How Early Safety Testing Can Save Lives And Billions

Most new medicines fail long before they help a single patient. We dig into a bold idea: what if hidden contamination, not weak efficacy, silently derails far too many trials—and what if human immune cell tests could spot danger early enough to change the odds?

Our guest, Dr. Moyer, shares how a life upended by civil war led to a career in biology and a mission to make drug safety human-centric. We compare standard sterility and endotoxin testing with human cell–based pyrogen assays that measure cytokine responses to any bioactive contaminant, even those beyond PCR or antibody reach. He explains why mice often miss short‑term pyrogen signals, how non-linear biology demands smarter analysis, and how his lab builds pathogenicity profiles to reveal risks that linear models smooth away. The result: faster, clearer answers on safety that let teams focus on efficacy and help regulators move with confidence.

We also connect safety to justice. When one approved drug carries the cost of nine failures, prices rise and access shrinks. Early, comprehensive safety screening can lower waste, reduce adverse events, and support fairer care. Dr. Moyer opens up about leaving academia, surviving funding droughts, and earning trust by delivering careful, reproducible results. We talk about AI’s promise and limits in biology, the damage done by data secrecy, and why representation in biotech leadership matters for the questions we ask and the patients we serve.

We close with a call to build the pipeline of future scientists through joyful early learning, including a new children’s book that makes glucose and insulin exciting for kids. Subscribe, share this with a friend who cares about safer medicines, and leave a review with your take—should failure data be public by default? Your feedback helps us bring more rigorous, human-centered science to the forefront.

Chapters

• 0:00 Mission And Guest Introductions
• 2:24 Faith, Integrity, And Science Role Models
• 5:33 Reclaiming Nerd And The Research Mindset
• 7:28 From War To Science: Choosing Biology
• 13:27 Why Drug Safety Becomes A Calling
• 20:27 The 90% Failure Problem And Its Hidden Cause
• 24:40 Rethinking Regulation And Data Transparency
• 28:02 A New Approach: Human Cell Pyrogen Testing
• 35:15 Models That Mislead: Animals Versus Humans
• 41:10 Turnkey Testing: Speed, Algorithms, Profiles
• 47:05 Leaving Academia To Build A Company
• 55:30 Representation And Leadership In Biotech
• 1:00:10 Funding Grit And A Lifeline Client
• 1:06:25 Opportunity And Limits Of AI In Pharma
• 1:11:05 Building Talent And Scientific Mastery
• 1:16:20 Legacy, Justice, And Affordable Care
• 1:19:10 Key Takeaways And A Children’s Science Book
• 1:26:20 Closing Reflections And Call To Share

Transcript

SPEAKER_02: 0:00

Now, imagine dedicating your career to making sure the medicine we trust are actually safe. That's the journey of today's guest, a remarkable scientist and an entrepreneur who left the comfort of academia to build a company focused on saving lives, one clean tested drug at a time. We will talk about targeting 90% drug failure rate, the journey of entrepreneurship in science, and how personal conviction and cultural identity ground a scientific mission. And towards the end, I will also share something close to my heart. How we can inspire the next generation to love science early, true stories like my new children's book, Glucose Go to the Party, making terms like glucose, insulin, diabetes accessible even to our youngest children. Today we are honored to be talking to Dr. Moyer. Dr. Moyer is an entrepreneur who has built his company, and his focus is drug safety. And I'm glad that he's on our program today. Dr. Moyer, how have you been, sir?

SPEAKER_01: 1:46

I'm doing great. And thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you and through you, through your audience. And so it's my pleasure to be here today.

SPEAKER_02: 1:59

Thank you so much, sir. I'm looking forward to learning a lot from you today and learning a lot about drug safety, which we all can agree that is very important to all of us. So if you could have a dinner with any historical and modern day figure in Steam, who will it be and why?

SPEAKER_01: 2:24

I think about this question a lot, and I would say that a modern scientist that I would like to have a dinner with is Francis Collins. He is the former director of the NIH. He's a believer Christian. He has a high sense of integrity that can really put together science and also faith. And so he is a person that encapsulates, I believe, is uh a good scientist or somebody with uh a higher expectation but also higher value for integrity and honesty, hard work. If I have to spend an evening with him, we can talk from faith, biblical histories, and the character of Jesus, two science and two Greek philosophers, and we are going to spend a good evening together. I think about Francis Colin is somebody if I have to spend an evening with, would be that person.

SPEAKER_02: 3:40

Wow, you did not say Francis Colin. Oh my goodness, I cannot believe you said that because I also would like to have a dinner with Francis Colin. Yes, I met him once in the NIH campus. He was down to earth, easy to approach. He didn't know this, but he another scientist were my inspiration pursuing my masters in biotechnology. They were the scientists that help in human genome science. I've just been inspired by those two scientists. And when I learned more about him as a Christian, and it aligns so much with my was more inspired by him. I I will say that he also encapsulates my own philosophy and my own belief, which is you can also be a person of faith and also be a scientist. There is no contradiction whatsoever. So to hear you say Francis Collins, and wow, I was not expecting that, but wow, I hope he can hear this, and I hope he can arrange meetings.

SPEAKER_01: 5:10

But still keep this kind of cool face of being down to earth that can interact with whoever. And the sense of integrity, honesty, dignity, decency, you can find that in Collins. So this is the modern scientist that I can relate to easily.

SPEAKER_02: 5:31

Epic. Thank you so much for that. So my next question will be will you consider yourself a Steam nerd? I asked this question because I'm an educator. I want to inspire my students and many students out there, students that are gifted, students that are locked into STEAM and career paths. They're bullied by being called nerds. I want them to know, hearing from entrepreneurs, scientists like you, bright minds like you in our community, that there's nothing wrong with being locked in. There's nothing wrong with being a nerd.

