[HN Gopher] I'm making drugs for cats ___________________________________________________________________ I'm making drugs for cats Author : klevertree Score : 122 points Date : 2022-06-16 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (trevorklee.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (trevorklee.substack.com) | h2odragon wrote: | Gee whiz this is a great chemical, let's find something it's good | for and perhaps we'll be able to make money on it someday... | | Seems like a really long diversion from the original goals, | doesn't it? "People have problem A and i want to test solution X | for effectiveness" was the first principle, right? Now it sounds | a lot like "we bought tons of this crap now we've gotta push it | _somehow_ " | awillen wrote: | That's the real world for you. Sometimes companies end up | seeing success after long diversions from real goals, because | the world throws obstacles at them that require them to adapt. | | Seems like the alternative here is to do nothing, so finding a | productive but realistic path forward is a better alternative. | I think it's clearly wrong to call running studies in animals | "pushing it" on anyone. | bennyp101 wrote: | Yea, isn't that how Viagra came about - "Well it doesn't the | blood vessels quite like we wanted, but .... well it does | this!" | vrc wrote: | And Rogaine. It was also created to treat High BP as a | powerful vasodilator. Turns out it made you hairy too. | Maybe we should spend all of our R&D pursuing High BP -- | who knows what other ailments we'll cure! | therein wrote: | I mentioned this before in HN, will mention again. There | is definitely something about vasodilation and hair | growth/mobility, especially when it comes to in-grown | facial hair. | | If you have in-grown hairs, take Viagra once and they'll | start coming out in a few hours on their own or with | minimal mechanical force. The effect continues for a day | or two so I am sure even the secondary metabolites might | be somewhat active in inducing this effect. | klevertree wrote: | Trying to cure a disease that gives cats such bad mouth sores | that they sometimes can't even drink water isn't exactly | "pushing crap". | | We're trying to make it to profitability so we can get to the | point where we can test the solution in humans who have | neurodegeneration. When you're dealing with incredibly complex | regulatory environments and millions of dollars in development | costs, it's not always easy to make it from point A to point B. | That's the point of this post. | nimbius wrote: | god this article sounds like a writing prompt. | | "im making drugs for cats!" I shreik in my underwear as the FBI | raids my derelict RV full of cat clozapine and TV dinner trays. | | "im making drugs for cats" I calmly explain as i wheel a | teetering trolly full of drain cleaner and paint thinner toward | my car. | | "im making drugs...for cats?" I shake my head as the prospect of | tenure track seems to fade away. | GordonS wrote: | > I linked up with an excellent corporate attorney and patent | attorney, both of whom agreed to let me use their services on a | pay later basis. | | I'm curious about this "pay later" arrangement - does it simply | mean they'll invoice you on 30 day terms, or something else? | klevertree wrote: | The corporate attorney agreed not to require me to pay any of | their invoices until I closed a seed round, while the patent | attorney let me pay their invoices a full year after I received | them. These sorts of arrangements are common with attorneys who | work with startups. | codewiz wrote: | If this was published on Medium, I would have highlighted this | paragraph: "On the human side, the FDA mostly considers their | responsibility to be to stop unsafe or ineffective drugs from | entering the marketplace, and believes that allowing safe and | effective drugs to enter the marketplace is a secondary goal." | droopyEyelids wrote: | That makes perfect sense if you know the history of the FDA! | | PBS has a great documentary on it. | https://www.pbs.org/video/dr-harvey-wiley-father-pure-food-s... | unethical_ban wrote: | Good. They're the only thing standing between the public and | people who would run mass experiments daily for money. | [deleted] | dekhn wrote: | Yes, they have to do this. The cost of a few bad drug approvals | that cause large-scale loss of confidence in the pharma | industry would be devastating- including consequential effects | on good medications. | kansface wrote: | > Yes, they have to do this. | | We can imagine lots of alternatives to what the FDA currently | does - a partial approval pipeline immediately comes to mind | in which the