Drug Development Is Broken. AI Fixes the Architecture.

Machine-generated transcript from the episode video, cleaned for punctuation and names. Speaker labels are not included.

[0:06] Welcome to the GTM Vault Podcast. I'm your host, Rick Koleta, and today we're diving into the biotech world with a special guest, Savva Kerdemelidis, the founder and CEO of Public Good Pharma. This innovative company is breaking new ground by conducting self-funding clinical trials to develop cost-effective therapies for health insurance. With over 20 years of experience as a registered patent and trademark attorney, Savva brings a unique perspective to the intersection of biotech, law, and technology. Now, without further ado, I want to get right into it. Savva, what inspired you to start Public Good Pharma? Thanks, and thanks for having me on. Yeah, it was really coming from the ideas in my thesis. Around about 10 years ago, a family member got very sick, and what my fiance and my family member and I was going online kind of looking for things that might help, and what I found was that there were a lot of treatments out there that were promoted a lot online, things like diets

[1:17] and off-patent drugs and supplements. But when you actually go into the therapies themselves and you try and recommend them to the person, you realize actually the clinical trials are not that big. There's usually tiny clinical trials, and you just hear about them all the time, that scientists develop this new therapy based on this natural product or this off-patent drug, but there's just not enough data, basically, to support that this trial is effective. And even though you get people online talking about how amazing they are and how they feel and how they might have treated themselves with this low-cost therapy, you basically have this disconnect between sort of what actually gets developed, which is these new patented drugs, and what actually might help people. Although the patented drugs can help as well, there's just this disconnect, this kind of market failure, basically, for therapies that don't fit into the patent system. And that's kind of where I did my thesis on. That was about 10 years ago, and then when COVID hit, people started talking about hydroxy

[2:25] chloroquine and ivermectin and all these off-patent drugs and how they could treat COVID, and there was a big political argument. We sort of had the same problems, where the trials that were done were usually very, very small, because there was no private incentive for a big company to come in and actually do the big trials. And so I thought, well, this is an opportunity, and also I was in London and sort of thinking that this is a, if I don't do it now, I'm not going to do it. And I was also quite interested in the web3 side of things, so there was a big movement in web3 to start looking at open source mechanisms for funding therapies. So I launched, well, relaunched my charity, it's called Crowd Funded Cures, and then the idea is actually to set up Public Good Pharma as the kind of web2 side of things, the more traditional pharma, but using these financially innovative ways to start funding these kinds of therapies. Can you briefly explain how self-funding clinical trials work? Yeah, so this is kind of the, this is, it's not so much the secret sauce, but this is sort of the thing that got me the most excited about Public Good Pharma and the new

[3:32] mechanism. Before that, it was mainly, we were thinking about funding these trials on the basis of essentially a prize, or like an advanced market commitment, sort of. So you have, say, a health insurer saying, if you can prove that this low-cost therapy works, then we'll give you $50 million, or purchase, you'll be the exclusive supplier of this drug, and we'll agree to purchase a minimum commitment for this therapy. And so that's how we get our revenue. But the problem with that is there's not really a first mover advantage for the health insurer. If they basically decide that, okay, we're going to pay for this clinical trial data, essentially, to prove that this low-cost treatment works, then, or like a diet works, then other people can basically free ride on that knowledge. We sort of, yeah, 2022 actually, November, so it's two years ago, found out about the idea of a self-funding trial. And essentially it's a mechanism where you can fund clinical trials, or get health insurers to fund clinical trials, where the trials themselves save money for the health insurer, because you're