SPEAKER_01: 6:13

The term nerd is sometimes a pejorative kind of term with a very bad connotation, as if you're about or above everybody else. But if you design somebody who is intelligent, who is picky about little things, who try to understand things the way they are, maybe I'm one of them. But I call myself as a pilgrim in this kind of knowledge journey. And as a researcher, as if every day we make a confession that we don't know enough, and that's why we do research. You don't do research for things that everybody knows already, because you recognize that this particular area of investigation requires some new knowledge, and that's why we do research. So we make this kind of confession on a daily basis when you get into the lab. And so that's why I call myself as a pilgrim in this kind of knowledge journey.

SPEAKER_02: 7:25

Brilliant. Thank you so much, sir. Dr. Moya, you are the managing director and president at Paradex LLC. Yes. And uh your work matters. So let's talk about why your work matters. But let's begin with this question was science something you choose or something that chose you? And then what packs? And I asked this question because as a young person coming up, a lot of times we don't really always recognize the pivotal moment. So this question is extremely important, I feel. So go at it, sir.

SPEAKER_01: 8:04

Okay, I didn't know that there was something called science and humanities until I set my high school. In the French system, in high school, you have to really show science or humanities. And so I wanted to become a journalist, investigative kind of journalist, where I can study everything and talk on the radio to answer all the questions and so on. And somebody said, if I go into humanities, I may not answer some scientific questions. So maybe it's better to go to the scientific track. And I can always go back to humanities and literature and so on. So that's my first kind of choice to go into the scientific track. But very quickly, I found out that I don't like biology. I lean toward chemistry and physics and math more than anything else. I have no influence about who is going to do what, but I was just curious about knowledge. And that's the first thing. The second thing, I think, because of civil, I'm originally from Chad. For those who want to know where my accent comes from. So Chad is an inland country, and we have a civil war. And when the war broke out, I was a freshman at the university. And so I left the university was closed. We are all scattered in the country and in the region that I come from, still some kind of economic activities. So I became a lab tech for two years. And then suddenly the politicians organized themselves to have some contact with the European community at that time, and they were able to really get some scholarship for us to study in other countries in Africa. And I was in the group of 250 Chadians to go to Togo to study. And so when we arrived in Cameroon, we are received by officers of the European Union at that time. And suddenly they receive a message from the University of Togo that the University of Togo can no longer accommodate 250, they can take only 89. And so on this basis, they don't know exactly what to do. So they take the list and they cut into pieces. And if you're one of those pieces that they select, you're in. If you're not, you're out. And so we're 89 selected and put in a group of biologists. I hate biology. I said, and they give you a ticket and they give you a social stipend. And as we're in line, there are four people before me, and one guy came and they called him to get his stipend and so on. So he argued, he said, he's not in the right group. He wants to change. Sorry, but you're out. So they called somebody else to step in. And somebody gave me some elbow and said, Do you want to have the same faith like this guy? And I said, No, I'm not going back to chat. Whether it's biology or whatever, I just want to get out of this civil war and go and study, and I'll find out later on what is it about biology that I need to know about it. So, in some ways, I choose science. I think the reality, the facts are there. And I come to Togo, and as a believer, I said, God, I hate biology. I don't like it. But if this is what you want me to do, I'll do it. Give me the grace to really work hard at it and to succeed in it. And so that year we come with three months of delay. School set in October, we come in December, and we officially set school in January, like everybody else. And um at the end, that year I had the highest score in the school of science. And that there is no better way for God to answer my question, my prayers, as if it's whisper in my ears. Yes, this is it, go for it.

SPEAKER_02: 13:22

Yes, that were I see a couple of turning points. Well, the first one was when you were on the line, and you have to make a spontaneous decision at that point, yes, and the second was scoring the highest point at your school. So at that point, did you decide at that very point that biology then is the path for you?

SPEAKER_01: 13:49

No, so in Togo, they don't have a biology as a major, they have what they call natural science at that time. So you said the physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, or geology, okay all together. And the idea in Togo at that time is to really train high school teachers mostly.

unknown: 14:13

Okay.

SPEAKER_01: 14:14

So that if you get into a rural area, there are not enough science teachers, you can teach anything. That's the idea. And if I want to change, I have to go back to Chad to really ask for permission to change. Becoming from an ethnic group that doesn't have a lot of support. If I try that, I'm going to lose everything. So I said, biology or not, I don't want to really ask a question.

SPEAKER_03: 14:40

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 14:41

I want to work to the best of my ability.

SPEAKER_03: 14:43

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 14:44

And it's only after my bachelor's degree that I make a decision to go to life science. Okay. Because I didn't like to go to earth science. I don't want to go on the field to collect some rocks and so on. So I have the easy way to go to life science and work in the lab instead of working in the field and so on. But that's my choice. So that's where things were.

SPEAKER_02: 15:09

Wow. What an excellent life story from someone who did not care much for uh biology and up to be pivotal medicine and drug safety. Wow. Yeah, definitely I see the hand of God here. So, what drives your passion for drug safety, especially at the early stage of development before clinical trials even begin?