degree to which a drug is approved is | commensurate to our confidence in the safety/efficacy of the | drug. A different system could have different levels of | approval on efficacy and safety. A different system could | attempt to maximize lives saved (or utility years) and would | look very different yet. | pr0zac wrote: | There are a lot of different approaches that could be taken | that would definitely be more effective in the short term | and I too wish we could take the most effective and logical | approach. The problem is people are not always logical, | especially on a large scale. | | A proposal like you mentioned puts a lot of trust in the | general public to be capable of making informed decisions | based on detailed approval levels and risk profiles and not | react to negative outcomes or side effects by blaming the | FDA, pharmaceutical science, or the medical field. | | It feels like putting that kind of complication into | something as important and life affecting as | pharmaceuticals is just asking for trouble when we live in | a world where the grades for maple syrup needed to be | simplified and large numbers of people think the President | has direct control of gas prices. | | Especially in the age of social media, it only takes a | small increase in the number of people reacting illogically | and lashing out to snowball, create loud counter | narratives, and threaten the view of the FDA as a trusted | authority and its ability to provide strong oversight. The | result being increasing numbers of people harmed because | they chose to avoid care or seek out sham alternative | treatments. | | We can already see these issues cropping up with regard to | things like vaccines where factors like COVID vaccines | being rolled out under early approval (an unfortunately | necessary special case) has hurt public perception of the | FDA. | | The unhappy fact is that any approach that does not take | into account the need to protect people from themselves, | make efforts to minimize bad PR, and ensure the FDA appears | as completely as possible to never make mistakes will | result in an erosion of trust and even worse outcomes in | the long term. | hycaria wrote: | Yep. Not the same in most of EU where proof of efficiency is | most often required. Which also explains why some people need | to go to the US for treatment | zerocrates wrote: | There's an enormous amount of literature and commentary out | there about the tendency for federal regulators in general, and | the FDA especially, to minimize "Type I" error (approving drugs | that are unsafe/ineffective) with the negative consequence of | making more "Type II" errors (not approving drugs that are safe | and effective). | carride wrote: | _Easier regulatory environments. Not only do you not need to talk | to the FDA before testing your drug in animals, cats are way less | likely to sue you if they get sick from your drug. Of course, | we'd still do our best to make sure they didn't, but it's less | likely to sink the entire company if they do._ | krageon wrote: | I thought this is paraphrased, but this is lifted straight from | the article. This is so incredibly wrong I simply couldn't get | past this statement. | gonzo41 wrote: | I think this company is not understanding the role that | animals have in millennial households. | samatman wrote: | The company which is betting the farm on cat owners | spending money to treat their suffering cats doesn't know | their market? | | On the basis of what evidence. | krsw wrote: | How we got to our current state of medicine is horrifying, | but the alternative is more grim. | | There is no clean arrival for good, safe, effective medicine. | A little gallows humor isn't hurting anyone. | schnitzelstoat wrote: | Out of context, it sounds awful. | | But having read the whole article, he doesn't seem like a | monster at all. If it works as planned it'll really help some | cats. | krageon wrote: | Sanzig wrote: | I don't want to sound callous, but... they're cats. Not | humans. How do you think all the medicines at your vet's | office were originally tested? | | Animal models are used in biomedical research all the | time, and yet they account for a tiny fraction of the | animals we kill for arguably less useful purposes (meat | production). Provided steps are taken to minimize any | unnecessary suffering (which should be relatively minimal | in a drug trial), I find conducting research on animal | models far more justifiable than even just eating meat - | there's an alternative to the latter (vegetarianism), | there aren't good alternatives to the former. | roflc0ptic wrote: | This is the entire ethical basis of animal