#79: Jonathan Sporn - How Psychedelic Drugs Help Ease the Mental Health Burden in Society

These days many sources are highlighting the shocking scale of the global mental health crisis and how this affects approx—a staggering one billion people worldwide - over one-seventh of the global population.

“Unfortunately, as harrowing and monstrous this number is”, the investor Christian Angermayer wrote in a blog post, “it is my belief this is a gross UNDER-estimate.”

Ultimately, the number of people needing mental health support is arguably all 100% of the world's population.

I invited Dr. Jonathan Sporn, CEO of Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical, to gain more insights into the unmet medical need in mental health and the promising novel psychedelic drug development sector

Jonathan Sporn MD is a Board Certified Psychiatrist, assistant professor at Columbia University, and CEO of Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, based in NYC, which is developing novel psychedelic-related or inspired medicines to treat mental illness.

Topics we discuss in this episode:

➡️ Global Mental Health Situation
➡️ The History of Psychedelic Drug Development
➡️ Investors in this promising area
➡️ The Background Story to the foundation of Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical and
➡️ And the Different Ingredients Needed to Structure a Novel Game-Changing Drug Development Company

Connect with Jonathan Sporn on Linkedin
Youtube Video

🕒  Timestamps:
(00:00) Introduction to Topic, Speaker, and Company
(04:00) Life in New York in 2022
(07:15) The Global Mental Health Pandemic 
(10:39) Mass Shootings in the United States as a result of the Mental health Situation
(14:05) Why is it Necessary to Develop Novel Drugs to Fight Mental Health Issues in Society 
(19:00) The History of Drug Development for Mental Health Patients
(24:00) How Effective Are Psychedelic Drugs to Tackle Mental Health Questions?
(25:05) Psychedelic Drugs in Pop Culture
(26:40) What Inspired Jonathan Sporn to Dedicate His Professional Life to Advance R&D in Psychedelic Drugs
(29:30) Psychedelic Drugs Help to Observe Own Behaviour
(32:30) Root Causes of Mood Disorders like Maniac Depression, Bipolar Disorder
(34:05) Psychedelic Drugs Enhance Neuroplasticity
(36:50) From Basic Research to Drug Development in the Pharma Industry
(40:10) Mental Health R&D at J&J
(43:40) S-Ketamine vs. K-Ketamine – Difference and Similarities
(46:35) Early-Stage Research in Big Pharma
(49:00) Big Pharma and Small Biotechs
(51:50) The decision to Start A New Company
(57:00) Foundation of Perception Neuroscience – From Early Stage Research to Clinical Phase 2 to Exit 
(59:05) Atai Life Science – Continuing Development of the Compounds against Depression
Supporting links: 
(01:00:00) Reasons for Becoming a Serial Entrepreneur After a Successful Exit Deal
(01:06:00) Drug Development is Simple – Given an Experienced Drug Development Team
(01:08:00) What is the unique approach of Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical?
(01:10:15) Target Product Profile of Psychedelic Drugs 
(01:20:30) Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals Mission and Vision
(01:23:20) Patents in Psychedelic Drug Development
(01:24:45) Business Model of Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical
(01:29:00) Artificial Intelligence in Psychedelic Drug Development
(01:33:14) Investing in the Psychedelic Drug Development Industry
(01:37:22) Life Science VCs in the Psychedelic Drug Development Industry
(01:39:00) Christian Angermayer, Peter Thiel, Mike Novogratz – Investors in Psychedelic Drug Development
(01:41:00) Investment Sentiment in the United States in Developing Novel Innovation
(01:43:00) Opinions on the Investment Market Situation in 2022+
(01:49:40) Gilgamesh Pharma Plans for the Coming Years

Join Christian Soschner for expert coaching.
50% Off - With 35+ years in deep tech, startups/scaleups, and public companies, Christian offers power video sessions. Elevate strategy, execution, and leadership. Book Now.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Christian Soschner 0:00

These days, many sources are highlighting the shocking scale of the global mental health crisis and how this affects approximately a staggering 1 billion people worldwide. This is over one-seventh of the global population. Unfortunately, as harrowing and monstrous as this number is, the investor Christian Angermeyer wrote in a blog post it is my belief this is a gross underestimate. Ultimately, the number of people needing mental health support is arguably all 100% of the world's population. This is one of the reasons why I invited Dr. Jonathan Sporne, CEO of Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical, to gain more insights into the unmet medical need in mental health and the promising noble psychedelic drug development sector.

