I'm making drugs for cats
trevorklee.substack.com
I'm making drugs for cats
1–10 of 101 posts
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#2Easier 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.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#3Gee 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"
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#4Easier 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.
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.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#5Gee 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 "
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.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#6Easier 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.
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.
I think this company is not understanding the role that animals have in millennial households.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#7Gee 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 "
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.
Yea, isn't that how Viagra came about - "Well it doesn't the blood vessels quite like we wanted, but .... well it does this!"
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#8Gee 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 "
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.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#9Easier 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.
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.
Re: I'm making drugs for cats
#10Easier 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.
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.
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.