testing, | except in this case, they're at risk of actually helping | the animals they're testing. | | Compare that to e.g. malaria trials where they buy mice, | infect them with malaria, and then see if the malaria | responds. | | I'm a vegetarian because once I made the leap that | animals probably have an internal experience, torturing | and slaughtering them so my mouth can feel a certain way | strikes me as not personally justifiable. How much worse | is that? Should I go around calling everyone a monster? | Hardly. | | Animal testing at least has some meaningful rationale, | and testing treatments for diseases animals actually have | seems solidly in the realm of ethically justifiable | idiotsecant wrote: | Is it? It seems like it's just acknowledging a objectively | true reality. In the US getting sued for failed human medical | intervention is common and costly. Courts (and juries I'm | sure) don't look on animal lives with the same value as they | do human lives. _You_ might have a different value system, | but the article isn 't talking about your moral system, it's | talking about objective reality. | jessermeyer wrote: | I think the person you're replying to is using the term | 'wrong' morally. | samhw wrote: | But, like they said, it's talking about the legal reality | and not the moral reality. I find it hard to see how that | could be either factually or morally wrong. | carride wrote: | Correct, that comment was italicized to show that it was | lifted straight from the article | hinkley wrote: | And that's how our dog died in 25 days from a painkiller that | the protocol is to check for liver function after 30 days... | | I suppose this sentence is meant to be a little tongue in | cheek, but a few of us at least do not find it funny. | mlyle wrote: | I can see why you found that upsetting. | | Still: our society (rationally) does not devote the same | resources to drug development for animals as it does for | humans. And even protocols, dosing regimens, etc, for humans | are not perfect. And even when the ideal protocol is chosen, | some people _still_ have a bad outcome by being an outlier. | | Medicine is very imperfect; veterinary medicine is worse. | klevertree wrote: | Unfortunately, the reality of trying to cure animals is that | sometimes you accidentally hurt animals. That's also the | reality of trying to cure humans. | | This is the exact same issue vets face when they perform | surgery on your cat, and it's the exact same issue that | surgeons face when they perform surgery on you. The difference | is that vets don't have to pay tons of money for malpractice | insurance in case they get sued by the owner, which is one of | the big reasons why veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. | affordable to ordinary people) than human surgery. | InCityDreams wrote: | >veterinary surgery is so much cheaper (i.e. affordable to | ordinary people) than human surgery.... | | ..."in the USA". At a guess, I'd say it's the complete | opposite in Europe with it's pesky human healthcare systems. | pjerem wrote: | To be fair, human surgery also costs a lot in Europe. It's | just not paid by the patient. It's not healthcare in itself | that is free but health insurance. | cameronh90 wrote: | I've actually paid less for a private X-ray (in the UK) | than it cost for my cat at the vet. Vetinary drugs are | also often more expensive than their human equivalents. | | I suspect scale may be a factor here. | IMTDb wrote: | It also costs less. | | How many European doctors make more than $500k / year ? | The _average_ orthopedic makes roughly that | (https://www.kaptest.com/study/mcat/doctor-salaries-by- | specia...) | EUROCARE wrote: | And that's a huge problem. All our doctors (Eastern EU | here) are leaving for UK, US, or richer western EU | countries. To resolve that, we have a law that requires | newly graduate doctors to stay and work here for a long | time (10 years here IIRC), which is rightly seen as a | serious issue wrt. their personal freedom. That pushes | people away from pursuing medical degrees. | | It's cheaper, but that has its price too. | light_hue_1 wrote: | > All our doctors (Eastern EU here) are leaving for UK, | US, or richer western EU countries | | To be fair. That's true of educated people in general, | not just doctors. | EUROCARE wrote: | I can't fully agree. I think the situation is much better | than it used to be and is improving, for example IT | workers are not universally leaving anymore, a lot of | them now stay and there are many foreign people coming | here! There is now an exciting startup sector too, and | the international corporations are finally building IT | hubs here. But