Jonathan Sporn 0:53

You're a scientist, and now you have a microscope. So the microscope obviously has, you know, sort of like the telescope for astronomy. And um and people have sort of uh suggested that you know psychedelics are sort of the equivalent of the microscope or the telescope uh for psychiatry.

Christian Soschner 1:13

Dr. Jonathan Sporne is a board-certified psychiatrist, assistant professor at Columbia University, and CEO of Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, based in New York City, which is developing noble psychedelic-related or inspired medicines to treat mental illness. Dr. Sporne graduated from Duke University and Medical School and University of Miami and did a residency in psychiatry at Tufts New England Medical Center and Fellowship at Harvard and the National Institute of Mental Health, where he helped set up the mood and anxiety program. Dr. Sporne was on faculty at Mass General Hospital in Boston and chief of psychiatry at the Boston Area Hospital. After leaving academia, Dr. Sporne was a researcher at Johnson Johnson in Psychiatry and Neurology. After leaving JJ, Dr. Spawn worked at Pfizer, where he was an internal disease area expert in psychiatry and worked on various drug programs such as Lurica and led the development program for the antidepressant prestic. Dr. Spawn left Pfizer to found the biotech company Perception Neuroscience, which is currently in phase two development of a no world antidepressant R ketamine. Subsequently, Dr. Spawn co-founded Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals, which is affiliated with Columbia University to develop new chemical entities inspired by the revolution around psychedelic drugs. Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals is a Y combinator startup with funding from various VCs, such as Prime Mover's Lab. Gilgamesh expects its first products to enter clinical trials in Q4 2022. Gilgamesh Pharmaceuticals' mission is to develop noble compounds that capture the therapeutic benefits of psychedelics to fundamentally reshape the treatment of mental illness. Gilgamesh's AI-powered platform is accelerating the design and discovery of the new chemical entities which offer improved safety, tolerability, duration, and efficacy. The Gilgamesh team is a team of passionate neuroscience experts with decades of experience within large biopharma like Pfizer, Merck, Regeneron, Biochain, and Lily. Exited startups like Perception Neuroscience, Cura Spring Works Therapeutics, or Biohaven, and has a profound background in academia like Columbia University, Harvard University, NYU, Yale, and UCSD. In this episode, we talk about the global mental health situation, the history of psychedelic drug development, investors in this promising area, the background story to the foundation of Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical, and the different ingredients needed to structure a noble game-changing drug development company. I hope you enjoy the show the same way as I did. Jonathan, it's good to see you. Where are you currently?

Jonathan Sporn 4:17

I am in uh Manhattan on the island of Manhattan in New York City.

Christian Soschner 4:22

This is a great place. I would love to go there. How is life in Manhattan these days?

Jonathan Sporn 4:27

It's uh you know, it's surprisingly back to normal. So, you know, the uh it seems that uh uh everyone's uh out of it hard to get a restaurant reservation. So it's it's and uh really coming back, and so um yeah, so I I I was not uh I had evacuated to the mountains in North Carolina for the pandemic, but uh I was not that excited about coming back. But now it seems that uh it's kind of the the the you know the feeling in New York's kind of back.

Christian Soschner 4:57

Well what do you like more? Do you like more the life in the city or the life in the mountains?

Jonathan Sporn 5:02

What what's uh you know, I like everything that's not in the middle, you know. Uh so if you know it's not the suburbs. I I like uh I like being in like um you know in the mountain, you know, deep in the mountains where I mostly see bears and wild turkeys or uh or or or in Manhattan, uh, you know, uh uh where there's just turkeys.