[4:43] testing a much cheaper intervention that could actually be better than the expensive intervention. But because the current expensive intervention is so expensive, when you put patients on the cheaper intervention and you fund the trials, essentially the trial becomes self-funding, because you're not paying for the expensive thing. I know it's a little bit hard to kind of explain, but I could explain it with an example that might be better. So there's a drug called ketamine. Ketamine is a very cheap drug, it's around $2 a dose. About 20 years ago, they found out that it was a very good treatment for treatment-resistant depression and suicidality. And the problem is ketamine is so cheap that nobody wants to develop that treatment, and there was no financial incentive. So there was a drug company called Janssen, and Johnson & Johnson bought them, created esketamine, which was a tweaked, patentable version, an intranasal version of ketamine, and it's around $30,000 a year just for the drug, maybe $25,000, $30,000. And they're selling around, they expect to sell around a

[5:50] billion dollars a year worth of this drug. But the interesting thing is ketamine is actually more effective. This intranasal version is only 30 to 50% bioavailable. So here you've got a cheaper drug that's actually better for the therapy than the expensive drug, and you've got a lot of examples like that, where you have a very low-cost treatment that could be better than an expensive one, but no one wants to fund the cheaper trial because it's so cheap. So this way you can actually say to employers or health insurers, whoever might be paying for esketamine, every patient that does esketamine, why don't you offer them an opportunity to enroll in this clinical trial? Every patient that comes into that clinical trial then saves you $25,000, $30,000 a year, and basically, out of those cost savings, you pay us, say, $20,000 or $15,000, and you keep the sum of the cost savings, but the rest of the cost savings are used to fund the trial. And if the trial works, you can move everyone to ketamine, and then everyone's happy, because it's a much lower cost treatment. That's just an example, but that could work for

[7:01] a diet. If you're comparing a, say, keto diet to a really expensive radiation cancer treatment that isn't maybe not as effective for a particular cancer, like glioblastoma, you could actually get a lot better outcomes for a, say, keto diet. Actually, it's been shown in much smaller trials. So there's just a lot of, yeah, I can talk about that a lot, some examples, but that's kind of the concept, this idea of a self-funding trial. It seems to me that your background as a legal attorney and consultant has a strong influence on your approach to biotech innovation. Can you tell me a little bit about your approach? Yeah, I mean, I think that's kind of the, maybe one of the reasons why there hasn't been as much traction in this area. But I think I bring a bit of a fresh view to the problems by thinking in terms of incentives, and ultimately, so I do a lot of work in intellectual property, and I kind of understand that a lot of intellectual property, things like copyright,

[8:08] they're just really just contracts, where, say, the government or the state says, hey, if you create a new work that's original, then we'll give you your whole life plus 70 years copyright, or this much longer for corporate copyright. And so these things basically are incentives, and sometimes they work well, and particularly in some areas, copyright can be abused, but they actually do create these sort of self-generating, self-perpetuating economic systems. But what we have in healthcare is a gap, where you can't actually, the IP that's used in healthcare are patents, and the problem with patents is if you can't enforce them at a price, like if you have a cheap drug that you can buy at the chemist, or you can order from India for $1, or it's a diet, or it's a nutraceutical and you can order it on Alibaba or whatever, then people don't have a private incentive to do those clinical trials. And that's what's the actual valuable thing. It's the trial

[9:15] data that's valuable. It's not the actual drug itself that's doing the clinical trial. So sort of looking at it from a contractual perspective and trying to figure out ways of using contract in novel ways, I think that that's helped me a lot. The commercial IP law side of things has helped me a lot with that. And I mean, I did bio at uni and things, but I never really worked as a scientist, but I can empathize with scientists that are frustrated, where they're like, well, hey, I've got this amazing treatment that could maybe be the cure for this disease, but I can't get any funding for it, because it just doesn't fit into this narrow box of the current commercial model, basically old contracts that they've been using. The patent system was around since, sort of, one of the first examples was in Venice, like 500 years ago, and we haven't really updated it. So I'm hoping that we can create new contracts, essentially, to help, yeah, bring healthcare into the 21st century, pretty