it keeps getting worse in the medical | sector because of that law and because it's not paid well | enough given the long hours and stress. | | Nowadays, older doctors (those who have served their 10 | years) are moving from insurance-based to cash-based | treatment because they demand much more than the "pricing | tables" dictate - so there's a lot of doctors around you, | but you can't go to them because the "public" insurance | can be used only where they accept it, they never give | you cash. The prices are very similar to US hospital | quotes - in absolutes, not PPP. Meanwhile, we still have | the "public" healthcare providers (these are | corporations, but usually wholly or partially owned by | political entities), but the quality is getting worse, | they are unable to keep it stable, much less improve - | not surprising since they rely on essentially forced | labor. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Damn I thought he'd be working on like, cat Ecstasy or something. | jyounker wrote: | That's called 'catnip' :) | jseutter wrote: | Getting Ecstasy to market involves fewer regulatory hurdles | than even drugs for animals. It just so happens to be illegal | in most countries. | | I thought he'd be doing "this drug is for cats" _wink_ _wink_ | and then people use it, but in retrospect a judge would see | right through that. | | I wonder if it would be significantly cheaper to go through | regulatory approvals for a drug in another country, to the | point where it would be worthwhile to relocate the company? | potatosalad1 wrote: | My cat got bartonella which caused this condition and had to have | all his teeth removed. Prior to the surgery he was in absolute | misery, and the only treatment was steroids that did little and | aren't meant for longtime use. The surgery was several thousand | dollars, out of reach for a lot of families. An effective | treatment for this condition would be great! | treme wrote: | curious, how is your cat doing post-surgery? I imagine it | required a significant dietary change | hycaria wrote: | US I imagine ? It's a few hundreds here. | pmoriarty wrote: | _" The surgery was several thousand dollars, out of reach for a | lot of families."_ | | Wouldn't pet health insurance cover it? | GekkePrutser wrote: | Good luck Mr Escopurr | phillc73 wrote: | Just from the headline I thought something similar - developing | something around catnip or valerian, which is kind of an | interesting idea but probably already done. | lgvln wrote: | I have a quasi-thought experiment for fellow HN readers. | | If you found out one of the stray cats at unofficial "cat | shelter" tested positive for FeLV and the person who runs the | "cat shelter" seems oblivious to it, would you consider unethical | to let the person continue run it? The FeLV virus is likely to | spread among all the cats and result in a short life of suffering | and illness. | kixiQu wrote: | If you can't get them to vaccinate the other cats, then yes | danw1979 wrote: | So is this a variation on the trolley problem or something ? | | How many cats are we talking about ? | lgvln wrote: | Not really. I guess it's about disruption of the person's | lifestyle and he/her liking for cats vs the actual welfare of | the cats - how having good intentions alone is often | insufficient. I would put the current number of cats at 10, | plus other future cats. | dghughes wrote: | @OP you should reach out to my local University and its Atlantic | Veterinary College (AVC) here in PEI, Canada. | | https://www.upei.ca/avc/research | klevertree wrote: | Do you have any connections there, by any chance? Always | looking to talk to more vets. | VyseofArcadia wrote: | My beloved calico who passed away near the beginning of the | pandemic suffered from stomatitis. I opted for full dental | extraction after pharmaceutical intervention proved ineffective. | She eventually passed away from an aggressive mouth cancer, which | is not uncommon in cats with stomatitis. | | I loved that cat, she got me through grad school, and losing her | was miserable. My gratitude to anyone working on stomatitis | treatments. | jjtheblunt wrote: | aggressive mouth cancer? my calico ten years ago succumbed to a | horrible oral bone cancer's complications. to hell with cancer, | and it's kinda retarded (literal meaning of the word) how | slowly progress is made. | gkop wrote: | Huh? Retarded just means "slow" literally. So, if I get your | meaning, it's absolutely not "kinda" retarded, it's | _depressingly /horribly/saddeningly/hopelessly_ retarded. And | I do not recommend putting "kinda" together with "retarded" | if you want to be received positively. | | (I'm sorry for