Christian Soschner 5:25

I'm I'm I'm going to San Diego next week. I mean it's also United States, but it's on the other side. So it's uh pretty exciting to have have you here. You are currently in Manhattan in New York. What was the reason why you decided to to go to move to New York?

Jonathan Sporn 5:41

Well, uh I I was worried I had moved from working for the government at the NIH to Princeton and uh had and was working for then for Johnson ⁇ Johnson in in New Jersey. And then um my uh wife got a professorship at Columbia, and um I was a little bored at Chain J at that moment. So I uh uh decided I would take a job at Pfizer um in the head corporate headquarters here in New York, and it made, you know, and and I I I think though also I I I you know to me, uh you know, living in New York was always a goal, you know, just I I like the culture.

Christian Soschner 6:21

What do you like the most um living in New York?

Jonathan Sporn 6:26

I like um I like the the the uh the energy, the the sort of uh uh you know the the sort of a uh you know people from everywhere that come there that kind of want to you know do something that's that's interesting or or you know kind of our talented people. And um and and I I like that you know there's a lot of uh cultural opportunities and just interesting things. There's always sort of a you know some random interesting thing that will happen to you if you spend time here.

Christian Soschner 7:06

I believe that uh New York is a big, big city from from my point of view. And if in Vienna, it's uh two million inhabitants, and I think New York is about 15 million, if I remember it right.

Jonathan Sporn 7:16

Uh oh, yeah, something like that.

Christian Soschner 7:18

Yeah, it's huge. Uh Jonathan, let's jump into the topic of uh of this podcast. Um, about I think six to twelve months ago, I read a couple of uh posts and articles on LinkedIn from Christian Angermeyer. And uh one one stood out, and uh he said um 100% of the world's population has mental health issues, and we need to do something against it. And he said, okay 100? 100, he's going for 100. He says, Everybody needs support.

Jonathan Sporn 7:49

Okay, all right.

Christian Soschner 7:51

And his solution is psychedelic drugs. And um, I read a couple of his posts, and he just pops them up frequently. And one day, I think it was last year in October, I read an article about um Jonathan Sporn, a former Harvard and NH scientist uh who's returning to the psychedelics field with a new biotech after selling his last effort to the buzzy Atai Life Science, which happens to be funded by Christian Angermeyer. And I'm really happy that you are here today in this podcast, in this episode, so that I can ask you some questions. Uh let's start with this uh mental health problems in society and 100%. What's your opinion? How how how challenging is mental health these days for our society?

Jonathan Sporn 8:34

Well, obviously 100% is hyperbole, and I'm sure you know Christian knew that, but um I don't really think that I need to convince you or your audience that you know the world right now has uh you know significant mental health you know challenges, and you can see that I think through so many lenses right now, you know. So um I think that uh uh you know the uh number of people that have um anxiety disorders has increased, um, mood disorder uh suicide rates are very, very high and have increased over the years. Um uh you know, addiction issues have have also, I think, were high and spiked, I think, further. Since uh I'm not really following the exact epidemiology, but I I think that it's even if you just read the newspaper, you you you you'd be uh pretty well uh uh uh you know and accepting that this is a major problem um pretty much worldwide. And and um, you know, and I think we're I'm guessing that we're seeing also that even though the the pandemic now has you know abated somewhat, um that the world is still sort of uh um kind of you know, the the sort of after effects or the the aftershocks of it are still you know, I think affecting people psychologically. And you know, um as you know in the US there's this tremendous uh violence problem with guns and um and you know a lot of tragic things going on that you know are likely at least in part um you know mental health uh related.

Christian Soschner 10:23

Yeah, I read about it in the newspaper. It's uh it's a very sad story about the latest shooting in the United States.

Jonathan Sporn 10:29

Yeah, it's happening every day.

Christian Soschner 10:31

Oh, it's really that often? Just get some some news here.

Jonathan Sporn 10:35

Pretty much. Like it's it's literally uh I don't remember how many, but it's there's been already like uh you know over a hundred of these things in this year. Something like that.

Christian Soschner 10:49

Well, what's your opinion? Why is there such a spike? What what are the what are the root causes of these problems?