[10:24] much. Yeah, I love that. Can you tell me a little bit about what role do you see AI playing in the future of drug development? Yeah, I mean, this is all converging. So I think we've got some very, very interesting opportunities with AI. One of the, I mean, the most amazing things about it is it's a general, it can sort of process thousands and thousands of bits of information and bring them together. And essentially, I think there's a massive opportunity where you have a lot of, as I was saying before, you've got a lot of people using cheaper treatments and getting well, say from a diet, and curing their diseases through diet, or from using an off-patent drug. And that information's out there, but it's just not being harvested correctly. With AI, particularly in the medical records, you can do something called RCT emulation, clinical trial emulation. You can look at the medical records and you can start to find signals. You can say, okay, well, these people with these, and with the more data

[11:30] you get, actually the better, the bigger the training set of the AI, and so the more accurate it can get. So you can start to use things like DNA and all the microbiome and all this data that's basically wasted, honestly. When you go to your doctor these days, it's like you're going to them in this 1950s car, where they've got just a couple of knobs and things, and then they're just telling you to take the same drugs as they've taken 50 years ago, rather than personalized medicine according to your own DNA, according to your own microbiome, or your own other characteristics. And so that's where, yeah, I think AI is going to be an amazing, almost like a personal assistant, lawyer, not a lawyer, eventually lawyers as well, but your own sort of concierge doctor that can actually say, hey, according to your own genetic profile, we think you should take these and these and these therapies. And what I'm excited about is that if we get health insurance on board,

[12:38] and particularly in the United States, where the employers, 50% of the health insurance is actually paid for by your employer, they're actually incentivized not to pay for the expensive treatments, actually to find the better, more cost-effective, more personalized treatment. I think people are starting, particularly even doctors are starting to come around to this idea that we can't just put everyone on the most expensive drug and try and sell as much of that expensive drug as we can. Like, I mean, GLP-1s are a great example, so the anti-obesity drugs, where everyone wants to take these GLP-1s, and obesity is a very complex disorder, and there's a lot of psychology going on, there's a lot around diet. Keto diet, again, can do a lot, can reverse type two diabetes, which is also a risk factor for obesity, same thing. So I think, yeah, basically AI is going to have a, it's an exciting time, next 5 years, and hopefully we'll help sort of bootstrap a lot of these therapies and help bring them into mainstream and bring the cost down as

[13:44] well of doing clinical trials. And how do you balance the social mission of Public Good Pharma with business objectives? Yeah, so I think, I mean, this is another area I think where we've got a lot of more new ideas. But there's a lot of issues. I think capitalism is fantastic, I mean, it's still all around us, it's amazing, it's an amazing incentive for people to succeed and to work hard. But I think that there is this issue with pure unbridled capitalism, where you just get this kind of consolidation of power around very, very big companies. And then I don't have an issue with that. The problem is those big companies, all they care about is maximizing profit, and that's not necessarily what people actually want as a society. And almost you've got these huge companies almost like a cancer on society, and kind of extracting, particularly in the US healthcare system, you've got the big health insurers, essentially, and they're not necessarily incentivized to make the most cost-effective therapies, because they're under a fee-for-service kind of model. So you've got, in the States, you've got

[14:55] 20% of your GDP being spent, actually being wasted, on healthcare. And you've got great technology here, there's no doubt about it, but there's a lot of overprescribing, and a lot of the time those therapies are not that good. So what I'm thinking, I'm hoping, is that there'll be this kind of shift, and I am seeing this, is that what we have with Public Good Pharma is we're actually owned by a charity, and we've got it set up so we'll always be majority owned by a charity. And we're still, so we can still have a private incentive, you can still have investors, and they're still going to make a return, but the kind of brains of the business is always going to be thinking about, well, actually, what's the mission here? How can we maximize, essentially, public good, and find a way to actually make that profitable? Personally, I think, I mean, it's a bit like, an example I give is you can have a great restaurant that has very cheap, relatively cheap food, but amazing ingredients, and you're always going to be full. Or a pie shop, and you're going to sell a bunch of pies, and you can make a lot of money that way. You might not make as much, I mean, maybe you can make a lot more money by making