what you and your calico endured. F cancer) | jjtheblunt wrote: | good catch (seriously) of the inadvertent cliche | reinforcing "kinda". (yeah eff cancer) | gnulinux wrote: | I mean, it depends on the accent, but some people use | "kinda" as a filler word without any strong meaning. I | didn't perceive "kinda" to qualify "slow" in that sentence | to imply it's "a little slow", given the sentence was | written to assert that progress is slow. | gkop wrote: | Then just say "kinda slow". Easy. If you want to use a | charged word, it's on you to make your intention easily | understood. If that's too much for you, then just use a | safe and well-understood word. | klevertree wrote: | I'm sorry to hear about your calico. Stomatitis is really a | terrible disease. | Barrera wrote: | > I felt good! The next step was in sight: a test of the drug in | humans, to see if we actually saw the blood levels of | cyclosporine that I expected we would. We had contracted with a | CRO in the Netherlands and were raising the $1+ million needed to | actually carry out the test when - pop! - the biotech markets | imploded. Suddenly, investors literally stopped returning my (and | everyone else's) emails. | | That sounds like a Phase 1 trial for safety in human volunteers. | If the plan was to sell the IP to or partner with a major Pharma, | maybe this could work. But the IP situation may not be that | clear-cut with a drug repurposing, especially given this: | | > This is still a tall order for a guy whose background was, | again, science blogger. But things went surprisingly ok, all | things considered. I linked up with an excellent corporate | attorney and patent attorney, both of whom agreed to let me use | their services on a pay later basis. ... | | You really can't do this on the cheap. | | People in tech (or even science broadly) trying to get into the | drug industry frankly have no clue about what it actually takes | to get a drug approved for humans in the US. Hundreds of millions | are table stakes. The bar is higher than just about any other | industry for new product introduction, even for a repurposing. | | Even if the bear market had stayed in hibernation for another | year or two, the fundamental problem is that human drug approval | is a massive resource drain that requires very deep pockets and | an ironclad IP position. | | Failure (after massive expenditure) should be considered the base | case. | savingsPossible wrote: | So maybe people should try different markets? | | What would be a clever approach to make a drug viable/revenue | creating? | sillysaurusx wrote: | Just wanted to leave a plea for someone, anyone, to please start | working on FeLV and FIV vaccines. Cats normally live 16 years. | FeLV/FIV takes them at age 2 or 3. It happened to both of mine. | | Not only is it common, but it's often assumed that it'll happen. | It seems almost lucky when cats _don 't_ get it. | | If an epidemic like that were affecting humans, a trillion | dollars would be spent to fight it. But since it's cats, we just | stay silent. | | I wish there were more commercial incentive. I don't know how | there would be, but I hope one day there will be. | lgvln wrote: | I'm sorry to hear both your cats passed away at age 2-3. Can I | ask whether the cats were infected with FeLV or FIV? FIV cats | can often live a relatively long life (~10 years) if kept | indoors. Whereas the median lifespan for a FeLV positive cat is | 3 years from the date of diagnosis. | samatman wrote: | Not to detract from your point, but HIV is exactly that disease | and a lot of money has been spent to treat it with considerable | success. | | Which is to say you're correct but it's not a hypothetical. | soco wrote: | Lost two little friends because of that ;( | hycaria wrote: | FeLV has a vaccine. Also I guess it's regional, here not that | many cases. Also have personally seen multiple cats live well | past 10 with FIV, with no treatment as they are none. 2-3 years | seems super short from what I've seen so I wouldn't blame FIV | only. (I am an European vet) | saiya-jin wrote: | > If an epidemic like that were affecting humans, a trillion | dollars would be spent to fight it. | | Only if it affected rich western countries. Poor fuckers of all | ages from around equator are decimated daily and comparatively | very little was done and its not great even now. Very easy and | cheap to minimize exposure (ie mosquito nets), and completely | reachable to eradicate for for maybe 70-80% of affected | population. But I guess dying african/asian kid half around the | world doesn't stir enough emotions these days. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-16 23:00 UTC)