Jonathan Sporn 10:55

Uh you know, and and and uh you know I I I I think it it's always a a risk people that are not experts in uh in a particular, you know, in in you know, or experts in one thing, but you know, sort of beginning to be uh asked to be experts in in everything. But um uh I I think that uh the I mean in the US you have mental health problems and you have mental health problems everywhere. Um, you know, and um I think in the US you just obviously have that mixture of mental health problems plus this, you know, very, very easy availability of lethal weapons that I I'm sure in Vienna is not the case. Um and so I think um, you know, so so I I don't have a feel for what the mental health situation is in in Europe, but I think that uh you know the violence issue in the US is sort of driven in part by that, you know, by weapons. But I I think it's also sort of the in in general, the mental health issue is is is also uh uh you know predicated on the fact that people are very uh have been isolated um and um and left to their own devices. And I think that sort of you know kind of connectivity between people um and connect and sort of social fabric has been torn rather substantially by you know the pandemic. But you know, in in the US, it it wasn't in there, there was a lot, I think that's always been the case that there's you know, there's been a lot of people that are uh, you know, I think loneliness, uh grief, uh there's you know a lot of that. Uh I think uh a lot of people have been traumatized. I I think a lot of the healthcare workers um uh have been like living in like a war zone essentially. Um so uh you know, you put all that together um and you know, add uh, you know, add in potent opiates uh, you know, that are you know, you know, all the as you know, there's a fentanyl uh um is now in pretty much um a lot of illicit drugs that are flowing um into countries. And um, you know, so that that so I think that there's a lot of factors.

Christian Soschner 13:17

Yeah, I agree. The pandemic put a lot of stress on people. I mean, I'm not an expert in that, but this is what you'll get from the news here in Austria. I mean, we don't have uh we have stricter gun laws than in the United States. Um but uh one study I got was that uh children already, due to the lockdowns and the the frequent changes in measures, um, have uh the mental health issues with children are up to 30-50 percent of all children of all the population here in Austria have mental health issues basically um as an after effect of the pandemic. And I completely agree to what you say. Also, the healthcare workers had a lot of stress to go through and a lot of changes in the last um months. What I was wondering um um when I read uh about you and your company and uh what you build and how you sold it toward high life science and what you're building now. Um, I mean, mental health is is not a new problem. And they always thought there are enough solutions on the market already, uh antidepressants, for example. Uh, what's the situation? Why why is it necessary to develop something new, in your opinion?