[16:05] the pies way more expensive, but you actually maximize the public good as well, which is important, the pies actually lower cost. I think that's an important thing, is to think about how do we actually maximize the good for society, not just trying to maximize the profits of the shareholders. And I think people are eventually going to turn around that that's actually a better way of doing capitalism, in my view, but essentially having charities almost be the multinational corporations, rather than just sort of having them just run. I like that. It sounds to me like that's one way to retain the integrity of the company and its primary objectives. That's phenomenal. I'm sure this venture has come with a lot of challenges. Can you tell me a little bit about some of the biggest challenges you've faced so far? Yeah, I mean, the main one, I think, with anything is if you've got a new idea, there's a lot of institutional inertia. We're excited about what we're trying to do, but the target market, for instance, finding that product market, and

[17:15] you've really got to go niche. And I think the good thing is that the niche that we're targeting, which is self-insured employers, they're spending $1.5 trillion a year on healthcare, around $300 billion of that is on these really expensive medicines called specialty pharma, specialty drugs. And so it's a huge market, and every year their expenses are going up, and these are companies that are incentivized to bring down costs. So if you can save them a million dollars, then you'll add a million dollars to their bottom line. So the incentives are there. The problem is, yeah, you've got a lot of institutional inertia. So one of the things we did face is actually when we went outside of the United States, we're approaching, say, the UK and New Zealand, they've got basically the healthcare is paid by a single payer. There's massive bureaucracy there, and it's a bit of a closed shop, and they don't really want people coming in. And this idea that if you do the same thing you did last year, you're not going to get fired, and a lot of these people aren't about innovation, particularly in bigger,

[18:20] bigger bureaucratic organizations. They just want to keep their job and keep their paycheck going. And you do have that in companies to some extent. A lot of the times the people making these decisions in the companies are the CFO and the head of HR, and they actually did the same thing 10 years as well. And so, yeah, basically institutional inertia, I think, is one of the main challenges, just kind of getting people to, there's always a chicken and egg thing, like no one's done these kinds of things before, like how do you kind of bring them around and find the right, you just got to find the right target. And then, yeah, just the classic things with startups, fundraising, getting, I think we've been very lucky with team and things, having, attracting talent, because I think that's one of the benefits from what we're doing. We're very mission-focused, we get people that are also very mission-focused. But yeah, just like anything, sales, bringing in, yeah, I mean, sales is ultimately, that's

[19:27] really what we're about, is we're just now trying to sell this idea, self-funding trials, to self-insured employers and getting them over the line. Are there any success stories you can share with us? Well, I think we've got a pretty decent amount, for a company that's been bootstrapped, we've got a decent amount of traction. We've got some really great connections in the industry, people who have just been blown away by the idea. We had some people actually join, they quit their work. One of the ladies, she was a general manager of what they call a PBM, a pharmacy benefit manager, jumped and joined our team for a bit, and then gone, done their own consulting. But we've just have a really, really great community. I think that's what I really like about, and one of our success stories is being able to bring and build what I feel like is a really world-class team and extended team, particularly the people that we're working with, and just people that can actually deliver while not having, yeah, not really, bootstrapping the whole way. So which

[20:34] has its disadvantages, but also its advantages, I think, because you know that the people involved are also mission-driven, and when the times get tough, you can sort of, you don't have necessarily a limited runway, you can have another crack at it. I could see that. And what I'm gathering is your team is spread across the world. How has working across different countries shaped your global strategy? Yeah, I think, well, it's an interesting one. I've always worked remotely, even since Skype, sort of 2008, that's when things really took off for me. And so I've always been used to working in different jurisdictions, even in New Zealand, and I've always had clients sort of internationally, working in legal consulting. So I don't really see it, but I think it does, it's good to have, you can have people on the ground. One of our guys is in SF, and we've got another in Amsterdam, another in Boston. So we've got, I've been traveling a lot as well. The last three months, I was

