(no title)
chenja
|
10 years ago
The 1000X number should only be attached to "cheaper", and comes from in vivo and in vitro validation experiments we have done; our drug hit rate was almost 1000X higher than high-throughput screens from the literature, and our total spend to get to our one drug lead was almost that many times cheaper than what we learned that pharma spends. We think we are faster as well (our first proof-of-concept study took about 9 months, which is faster but definitely not 1000X as fast), but I think the most important thing is to find something that actually works to treat patients. That's what we want to prove out with backing from YC.
dekhn|10 years ago
It is highly misleading to use the term cure in this case. You simply have no data to support that your costs are any lower than pharma until you actually show people being cured, and I think Phase II or III is the actual point where you can claim initial cure results, and it's not until the drug has been widely deployed for years without side effects that you can claim it's a treatment or a cure.