Jonathan Sporn 16:04

Oh, well uh Christian, the the uh I I I'm old and I started you know practicing psychiatry um you know when uh the uh you know uh SSRIs um had you know like Prozac uh flock they just come on the market. And you know, back then this was a really big deal. Um, because before that, all we had were were drugs like tricyclic antidepressants, which was a little bit like taking a depressed suicidal person and handing them a gun. Because these drugs were it, if you took a if you took an overdose of them, they were quite deadly. And um, so it it and they also had a lot of side effects, and they and their you know sort of spectrum of activity was was fairly limited. So they they uh you know you you ended up treating people with uh either underdosing them or if you gave them full dose, they had a lot of side effects. And so it was really hard to unless you were pretty sick. And so the SSRIs allowed this sort of uh to that allowed a much broader population of people who were uh had mood anxiety uh symptoms. Obsessive compulsive disorder was another one where we really had no treatments, and the SSRIs at least were partially successful in treating um uh obsessions and compulsions, which is you know a pretty common disorder in the in the world. Um so that was a really big deal back then and um changed psychiatry uh substantially um and maybe you know maybe maybe as big a deal as the um antipsychotics in the 1950s uh being developed, which you know de deinstitutionalized a lot of a lot of uh people with psychotic disorders. Um so but that was you know, we're talking the 1980s, right? And um with minor variations on a theme, there really haven't been um new mechanisms of action for the most part. Um uh that um so these are all drugs that are you know what we know what are called monoamine-based drugs and increasing serotonin or some of these other monoamines. And and um and so nothing techno, so so this is an area ripe for you know, sort of uh uh new technologies because you know that's what you know, like you know, going on 50 years without uh a new mechanism of action for um antidepressants um being uh uh developed or and some of these allied neuropsychiatric disorders. So um, so you know that those the those drugs are are effective, but they're as you know, not effective for um a big chunk of the population. And you know, psychiatrists that end up with people on 10 different drugs or five different drugs, um, switching from one drug to the other, adding one to the other. Um, and and often people feel stuck on these drugs where they're better, maybe in some cases to a certain degree, but they feel like they're not really completely well, but they're also afraid to stop taking them. Um, and you know, the side effects are are things that are common, like uh sexual dysfunction, and some people get weight loss or get restlessness or what's called acothysia from them. So, so there's a host of issues with these drugs, uh, in addition to their taking a long time to work. Um, you know, they don't work immediately. Um, so so that there really is uh um uh a sense that um and that they're they're also sort of band-aids, you know. They they and and people often feel they don't feel depressed, but they don't necessarily feel fully emotionally there. So that it's kind of a maybe a slight blunting of affect with some of these drugs. So I don't mean uh, you know, there it's it's easy really to sort of trash these drugs, you know, the existing drugs. Um, but you know, for some people, they're tremendously effective. Um, and um, but what I noticed as a psychiatrist was that, you know, back when I practiced medicine, which was a while ago, but you know, I could probably pick up uh and do that again because given this lack of advancement in the field uh without having to learn very much new. Um but when I, you know, I I would be it would be like great when you'd see those those people who got tremendously better on the existing drugs. You were, you know, it was very exciting. Um and um, but it was it it almost seemed as if it was the exception where you had that very crisp, like that's the right drug for that person. So there's a tremendous need now, um, you know, given what we've been talking about. And you know, just just for example, with post-traumatic stress disorder, you know, all these all the people that have had traumat trauma from wars and COVID and uh early life traumas, whatever it is, um, you know, the uh there are behavioral therapies that work to some degree, and then the drugs like the SSRIs are, you know, you can get them approved uh to some degree, you know, from from from doing big trials, but you know, you have to do very large trials just to see a difference from placebo. So so so the the the effect and and and now what we're seeing, you know, as an example um is that um the nonprofit group maps um that Rip Goblin runs, you know, he's been doing work with um uh MDMA, which is a very old drug. Um uh back to I think it's probably the uh the drug, the the drug was actually first made in like 19 like 15 or something. And so long ago. Uh really long time ago. And then uh, you know, uh there's you know, all these sort of stories and these things, you know, where it was then then, of course, the CIA always gets involved when there's any cool psychotropic thing. So, you know, uh so they were trying to test it in the I don't know, 1940s or something as like a truth series. Uh and uh but it you know, it took then uh the great psychedelic chemist Alexander Schulgin, you know, then picked this back up in the 1950s, I believe it was, or something like that, and um, and began to uh explore the the potential of MDMA. But that drug, MDMA, uh, you know, in the hands of these map trials, has, you know, demonstrated in post-traumatic stress disorder remarkable effectiveness. And these are also fast drugs that work fast. So, and the lesson there is first of all that you can get something to work quickly, that it's a drug used with psychotherapy. So it's not the drug itself alone, but it's it's uh um uh it's sort of, and MDMA is not a classic psychedelic, but it's sort of psychedelic like, but it's you know psychedelic associate, you know, assisted psychotherapy, you know, that um and and and it's It's and what we think is happening with these drugs is in in general is they open neuroplasticity, which is kind of a vague term for pretty much your brain changing, you know, the sort of the networks of your brain. Uh you know, our brains are always changing all the time. So neuroplasticity is sort of you know the rule, but but these drugs enhance that capacity for that for that sort of fluidity and change to occur. So um so so now you you see in with psychotherapy and MDMA, people with PTSD, where a big percentage of them don't meet the diagnosis anymore after treatment, which is very different than the little improvements we would get with things like SSRIs and and behavioral therapy works too, but it's really hard. Um, I don't know if you've ever tried psychotherapy, but you know, it's very hard. You know, people are very uh, you know, they're they tend to be in a groove of how they think and and feel. And it's hard, very hard to get them out of those deep grooves. And so we so so these drugs, you know, sort of allow for um mobile, in this case with MDMA as an example, mobilization of emotion, mobilization of of connection to other people, which you know, um, as we were talking about with the pandemic, has been you know rather um uh diminished. And so these drugs sort of allow people almost immediate access to connectedness and uh their emotional world, um, that then you know is sort of a catalyst, it's like a catalyst in a chemistry experiment.