[21:46] around the US and went in through Texas and then North, South Carolina, Washington, DC, and then SF and down to San Jose, conference, and then to New York. Yeah, I think the world's getting smaller. It's not for everyone, but if you can travel, I think, and you can work remotely, I think it's a good way to be able to meet people in person as well, about those relationships, and get new ideas. And we're also very interested in connecting to people in low and middle income countries, places like India, where they have a lot of cheap medicines, a lot of cheap therapies, but there's not a lot of money for the new drugs. And being able to form those connections between these LMIC, low middle income countries, and more wealthy countries like the US, and create these kinds of win-win relationships, I think, yeah, that's an opportunity, and something I think really facilitated by having a distributed team, and also people that are there, working remotely. What trends in biotech are you most excited about? Well, I think, me personally, I'm a bit biased, but I'm hoping that we can

[22:59] get away from, personally, away from this kind of blockbuster drug model, where you just pay billions and billions of dollars for a single drug, and it takes 10, 15 years to get to market. And instead we can look at drug repurposing, looking at older therapies, looking at personalized medicine, looking at nutraceuticals, looking at diets, and then using AI as well, as we've spoken about, to do a lot of the analysis of the medical records and predict which actual therapies are going to be useful for you, and then, yeah, create kind of marketplace data. However, I'm also very excited by more recent advances, technological advances. I'm very pro tech, things like gene therapy, CRISPR, where they can edit genes, and also mRNA vaccines. I mean, I thought that was a very interesting thing, although obviously a very scary time with COVID, where they basically gave billions and billions of people this untested vaccine. But it's kind of pulled us into the future, in a way. mRNA is going to be super exciting, because it's relatively

[24:10] cheap to manufacture. I understood that they actually designed the vaccine, took them about a day and a half to actually design the vaccine, but the expensive part is actually doing the clinical trials. So I think, yeah, being able to iterate, bring new therapies out to market a lot cheaper, and really leverage what we have as well, and ultimately get to a point where we don't have to worry about healthcare as much. Another area I'm really interested in, which is kind of tangential, is longevity, finding ways to be healthier longer, particularly low-cost therapies. My big issue is around, yeah, health equity, like that's unsustainability, particularly with gene therapies. They might be, they charge the amount of 2 million, half a million, $2 million a shot, and that's obviously just not going to be sustainable long term. So things like self-funding trials, where you can find a much cheaper way of developing these things using the cost savings, I'm very excited about. And how do you see the relationship between biotech and health insurers evolving? Well, yeah, this

[25:16] is actually the big, this is the thing which I think is going to be the most exciting, because traditionally health insurers don't get involved in innovation, and they keep it all outside. And an analogy I would use is actually sort of, when I first got into law, everyone sort of, lawyers have a very, very bad reputation, sort of same as pharma. Pharma has quite a bad reputation, I think, for the same reason. There's this information asymmetry, and there's this perspective that lawyers and pharma, and this is kind of my whatever, but they make money not necessarily, traditionally not necessarily by solving problems, but sometimes by just treating things in a surface way. They're not actually trying to solve the problems at the root level, because ultimately their business model is based on fees, and generating fees and generating sales, things like that. And what happened actually when I first got into the law, I worked in a law firm, and it was very kind of like that. You're told to bill out 2,000 hours a year, and we billed out

[26:23] at $300 an hour when we're straight out of school. It's just ridiculous, like we're not adding value, just literally a factory. And then when I went in-house, I started in-house, and that was a big shift. And I think that's kind of the shift between biotech and health insurance, where essentially what you have to have is, I think pharma needs to come in-house into health insurance and start actually, the actual incentives flip entirely from maximizing revenue when you're outside to actually maximizing cost savings when you're inside. And also setting up systems and mechanisms, and also ways of vetting the external treatments that you're getting to ensure that they're most cost-effective, and then generating systems within to make sure, like things like preventative medicine. In the same way, when you're an in-house lawyer, you set up a system so that basically you're like a risk manager now, and you train, for instance, you train the sales staff to make sure there's no issues with contracts and there's no fires you have to put out. You set up checklists and things that people tick off to make sure that they're covering off all the things, and making sure that they're not creating