SPEAKER_01: 15:35

When I was in grad school, I like to study things that no practical relevance at all. But maybe someday it would be useful. It was very interesting to see when I was in grad school in a lab. Many of my lab mates work on cancer practical. And when some visitors and ask me, I tell them what I do, I study the regulation of how the enzymes or the protein are secreted. What for? No idea. But I just want to know how they function, period. But after I finish my PhD and about going back to Africa, I said pure physiology, as I was dreaming, won't take off. If I go back, I won't do anything. So it's better to study the interface between microbiology and physiology. And so that I can address some of the issues related to tropical diseases and so on. And possibly with that, I can convince the government, or at least in my country, to really support this kind of initiative or working with international organizations interested in those kinds of things. But one thing after another, I end up here in the United States after Canada. And I did my second postdoc at Johns Hopkins University, where I study mostly bioimaging and also molecular biology, conscriptional regulation, and so on, very technical aspect of it. And then I left to join the faculty at the University of Maryland, where I continued to work on the iron transport and so on, but mostly with the molecular biology end-of-track perspective. And then later on, I was invited to join the team at this company of bioscience in here in Maryland. And is about testing, and that's why I was invited to join, because I have a lot of experience in PCR. And so they have developed new approaches based on the PCR. And I joined the team. And the reason that I was hired is because of my experience in molecular biology, but also because I speak French and they want to have somebody to work with the team in Europe, in France, particularly. And that's how I ended up joining the team. But during that time, also I became more and more aware of the need for developing alternative methods to really support drug safety or biopharma in general. And so I was responsible for both the microbial detection systems, including everything and the sterilites and so on, but also involved with another type of studies, including a small group of bacteria called mycoplasma. And those are very sneaky microbes that, even if they are present, they don't change the biology of the turbidity of the cell culture media, and they can be there for a long time and cause some lot of problems, but very difficult to detect. So I was also responsible for this part. And lastly, I was responsible for leading also the washroom crab kind of technology and so on. And so try to hire new people to join the team so that they can focus on different areas and so on. But I also see that the company has changed its philosophy of research and development. And so they're more prone to really focus on acquisition than to really do some internal development and so on. And I thought I still have some ideas, and it's better to maybe start to do something that in the long run would be beneficial to other people. And so that's how I've been working. On developing this new approach for andotoxin detection. But the new approach is based also on the principles that have been in place for years, but is some twists that I add to that to really help to really change the course of it. And so right now, for example, you ask the question why I'm interested in safety testing. Yes. I'm interested in safety testing because I realize that the success rate in clinical trials of new drugs is very low. The more stringent statistics give 7 or 8% of success rate of clinical trials. Those who are very generous give 14%. But if you put things together, let's say 10% success rate in clinical trials. And for example, for drugs that are used for the treatment of cancer, the success rate is about 3%.

SPEAKER_02: 21:04

Why is that?

SPEAKER_01: 21:05

So we don't know all the details. My assumption that led me to this kind of approach is that most of the clinical trial failures are not necessarily due to the inefficacy of the drugs, but to the contaminants that remain undetected by the current technologies. And so we have a lot of side effects. That's what the doctors would tell you. The physicians will tell you. But the physicians don't do what we're doing. So the physicians assume that the drug has been vetted and is safe, and that's why they give it to patients. Some of this drugs pass rigorous pre-clinical studies and so on. But the issue is not that the doctors are wrong or the lab managers are wrong, that they don't know it. It's because the technologies that have been adopted are limited in scope. And so if I can help to really change the course, that would be a better way to really address this issue. So the failures, the high failure in clinical trials can be addressed. And being a biologist, I learned physiology, molecular biology, and microbiology. And I thought, why in the world that God give me this kind of knowledge, disparate kind of knowledge and experience? And I found that in this particular area, all those knowledges converge to help me to see things in a unique way, and I can address these issues and help, hopefully, to change the course of drug development and also for better treatment and to save more lives.

SPEAKER_02: 23:04

The next theme that I would like to talk about is human cost, pharmaceutical breakdown, drug safety, contamination, and corporate responsibility. You have said that 90% of candidates never make it. And you have articulated one of the reasons that you feel may be contributing to this, that is contamination, which is essential to drug safety. So what do you think that the power that be or the pharmaceutical company or the regulators are missing? If you were to talk to them about your novel idea, what will you say?

SPEAKER_01: 24:04

We need to expand that. But also not only to point on the failures of existing technologies, but provide also an alternative. And why this alternative is better than the current methods. I understand why there are so many failures today. And so for the regulators, I think many of the regulators, whether in the FDA or so on, do not do research anymore. They rely on the publications. But the issue is this companies, when they have some failures, they don't report it. And journals don't want to really report bad news. So they want to have something that was successful. And when you have some companies have some successful data, kind of data that provides some competitive edge, they don't want to publish it because it gives them the competitive edge. And so scientific knowledge is sparse. And so the good science that companies have is for them. In academia, we are academics have their own track. If there is no money to support the research, they cannot really think otherwise. But I have the opportunity to be on both sides. So I see the issues and I try to address those issues. And sometimes also it's very difficult to convince the reviewers of grant to really accept what you're trying to do. Sometimes it's very difficult. So it's better to really find other ways to really provide some evidence that what we have done so far, in some ways, is useful and helpful, but they don't address the entire issues that we're dealing with. And the scope of failures that I just mentioned should really push us to really see other ways to do it. And that's why I developed these new approaches. And also, you said the human part of it. For example, the human part is very important. Here in the United States, one of the reasons that people are so reluctant to use some vaccines is what? Safety. Some have kids. Those kids have to be uprooted from their school to go to somewhere else where mom and dad found a new job. And that's very painful. Those are seeing that can be prevented. If we can say, yes, this drug has been contaminated. And if we can just find the sources of the contamination and eliminate it before go to the clinical trial, we will focus more on the efficacy of the drug and not on the safety of the drug.

SPEAKER_02: 28:00

Wow. That's an over idea. So the whole idea for your company is to identify the contamination before the clinical trial. Yes. You believe that is going to save the companies a lot of cost. Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 28:16

Currently, just without interrupting, three phases of clinical trial.

SPEAKER_03: 28:21

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 28:21

Phase one, phase two, and phase three. Phase one is where the safety is.

SPEAKER_03: 28:26

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 28:27

And if we have a very rigorous method to really detect the contaminants to make sure that the drug is safe, we're going to eliminate phase one.

SPEAKER_02: 28:39

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 28:40

We're going to go straight to phase two because we know that this method allows a comprehensive view of the safety status of the drug. And so we don't have to worry about it. We can do some confirmation studies and so on. But it's going to be short studies. And over time, probably we're going to go straight to phase two instead of phase one.