Christian Soschner 25:20

It's um I'm I'm wondering. I mean, when I try to remember my experience with psychedelic drugs, it's mostly the experience from um articles in the newspaper where um I read that uh this and that music star tried psychedelic drugs and uh sometimes had not so so great experiences. Um is that really such a potent uh um uh attract that you can change people immediately, as you say?

Jonathan Sporn 25:52

Um well look, I think that, and this goes back to your question about uh about my friend Christian Engermeyer and his 100% that uh everybody's mentally ill, um uh, which does sound like Christian, but he also does have a good sense of humor. Um uh I think uh that you know that uh we're we're we're we don't want to over uh sell the these things. Um we don't want you know the problem with a lot of things is they get hyped to the ex to to to the moon. And and that is detrimental. So you know, psychedelic drugs, you know, historically and back to the uh you know the the days of the hippies and the the you know of uh of uh Key Z and uh you know Ram Das and uh and and all of these things, you know.

Christian Soschner 26:55

I think I I remember I think Jim Morrison wrote some songs uh while he was using psychedelic drugs, and I think also Jimi Hendrix uh used that.

Jonathan Sporn 27:05

The doors, uh the name the doors is is from uh Aldous Huxley's book, The Doors of Perceptive, about uh you know him tripping on Mescaline.

Christian Soschner 27:14

Oh yeah, that's interesting. That's interesting.

Jonathan Sporn 27:18

So I think that the the we don't want to we that we don't want to what we want to I think portray these drugs as is as uh as as um uh um sort of uh you know it's like uh you're a scientist and now you have a microscope. Now, you know, if you if I give you a microscope, you know, depending on your your your your your uh talent in science, you you may or may not you know uh uh make great discoveries, right? Um and depending on who's helping you to teaching you about you know cells and and microscopes, you know, etc. So so the microscope obviously has had had you know uh you know was sort of like the telescope for astronomy, you know. And um and people have sort of uh suggested that you know psychedelics are sort of the equivalent of the microscope or the telescope uh uh for psychiatry.

Christian Soschner 28:18

That's that's uh that's a great metaphor. When when did you get the inspiration in your life that um I mean on one hand you said something needs to change, and on the other hand, you started doing research with psychedelic drugs. What what inspired you? What lit the spark in you to go down that route?

Jonathan Sporn 28:37

Yeah, well, it it's a complicated sort of you know, as as you might imagine, you know, uh meandering tale. But uh it it uh and and and Christian Engermeyer gets a little bit of credit there uh for being uh a great uh you know kind of enthusiast for this whole area. But I I I had been, I mean, you know, just uh for full disclosure, you know, back in my wayward youth, I had uh you know been a student at Duke University and I had uh experienced uh uh drinking uh uh mushroom tea with psilocybin. And and I I remember it like a to this day, like a flash, you know, the sort of flash memories that that you know were of something very significant that you that that uh you don't ever forget. And um, and it it it uh it really sort of opened me to sort of thinking about the mind and thinking about psychology and thinking about human development and kind of um more sort of mystical and spiritual sort of topics and and this sort of thing. And and I think then because of that, I I became a student of this the this uh great mystic philosopher G.I. Kerjiv. Um and uh and then uh uh and and then and then that, but I I think in the end, all of that led me to uh have people who uh I interacted with that said, you'd be a good psychiatrist. And and I I was like, I would. And you know, I I I and uh you know, I was in medical school at the time and wasn't really necessarily obvious to me that that that was the most interesting thing to do. I mean, psychiatry was sort of is still sort of a field that you know where we don't really understand all that much about the organ of interest, you know, the brain. And um, so I uh but but I so I think it I saw that how these drugs could have such a powerful effect on um this on the sort of direction of one's thought and the direction of one's life, and kind of being able to sort of, you know, I remember being able to watch myself from above, you know, watch watching my behavior as if I as if I was it was a movie camera and I was being and I was watching myself on TV.