[27:33] risk for the company. And I think in the same way, and then, yeah, the other thing is that you're happy as a lawyer, you're actually more comfortable, because you're kind of trying to get rid of work for yourself, and also the less work you have, the kind of the better for you, because you get less stress. You're still getting that paycheck, I mean. But the same way, I think, if you had a pharma company that was almost like inside the health insurer, that was getting paid directly by the health insurer, just like a fixed cost for doing research, I think that you'd get this sort of similar dynamic. And that's where I see, hopefully, the biotech industry heading, the biotech industry is where they start to move, and actually even move into employers and things like that, where employers are having almost pharma techs that are owned by big companies to come up with more cost-effective variables for their employees. What advice would you give to biotech startups trying to break into the market? Yeah, well, it's hard for me to say, because I'm not, I haven't broken in myself. I'm a lawyer kind of coming in and basically trying to break into the biotech market. But yeah, I would say pick something that you're

[28:42] passionate about, and don't just do what everyone else is doing, and something that you know that you're going to do no matter what. And yeah, try and do something new, not necessarily just derivative, and go after problems like unmet medical needs. And personally, I think generic drug repurposing is one of them. So how we look at, what are your next big milestones for Public Good Pharma? Yeah, obviously, if we get a pilot, if we get a bit of traction and a pilot, get one of these self-insured employers, or be able to set up a trial and get it funded, that's going to be a big milestone for us. I think even more than getting funding, I think just being able to show that self-insured employers are willing to pay for clinical trials is going to be a massive win, even though the trials themselves generate cost savings for the employer, and the medical risk is being managed, because it's a clinical trial, which you think we get better outcomes. Yeah, I think just getting that pilot, it's

[29:48] always that product market fit, and being able to talk to folks like yourself about how to make sure we've got the story, and make sure we've got pain points, and that we're addressing those pain points, we're also addressing what they like with the current solutions. I think all those things are super important. Yeah, disruptive technology here. I can't even imagine, especially considering the regulatory challenges that you're probably facing in different regions around the world. How do you, we are focused more on the US. There are some advantages overseas, where there's less regulatory stringent, and so you can actually do a lot more innovation. There's some interesting, or, I'm not even, I'm not necessarily condoning this, but there are kind of these micro nations where you've got a lot less regulation. There's a place called Prospera in Honduras, and a lot of people are doing, again, not necessarily condoning this, but gene therapies on themselves to do enhancement, life extension, all that sort of stuff. So, yeah, I'm pro

[31:00] innovation, pro tech. The US, though, I think is the place where the opportunities are, because you've got so much money being wasted, I think. But yeah, there's definitely issues around that, but having a legal background helps, and sort of keeping, yeah, making sure that you stay away from danger zones and making sure everything's done in the right regulatory way. Yeah, it's a tricky space, but that also creates a moat for us, I think. Yeah, I could see that. There must not be many competitors currently dabbling in this, the solution is there. Yeah, so, well, there's another organization, and they're nonprofit, in the Netherlands, called Treatmeds, treatmeds.nl, and they're doing these kinds of self-funding trials, and they're actually set up by the health insurers in the Netherlands. And as usual, it's the Dutch that are always 20, 30 years ahead of us, with the thinking, thinking in the future, and not being too worried about being more practical. And so, yeah, they set up this organization, which basically gets funding from the health insurers, and those clinical trials are