SPEAKER_02: 29:06

So, how is some methods better than current safety methods if you were to compare the two?

SPEAKER_01: 29:14

And the methods that are currently in place, particularly in the United States, is the test, for example, for drugs, and then also you do the test of andotoxin. So those are major tests that need to be done before you can release your product. The seriality tests will tell you that there is no live bacteria or microbes in the product. Okay. But it doesn't tell you whether or not there are some leftover molecules by byproduct of dead bacteria or dead fungi or whatever impurities there will tell you that there is no live microbes in your product. The problem is that these side effects are not due to live microbes all the time. It's the byproduct of those microbes that are responsible for those side effects. I see. And the method that are used, for example, for the andotoxin is good if you have the andotoxin there. But if you have some fungi or if you have some kind of gram positive, as we put it, it's another category of bacteria that don't have the andotoxin, but have also those virulence factors that can also cause similar problems, but we cannot detect them with the current andotoxin method. And some of them are not DNA-based or RNA-based. So you use the PCR, you won't find them. And some of them they are not a big protein that you can just do a kind of typical immunoassay and then detect them. And so the method that I use is not unique to me, but the method that has been developed, and one of the pioneers in this one is a professor here at Johnson University, Dr. Thomas Hartung, is a method that is based on the human blood cells. So whether you do some injection or anything that didn't go straight by the mouth but go through the bloodstream, if they are present, the human blood cells are able to deal with it. They are the first in contact with that. So using this model, we just collect the human blood cells and put them in the presence of the drug. And if there is anything in the drug that can cause some side effects, those cells are going to recognize it. And they're going to out some of the proteins that are called cytokines, and we measure the cytokines to really make sure that yes, it's a problem. So that's how we work. You don't need to know the structure of the molecule that caused the problem. But if the molecule is there, you'll find it. So we call ourselves unique detectives. Most of the detectives rely on the profile of the criminals to find them.

SPEAKER_02: 32:32

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_01: 32:33

And we think that we are a detective who come in the neighborhood and say we don't need to know the profile of the criminals, but if they are there, we'll find it for you.

SPEAKER_02: 32:42

So your target is actually measuring the cytokines that is released. You're measuring the cytokines. Wow, that's innovative. That is very innovative. You earlier also mentioned part of the problem with failure with drug safety is lack of communication between the researchers and who else?

SPEAKER_01: 33:05

The industry, the regulators. Okay. The regulators regulate. The industry do some studies. And if the results are good, they keep it for themselves. The results are bad, they keep it for themselves. So you don't know which one works. But the one that works, they keep it so that they can keep their competitive edge. They have to apply for patent and all those kind of processes are in place to protect their intellectual property. And the scientists who are not aware of those things is not their area of expertise. So they don't think about it. Have some specific areas that they are working on. And if there is no incentive for them to change the course, there's no reason for them to really go there.

SPEAKER_02: 33:56

So are you also advocating for the release of the failures?

SPEAKER_01: 34:00

Let's say if it would be important to find out about the failures. Okay.

SPEAKER_02: 34:05

And that is not being reported.

SPEAKER_01: 34:08

But cannot report it, and some journalist don't want to report it at all. But now if you apply something from the clinical trials, you have to do some report on the results. So whether it's good or bad, at least they did some report that you can uh go through it.

SPEAKER_02: 34:26

So can you describe a moment when you realize drug safety wasn't just a scientific issue but a justice issue?

SPEAKER_01: 34:36

The current paradigm is that we have to really have health insurance, particularly in the United States. The health insurance is there to really guarantee that the physician can get paid. But also the health insurance is based on the fact that the treatment is costly. It's costly why? Because the drug development is expensive. If 90% of drugs fail, it means that for one drug to succeed, this drug that succeeds pay for nine drugs that fail. And in terms of justice, for me, I said if we can make sure that all the treatment is done at affordable cost because the drug development cost is lower, and that there's no failures or less failures, then probably companies won't really raise too much the price for the drugs and so on. And so everybody is on the same footing, same kind of playing field, and so that we're going to have a better treatment and that there is no discrimination between those who have money to pay for expensive drugs and those who don't.

SPEAKER_02: 36:27

And this is where your company, the conversation, what can your company do for pharmaceutical company or drug development? What do you offer?

SPEAKER_01: 36:38

So, for example, for a setup companies that are so enthusiastic about developing the drug, and most of the time the safety aspect comes after thought. By the way, we need to go to the FDA. Hey, by the way, FDA requires this and that. But it's already too late. They have to really do those tests before they can take the product, even for preclinical trial or clinical trials, and so on. And that's why they do some kind of preclinical studies, sometimes using animals or using in vitro models. But animals that they use, particularly mice, are cheap. But the mice have also high tolerance for those pyrogens or this substance that causes fever, sepsis, and multiple organ failure. The dose that can kill a mouse is sufficient to kill several adult folks. But sometimes we have those animals that we run the test with and they shrug and then they move on. At the end of your preclinical studies, you conclude that there is no major issue with the animals. So we can just move on. And then you take it to human beings and then bingo, you have some problems. So that's one of the reasons that we have all those failures. So the animal models that are used for toxicology are good. If you want to see the impact on the organs in long term, yes, but for short term, they don't really show the sign that they are going to be suffered from these contaminants that are in the drug that you're about to give to human beings. And that's where the problem comes from. So we use the wrong models, and these mice and rats and rabbits are good, and you have this kind of very scientific method. So you have some data, but the data are irrelevant. But you report them anyway because you don't know. So you conclude that on the basis of these toxicological studies that the drug is safe, and then you take it to human beings and they start to suffer, and then you conclude that oh, it's not a contaminant, probably it's the drug itself that causes problems. So that's why the model that we have currently is a model that is the closest model for human physiology. So if there's anything that is there in the product to find out and to cause some problem, we'll find it for you. And we have a few companies that really trust us with the product and they're able to study one company, study over three years the stability of the product. And then they found out that after a certain number of months or years, there are some problems that will show up in the product. So they decided that they cannot sell or release the product in their inventory. That is more than two years and so on. They can just use the one maybe in the first year or year and a half and so on. And so that them a very consistent result in the clinical tests and so on. They are able to really launch the product. They were able to go to the clinical trials and launch the product. And so far, by maintaining this kind of window, they have been very successful so far, to my knowledge. And they want to expand it and try to find out exactly what caused the problem over time. And that's another story, but that's one thing. The second thing for companies is that, as I said earlier, they wait until they finish the product before they think about safety. Some of the components of the drug itself, some of them can be pyrogenic, can cause problems. But you don't know. So you put them together based on what you know, but the interaction between the different components itself is sufficient to cause some problems. And you won't find them by a typical method, by chemistry, or biochemistry, or by mass spec to really separate the different components of it. So chemistry is not physics, it's not biochemistry. Biology is biology, has its own kind of principles and so on. And so that's why it's important to really rethink the whole way of doing safety testing.