Christian Soschner 31:10

Yeah, this is what this is this is one of the exercises uh that people get when they do coaching education. So when they get uh training in coaching that uh get outside of yourself and uh observe your own behavior, and with these tracks, it's possible.

Jonathan Sporn 31:25

Yeah, and and so so so I think there's a lot of self-observation that is possible, and that's why it's very important. Um, you know, you you know, you you've heard this term, you know, you want take psychedelic drugs, but you want to have to be you want to have a good trip, you know, you want to have a bad trip, right? And although in some ways I think those it's a very binary way of thinking about it, because some of the things that happen in these sort of psychedelic trips can be difficult uh or painful in some ways, but it it but it it can then be in the service of of looking at and exploring things. Um and um so in any event, I mean I that that I think is is is very important. But I think what happened to me was then I I because of all this, um I remember that I would sit, I went to medical school in Miami, and I would sit in the jacuzzi in Coconut Grove, and and uh there was this woman, I was dating her daughter, and she but she had was this sort of famous professor of psychiatry at Harvard, and she had retired down to Miami. And we would sit in the jacuzzi, uh not with the daughter, strangely, with the mother, and and the mother would give me articles to read in psychiatry, and then we would discuss them. And then she said, You'd be a good psychiatrist, and she sent me to Boston, which I guess probably now or at the time anyway, was sort of like the place to go to train, you know, had the had the most intellectual, you know, kind of atmosphere for psychiatry. Um, so so so I think that that was sort of like in the so then you know I went on to do psychiatry and I ran a department and did research and all these things, but it was in the back of my mind that uh you know, this experience. And then I I got interested in um, I was, you know, I I was interested in what's uh kind of referred to as the sort of glutamaturgic theory of of mood disorders, which glutamate is this uh um um the sort of the main uh excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain. And um and I got very interested in that this was an alternative way to look at um depression. And in fact, psychedelic drugs influence this glutamaturgic balance we now suspect. And um, but at the time it was just more my interested in this, and I and I I and I was very interested in manic depression. I I was always fascinated by the fact that people could be, you know, go from this tremendous euphoria and almost superhuman capabilities, and then dive into into the most you know bleak suicidal depressions um you know within a short time and then back.

Christian Soschner 34:15

Did you did did you I mean uh you said that uh it it it's uh it's very interesting to you this area, this um this is it bipolar disorder, some some some area of euphoria and then just fall down uh some sort of rabbit hole and uh end up in a very dark place. What's the reason why that happens in Paper? Do you what's what's your what's your opinion on that?

