even further by giving you a jolt of a vaccine that wouldn't be effective for at least several days or weeks is going to be a "treatment"?

We've had this before on this site, people saying they were medical professionals and then saying things that proved they were not.
Now we'll have a series of "but well I didn't really mean that what I meant was...." posts.

I hope that people know better than to take at face value someone's claim to be an expert in an area, and then they post things that are not correct. We've had any number of identities on this and the other board claiming to be medical professionals. I don't remember now which identity talked about how he supposedly used a certain drug all the time, and administered it in a certain way -- except that what he claimed he used was a drug that was NOT administered in the way he claimed, in fact it wasn't even produced in that form.

Here we go again.