SPEAKER_02: 41:43

Thank you so much for that for teasing that out for me.

SPEAKER_01: 41:47

When you spend a billion dollars to develop a product, what$10,000 means for you. Even if you go to$1 billion, you see the difference. Some folks will worry, oh, it's expensive, but the investment that was already put in that drug development would justify the use of dollars here to make sure that you have the right test and that you can take the product and be confident that is not about the safety, it's about the efficacy. So the scientists who work on the efficacy of the drug would really focus on the efficacy of the drug, not worry about the safety of the drug. But a good drug, if it's contaminated, you even know that is going to save you, is going to kill you because the drug is bad, but because of the contaminants that the contaminants are very quick. They are the first to trigger the release of cytokines early on. So you don't have a chance to really benefit from the beauty of the design that molecular biologists, pharmacologists, all the scientists, pharmaceutical scientists are working on. So the drug development itself, but all those things that get into the product itself to take it out can be a problem. And it's better to check that before you go further.

SPEAKER_02: 43:33

So how long does it take for you to screen for contaminants?

SPEAKER_01: 43:40

And the current method that we have, we adopted. So this is what is done with other labs in Europe and so on, and I keep using the same kind of plan. So it takes 18 to 22 hours incubation with the cells to do that. You can do the tests in less than 18 hours and see the result very quickly, but it's out of convenience that we adopt this 18 to 22 hours incubation. And then there are some other tests that follow for the detection of the cytokine of your interests, and then go from there. And so let's say 24 hours, and you have the result. Okay, but sometimes when you use the conventional method, it takes more, and then it depends on how many samples you're going to run. Traditionally, and even today, in many textbooks, in physiology and so on, what I call the linear models prevail everywhere. But the linear models are good in chemistry and biochemistry, but they are not good, they are not the reflection of what happened in biological responses. The biological responses are much more finicky and complicated than what we've been. I say that the biological responses are non-linear. And so I developed some kind of algorithm to really address the non-linearity instead of trying to massage the cell to get the linearity and so on. It's not a very good, in my view, way of interpreting the biological response. So I have to come up with a new algorithm to really address that, and that's what we put in place to do it. It requires more, for example, if it's a liquid that we can resuspend and so on, it requires more dilutions to do it. And so we develop what we call pathogenicity profile of whatever we have, and then the pathogenicity profile will tell us how the cell behaves in response to those contaminants.

SPEAKER_02: 46:04

Okay. Thank you so much. You mentioned cell lines. So what cell lines do you use?

SPEAKER_01: 46:10

The technology that I use is called the monocyte activation test. And so the monocyte activation test is based on the human blood cells and the monocyte or a category of white blood cells, but there is some new protocol they call human cell-based pyrogen test. But we keep using the term MAT or monocyte activation test, which is very doctrinistic, but it's not the entire picture because they are not only the monocyte, but other types of cells, also lymphocytes, that are also involved in this response to intruders or pyrogens or substances that cause fever, sepsis, and multiple organ failure. And in that particular field, particularly in Europe, there are three approaches to this test. So one approach is to use the whole blood cells. So you don't have to worry about the medium. It's whole blood. So everything in there, so you put your product in, and if it's contaminated, you're going to have some cytokines. The second group use also cell lines. So there are few cell lines, one cell line that is used for this kind of test, but sometimes it requires some preactivation before the cell can respond to some of these contaminants. And now we have in Europe and also you have in Japan, you have in China some kind of cell line that are developed that do not require the conventional ELISA or a method for detecting or measuring the proteins. But they use some kind of re-engineer and have some reporters called a kind of report reciprocase, kind of trigger some light, and you can measure this kind of bias. So there are few cell lines in Europe, in Asia, in Japan particularly, there are two groups that are doing that, and also in China. So the Chinese government and the Chinese institute, similar to the NIH and the probably CDC combined, they are equivalent of also FDA. So they have this kind of particular institute that they develop also this engineer cell line to really address this issue so that they don't have to depend on the typical cells, blood human blood cells to do it, but they can use those cell lines that they can reproduce in the lab over time and at the concentration or density or volume that maybe meet the needs of their nations and so on. The third category of cells is what they call we call primary cells. So those are cells from human blood collected and then separated and then kind of isolated, and you can just freeze those cells and call we call them in the jargon PBMCs, peripheral blood mononuclear cells. So you can keep them in minus 80 or you can keep them in liquid nitrogen for years and you can use them at will whenever you need it. So you don't have to really set your cell culture like in cell line, you have to take the cell out of your freezer or liquid nitrogen and then grow them for a few days before they can be ready to do it. But the primary cells are always available, and so if you store them in this tank of liquid nitrogen, you can just uh pick them whenever you want and go straight so you don't have to wait for 24 hours. And I adopted the those isolated cryo human blood cells that are mixture of all these human blood cells called PBMCs. So cell line is good for simplicity. And so to really give one cell a power to really identify those things, maybe it's misleading. And also some of the studies that are done to these specific lineages or kind of cell lineages show that all the cells do not express the number of receptors the same way. And so by using this combination of white blood cells, primary white blood cells, you have everything. My other kind of concern for the whole blood is one thing. For the blood to remain fluid, it needs to have some anticoagulants. Those anticoagulants have some other functions. Yeah, it means that they have to really trap what we call divalent ions like calcium or magnesium. And those calcium and magnesium are also useful for the cells to really function properly. So in our laboratory, that's what we use. Excellent.