[32:11] done on the patients of the health insurers, so they generate ROI straight away, 3x to 10x ROI for these health insurers. And so that's kind of proved the model out, and our idea is to bring that into the United States. To be honest, we would love to have competition. It's not really, the tricky part is getting people to basically see this opportunity. And it's a massive blue ocean. There's literally thousands of thousands of off-patent drugs that could be repurposed. And so we can't do thousands of trials, so it's just the business model, and ideally getting self-insured employers and health insurers into the whole idea of funding self-funding trials. It's just going to be a massive opportunity, I think, and it'll be great if other people got into this space. But it's just like with anything. I think a good parallel is like Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs company and GoodRx, and these business models are very simple. They're just like, hey, instead of buying drugs and selling at massive markups as a middleman, why don't we buy the drugs and add 15% markup and sell them direct to consumer instead, and bypass

[33:22] the middleman? And yeah, so it's a very simple model. And I think if they had more competition, that would be great. But the problem is that you've got these organizations, a lot of the big health insurers, traditional health insurers, are making a lot of money from the status quo. So I think more competition is actually good in our case. Yeah, I could see that. The example in the Dutch market sounds like great validation for what you're working on. How do you see that expediting the adoption of this approach in, say, the US market? Or is there a way to repurpose that know-how to help accelerate the adoption of this approach when it comes to the US market? Yeah, I think, well, we're in touch with their researchers, and they have particular ideas. So for example, there's a drug called ocrelizumab for MS, and they're doing a trial where, it's around $80,000 a year, and there's around 100,000 people on it in the United

[34:33] States, so $8 billion a year being spent on this drug. And it turns out that this drug is basically just a tweaked version of this much older drug that's very similar, now it's around $6,000 or $16,000 a year, called rituximab, and it's likely, I mean, we don't know 100%, but it's very likely non-inferior, or very, very much equivalent to this drug. And so they're already doing the study. So, yeah, I think the more they can essentially validate, yeah, the thing that's working and the model, and we can basically, yeah, sort of copy their homework a bit, but we've got our own ideas as well. And that's basically what we're here to do, is find examples like that, much, much lower cost treatment. I talked about ketamine. Dose escalation is a big one that they're doing as well, with the most expensive drugs in the world right now, or the drugs that are getting the highest selling, most expenditure, around $20 billion a year from Keytruda, or 25 billion dollars a year, it's an immunotherapy, and Opdivo is around $10 billion a year. These drugs are very, very effective treatments for cancer, but it turns out

[35:45] that they're likely being overdosed by up to 10 times what their current on-label doses are. So you've got patients getting 10 times the side effects, and a lot of them are getting autoimmune disorders or things like that, because they're basically taking this drug for too long, and they're taking it at too high a dose. And obviously the drug company is not going to come and do these kinds of studies, so somebody has to come in and do the studies. And they usually leave it to governments, but unfortunately, yeah, the governments are pretty slow and bureaucratic and centralized, and I think there's a commercial opportunity, essentially, particularly for the health insurers and self-insured employers to get involved. What impact do you hope Public Good Pharma will have on the healthcare industry? Well, anything at all, really. Just moving the needle, we'll be happy to do a little bit. But yeah, if we can get to a stage where we can start to fund the best science and the best technology, and not have it necessarily rely on having to make billions and billions of dollars, but actually coming in with a different business model, where we're trying to maximize the health of people across

[36:57] the, in the most cost-effective way, yeah, that would be amazing. At least show a few people how it's done and get other people to do it. If anyone else that wants to get in the space, come and talk to me. We just kind of need it to happen. I think there's a selfish reason, too. I think, what's more important than healthcare? What's more important than health? And we've got a really sick system now, where people are just getting overmedicated with drugs that aren't really that effective, and they're getting overtreated, and you've got very cheap and effective treatments that are basically not being commercially validated and not scientifically validated, just because it doesn't fit that model. So, yeah, hoping that we can really fix this problem and move on to other bigger problems. For our viewers and listeners who this mission resonates with, and who are in alignment with your goals, is there an email address they can reach you at, Savva? Yeah, so savva@publicgoodpharma

[38:14] .com. Or Google, you Google Public Good Pharma, there should be some stuff that comes up. And yeah, feel free to reach out. Fantastic. Savva, thanks so much for joining the GTM Vault Podcast. Thanks, Rick.