SPEAKER_02: 52:21

Thank you so much for teasing that. We can really continue to talk about the technicality of what you do. I really enjoy it. It really takes me back to uh when I was a bench scientist, uh, working with cells, being a molecular biologist and all that. Pretty exciting conversation. Another day we're gonna continue that conversation, but let's leave academia academic tower. Now let's talk about a career you rebuild on your own terms. So you transitioned from academia to industry with a significant pickup. You walked away. So, how did you overcome the fear of starting from the scratch? And what kept your company alive through the years? I asked this question to inspire those that are in academia that may be thinking, okay, how do I begin? I'm interested in becoming an entrepreneur. I have this idea, I want to start a company. How do I grow about it? Do you mind sharing, sir?

SPEAKER_01: 53:32

Yes. I never dreamed to become an entrepreneur. I thought I'm going to be a college professor forever. And one of the things that I dream about was initially to be a campus minister, working with the student and so on. It didn't work out. I became a professor and so on. But I think it's very scary to start, particularly for people who don't have a family kind of legacy of wealth. And then to really think that you're going to start something is very scary. But I think it's important to think about what are the needs that you see that you perceive that would benefit not only you but the world. In some areas, it's easy, but in science is very difficult. In music or in art or in sport, people see you in full display. What you do in a lab is not always translated in a very tangible commercial level material. The changes that happen in the world do not happen because people are waiting for everybody to approve it. You have to really think about that, but also is something to be done in a sense of community. And so in my case, I expressed my concern about the failures when I read the statistics that 90% of company startups fail within five years, and it takes a friend, two friends. When I share with them in the context of my church, and one gentleman said, Jake, why are you worried so much about the 95% of failures? Who knows? You may be among the five percent that succeed. I said, Oh, I didn't see that way, but it's interesting. How can he tell you that? And I said, It doesn't come from Jerry, it comes from God because Jerry is not qualified to tell me that. And so I'm going to take it as a word that comes from heaven and I'm going to go with it. Yes. This is maybe very imaginative, kind of theoretical, philosophical, it's not tangible, but one of the things that I would say is to share. If we have a good idea, it's good to share with brothers and sisters.

SPEAKER_00: 57:25

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 57:25

And let them give you the toughest questions. Yes. If you can answer the questions, it's good to really do that. And second, also be humble and honest and ask for help. Now we know that the government, you cannot rely on the government in some ways, in many cases. But you can rely on brothers and sisters, on family, on friends who know you, who can really support you. And uh, that's my case. Yeah, I have friends, I have some extended family members who said, We know if one day you succeed, we know what you're going to do with the money, but it's not the issue. We want to support you now. And some of them generously lend some money and they said, if I succeed, I'll pay them. If I fail, it's not going to change their lives. And it's been a very difficult season, but the beauty, and at this moment, to see that they are more and more interested in what I do, not only here, but in the world, yes, is something that is very hard for me to imagine a few years ago. And I have soon I'm going to have some visiting scientists from Korea who come to learn how to do those tests. And I have other companies that contact me and said, okay, they tried this and they have all the data. And then for some reason they take it to humans and then it didn't work. And so they are planning to send some samples for me to test. The company that I worked for them for the first three years, they still keep using my service up to two days old. This is my fifth year with them. And one of the chief scientifics came and said, they know that I treat the sample seriously. And whatever comes from my lab, they take it seriously. They don't argue. But that's what her testimony was. And so for those who want to start a company for the young folks. Be bold, thrust your gut in one way. Certainly, you are going to have some kind of challenges up and down. But if you think that what you do is going to benefit the society at large, do it, go for it. And it may be harsh, it may be difficult, you may face some misunderstanding, even sometimes from your own family. But down the road, the family would be grateful that you continue to do it. And don't be arrogant, be humble. We don't know everything. But we need the support of friends and families. And if down the road the governments or the agencies jump into the bandwagon and support us, great. They will find out later on. But for now, I think it's important for you to really think that what you're doing is good, it's going to benefit the society. It's something that is true. True, and as I said earlier on, what is true is independent of you. I will put it this way. Because coming from Chad, one of the 24 poorest countries in the world, how in the world that I can go to a graduate school, how in the world that I can go and work at Hopkins to start my company is just beyond any understanding. And so if it happens to me, this same guide can do that for you too. Excellent.

SPEAKER_02: 1:02:06

So with that, why is it important for more people of African descent to be visible in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry, not just in entry roles, but in leadership and ownership? Because as you said, you're a miracle, you're doing it, and now you're encouraging the younger generation. We know that representation of those of African descent is pretty so.

SPEAKER_01: 1:02:36

First of all, the historical context didn't really uh plead in our favor. So whether in Africa or in the United States where you have a lot of concentration of people of African descent, education is not the big focus for many years. And sometimes those who are able to make it make have a lot of opposition adversities that they have to overcome. But I think the time is here for people from African descent, African Americans, people from the Caribbeans or in South America, Brazil, and so on, for them to see that there is some beauty in being part of this extraordinary creation. And we should really bring our glories or our skills and things like that to contribute to this kind of global enterprise in science, particularly, so that people would appreciate this contribution. We live in this kind of current situation. There is no method that is only for minorities in science. There is only one kind of scientific method that everybody is using. So my science or your science is not typically African-American or African or minorities. And that's why I said what is true is universal, it doesn't depend on you. So the statement that I make in science, if they are true, doesn't matter what color I come from, and what uh source it comes from. And this understanding that is important for us to have, and so that for those who come from African descent and so on to see that they have their contribution that is waiting. And we have to grab it. Nobody is going to give it to us. It's important for us to really say God created us in his image and give us the skills and the gifts to contribute to this kind of global enterprise in science and technology and research and so on. And so that's what I thought would be good for people to hear from all of us. Yes, there are some difficulties, nobody is going to give us for free, but we don't have to wait. It's important for us to really take the initiative for a contribution to the world.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:28

So, excellent point. What were some of the toughest moments in building your science-driven business independently?

SPEAKER_01: 1:05:36

So, the toughest moment or mostly financial, I need because it's not a computer thing, it's a biology. So, in biology, you have to do experiment.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:52

Yes.

SPEAKER_01: 1:05:53

Experiment means reagents, product to do the experiment. You need uh also to funds to buy some instruments to do these things. And the first step, I think I found a gentleman that was very kind to me.

SPEAKER_03: 1:06:13

Okay.

SPEAKER_01: 1:06:13

And was able to really negotiate with his company, not to really sell me the instrument that I really needed, but to really lend me so that I can pay on a monthly basis. Yes. And so after seven months, they said, okay, by the way, you have to buy it or we take it back. Seven months is sufficient for you to try. And what I was able to accomplish in seven months was extraordinary. And so I shared that with some friends and families, and they are able to really collect some funds for me to buy that instrument and to use it. And so the financial kind of aspect was very difficult. And some of those friends and families made a commitment to me that they would support me as much as I needed. And that was very important. The second kind of divine intervention, I would put it, is the day that one month after the lockdown because of the COVID, I was prepared to go home and tell my wife, that thing is over. And at that very moment, I receive a call from that company. And they said they have some questions. So they asked me a lot of questions. And they said the product is so difficult to test, but they need to test it. And they wonder whether I can help them. I said, Yes, I can help you. They want me to understand that it's very difficult to really deal with this product. So they send me the raw materials and finished product. I test them within a week, I send them the result. They come back to me and they said, okay, so how many people are in your company? And I said, I'm sorry, but I'm the only one at this moment. And then I heard this of relief. I said, What's wrong? And said, Oh, now they know that the product is going to be tested by the expert himself, not by a technician or third other person. So they said, okay, they'll get back to me. So they emailed me later on, say they made the decision to have me the product for the next three years. And this company that I didn't expect together and help me to survive this season of drought, financial drought. And I was able to be in this position. And I would say for this year to this point, the only report that I'm going to make to my friends that I'm able to really pay my bills and so on, and I'm still afloat. So there are some new customers that are coming aboard, so it's going to help me to move forward very quickly. So the financial aspect is very critical.

SPEAKER_03: 1:09:29

Okay.

SPEAKER_01: 1:09:29

In terms of ideas, I think I'm blessed, or put it this way, because I cannot even imagine that I have those ideas. And this overflow of new ideas comes every single day. And I have to really be very wise, cautious, not to jump into every direction. But maybe this one is for the next two years or three years or four years or five years down the road. Right now, this is what God calls me to do. I need to focus on.

SPEAKER_02: 1:10:11

Excellent. I have so many other questions, but as we're coming to an end, let me ask you some few more. So the next ones has to do with the urgent opportunity in pharmaceutical science today. So what do you see as the most urgent opportunity in pharmaceutical science today that people aren't acting, that people are not acting on fast enough?

SPEAKER_01: 1:10:36

The opportunity, so the knowledge is increasing. And so there are a lot of ways to really contribute to science in pharmaceutical and drug development and so on. But there is some trap also. Right now, there is some kind of increasing interest in artificial intelligence. And the question is how are we going to do it? And as I said earlier, the modeling based on the computer power is good, but it still requires some kind of practical biological test to really make sure that the product that is developed, first of all, is good. And second, is not contaminated, and third, it's going to do what it's supposed to do. The artificial intelligence that people lean on too much may be in some cases misguiding, particularly in biological science, because the biological science is not a physical science. Simplicity doesn't work with biology, it has its own complexity, and it requires hands-on people who think in an integrative kind of way to really put these things together. So the insistence of reducing things into simplicity so that we can decide better, also remove the complexity that we have to deal with. And those complexities are going to hit us down the road. And so it takes another kind of set of scientists to really think how to put all those things together so that it makes more sense than just the simplicity. The artificial intelligence is good. But I said, in some ways, in many ways, artificial intelligence is a kind of data processing. And the data processing is good as long as you have good data. But the good data are very rare or not published or kept by companies or institutions to keep their competitive edge. So there is a new maybe way to really improve, I would say, the democratization of the data sharing. And that's another kind of challenge that we have to deal with in the coming years. But people are not really prompted to do that. And how to do it to make sure that the data are available for those kinds of computer scientists, engineers to really use those data to really provide the help that we need for the greater community.

SPEAKER_02: 1:13:31

Very good. So you are a member of the Black community who is doing phenomenal work in medicine and research and pharmaceuticals and all of that. So what are your hopes for the future of pharmaceutical innovation in our community? Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 1:13:56

First of all, I would like to have a lot of young people involved in science, in all aspects of science, from computer science, mathematics, biology, and any field. Because what is going to come out is going to be the convergence of all those knowledges. And it's good for everybody if God gives you, and God gives us all gifts. And so if you discern your gift, excel in it, do your best to enjoy it. And the kind of knowledge is like an instrument. The virtuous are people who I like to hear jazz. Why? Because you can see that the jazz musicians they know their instrument, they can improvise, and it's beautiful to see that. So it would be important for those who are in science to develop their skills so that they can really address emerging issues in a way that it's very difficult to anticipate. But if you have the knowledge, you have the mastery of those areas of science and so on, your contribution to the world would be meaningful. And so it's not too late. We're probably behind today, but there is no reason to be kind today. So that's why I would like to encourage young people that if you have the opportunity to study, to learn, do your best to learn in the best of your ability and to master it, and to be able to say one day, I don't know how, but one day it's going to serve the world. And not only just for me to make a few bucks out of it. That's what I think. And so for minorities or people from African descent and so on, it's not too late. Chances are there for us to grasp. And a good scientist, whether it comes from the North Pole or South Pole, or from Africa, or from America, or from Europe, it doesn't matter. Science is science, and we should really encourage young folks to really adopt it, enjoy it, and make some contribution to the world.

SPEAKER_02: 1:16:45

So, what legacy do you want to leave as a scientist, entrepreneur, or a person of faith?

SPEAKER_01: 1:16:52

It's very hard to answer that question. When the disciples come from their kind of campaign of evangelism, they are excited to tell Jesus about their success in the field. Wow. And so this is the guarantee. There is no greater guarantee than that. So out of this assurance that our names are written in heaven, we have the freedom to serve the world. So the legacy is in God's hand himself. But my desire is to really influence men and women, young people, to really be bold, to be honest, to be true to themselves and to God, to look for what is decent, what is true, what is universal, what is going to change the community around them and the world around them. And that's the small influence that I would like to have. So wherever I have the opportunity to serve these young folks, I like to do it. I consider myself as a servant and do that instead of put myself any imaginary pedestal or something like that.

SPEAKER_02: 1:18:39

I understand. Well done, sir, Dr. Moyo. I appreciate you for taking the time talking to us about your company, Peridex, and talking to us also about drug safety, which is really important to everybody. A lot of times, I think one of the things I took away from our conversation today is that the things to consider when we talk about drugs that we take to solve problems is not so much about its efficacy only, but it's about the safety of the drug. A lot of times people have an adverse effect to the medicine that they're given. It's not because the drug doesn't work. The drugs can heal and can cure someone, but the problem comes is the contamination that comes from that drugs. And if there is a way what your company is doing is to try to help other companies like pharmaceutical companies, in terms of cost, as you said, ninety percent of the drugs that have been developed failures, but idea that there is a contamination with the drug. Drugs. And that is something that needs to be followed up with. And your company can help in addressing that. And at the same time, you can help companies in minimizing the cost by doing an early safety testing. Your company, Paradex, can help pharmaceutical companies in addressing this issue in terms of safety. And that will relieve the companies from the clinical trials and or the burdens of the clinical trials. Not to say that the early clinical trials, the testing, at least the current method of testing, is not effective. But there is also a very important aspect of drug safety, which is the contamination. And many companies miss that. And so this is one way in which you can help.

SPEAKER_01: 1:20:58

So your summary is correct to the point. And I would like to ask all the companies in the United States to chance to help them to succeed in clinical trials and to accelerate the commercialization of their product. And I would say that one of the reasons, maybe it's not very clear, but I imagine that the reason that even the regulators have hard time decisions and slow the decision because of the fear of making the wrong decision about the product. And the wrong decision is mostly about the safety. What if we said yes and then the product was released and people start to suffer from it? So they were very careful to really review over and over to make sure that when they say yes, the products succeed. Not to really cause some problems. And when I said 90% of drugs that in clinical trials, those are products that have been approved to go to clinical trials in the United States. And we have developed this algorithm for uh what I call foolproof accuracy, so you cannot miss it. The system is designed such a way that this algorithm would give you the right answer, no matter how you do it. And so if in the coming years the regulators see this new way of doing things that we develop and implement, and you've been using if this one is adopted, we would uh maybe accelerate the release of this product very quickly, and only the products that are safe, and so that the test for efficacy is going to be very quick, too. Yes or no? Well, it doesn't work, and then you move on. Yes, but at least you know that you're not going to kill people, it's not going to really ruin the life of people because of the side effects and so on. So your summary is on the point, and I thank you for your attention, and thank you for really capturing what I we share together today.

SPEAKER_02: 1:23:55

For my audience and everybody, as we talk about the future of science and who will be leading it, I can't help but think about how early exposure truly matters. I think this because not only am I a scientist, a researcher, an educator, and a podcaster, and a father, right? A parent. So for that reason, that is one of the reasons why, using all of my experience, I've come up with a book why I wrote glucose, a book called Glucose Goes to the Party. It is a colorful, fun introduction to critical science terms like glucose, insulin, and even diabetes for young children. When we teach children as young as three about how their body works, and when we make science accessible and joyful, we are not only just teaching facts to young people, but we're building the future doctors, a future biotechnologist, just like Dr. Moyer, future innovators. So Glucose Goes to the Party is more than a story. It is a movement to make science as part of every child's story, regardless of background. You can find this book, Glucose Goes to the Party, on online and in bookstores. If you go to Amazon, you can find my book on Amazon. Bunsa Nobles, you can find my books on Books A Million. Please, this book. This is not only a way for me to introduce science terms to young people at an early age, but to encourage them to pursue STEAM careers. We have to start exposing our young people to STEAM careers at an early age. Dr. Moyo, I want to thank you very much for your brilliance, your transparency, and your commitment to a safer, more equitable world, especially in terms of drug safety. Your journey reminds us that innovation is not just about creating new things, but about protecting life, honoring integrity, and leading with vision. And you do, sir, you do have a vision. To all our listeners, if today's conversation inspires you, share this episode with someone you care about. Because science needs not just knowledge, but a conscience, courage, and community. Until next time, stay curious, stay hopeful. And remember, your story matters. Just like Dr. Your story matters, your dreams matter. And the future is shaped by those who dare to think beyond the expected. For now, from Dr. Olofade, thank you so much. See you next time.