Jonathan Sporn 34:37

Well, you know, why people have these cyclic, you know, mood disorders, as they're called, um, is you know, we don't that's part of the problem with a lot of these things, is we we we we really don't know. Um we we know that there are certain things that are extremely helpful uh to them, for example, lithium, um, which again, you know, in psychiatry, sadly, was you know just discovered complete completely serendipitously and sort of like the logic of it makes no sense, but it doesn't matter. Somebody, you know, Cade and these guys figured it out, you know, but it was really because it's sedated rodents, you know, when they were using it as a solvent. So uh, but but uh but we don't really know uh the the the cause of it, but uh it's clear that people can go from, you know, when they're hypomanic, is when you know, say writers and artists that have a predilection often to these things, it's you know, it's when they're they're they're most productive. You know, they it's when you know Tchaikovsky's writing all this great music and et cetera, you know, the the people have uh the most remarkable capabilities. And so if you think about it, it's a little bit like uh there's an analogy there to psychedelic drugs in a way, you know, that the people can be in a state where they they're they're able that where their mental flexibility, their neuroplasticity is enhanced, and they're able to learn things and to understand things and to create things at an astounding pace. And the problem is then they go from that what's that that state which is called hypomania to fulmania. And in full mania, then it becomes a quite uh dangerous and dysfunctional state where people you know are delusional sometimes and um uh danger to themselves and destroy things and it's you know quite uh uh and become psychotic and end up in the hospital, and it's very dangerous. Um, and then equally so then they crash into these depressions. Um, but we don't the the we really don't know the answer as to why those things occur. So, but you know, back to your question, I mean, I I I so this I flew, I so I started to flow into just learning about glutamate the glutamate system, and people were, you know, was uh uh people at the NIH were also very kind and sort of open and like you know, it was sort of this wonderful world where people were like, come into my lab. You know, of course, you know, the lab chief picks up the phone and himself and discusses things with you, you know, at the spur of the moment. Uh so I really, I really liked that. And I I like the intellectual, you know, I was I was a little uh after a while, a little bored with the limitations of just practicing psychiatry. It seemed kind of like useful and helpful to me, but sort of not enough. So so I I I I ended up writing a paper on on a new drug for medic depression uh called the Motrogen or Lemic Tao. Um and um and uh and then uh and then some point um my my my wife got recruited to the to the NIH to the labs at NIH. So I was kind of coming along. Uh I had to get a job or they wouldn't accept her because they, you know, it's they so I had I had like cold call cold call everybody at all the lab chiefs at the NIH till I got a job on within 10 days. So I got a job and uh and I went there and then I had this tremendous time learning because you know money was no object. As long as you had good ideas, it was fun, and it was just fun, and and I learned a tremendous amount. So uh, you know, but then I ended up going off to industry to to Jane J and uh we're we're after I why why let me just interrupt a little bit.

Christian Soschner 38:39

Uh I would like to understand it better. Why did you decide to go to the industry? Um, you were in the in a perfect research situation.

Jonathan Sporn 38:45

Uh you know what it was partly because it was it was very uh it the NIH was this tremendously rich research environment, but for doing clinical research, it was quite limited. Um, because you, you know, you it was just very uh it was very slow and difficult to recruit subjects. And um it was uh you know, just you know, some of the bureaucracies of the government, and and it it it it was, I I felt sort of impatient uh uh there and with with the pace of things, and um and felt also like the NIH didn't make drugs, they didn't design molecules, you know. So so you were then dependent on like the pharma companies to partner with you to study something. And so uh, which we did quite a bit of, but it felt as if like, well, I really want to be involved at the level where we're designing new molecules and making new things and where we have resources to do it quickly. And that was definitely not the NIH, despite how much I learned there and and how much I liked it. Um it was it was uh uh a little bureaucratic and slow. So um, so and and also I got into a little bit of a difficulty where I I made the mistake of being, I think, too honest. And and some reporter called me from the New York Times and asked me about this uh study I had uh I had uh uh presented at a meeting, and it was a very boring study. It was completely negative study. So I I really wasn't really thinking too much about it, but what I it ended up in the newspapers because the I didn't know this, but the drug company, which at that point was Park Davis, was being indicted by the feds uh for um illegal marketing of the drug that they asked me about. And so I somehow inadvertently ended up in the middle of this, which was not nobody was very uh happy about at the NIH. Uh and uh so but because of that, somebody saw this in the newspapers and said, Well, would you like a job at Johnson and Johnson? And so basically it was good marketing for you to get the wrong thing, but somehow it like ended up you know good for me. Uh and um so so I I I thought about it and I was like, huh, Johnson ⁇ Johnson, that's kind of and I went and often interviewed there, and and I I said, you know, realized I could learn a tremendous amount about drug development from these people because that's you know the thing. And and it was also very John Jane J was a great place to start. It was like very kind of I don't know, almost like the 1950s or something. It was just very uh old-fashioned, and people they they really took care of their employees, and it just felt it it would seem kind of like if you had to go somewhere in industry, it was a good place to start.

Christian Soschner 41:56

So I spent a few years there, and um um, but but uh in which in which in which area did you work back then at J and J?

Jonathan Sporn 42:05

What was it also uh Yeah, well I worked for in the psychiatry and the neurology franchises as they called them. So I was we were developing, I you know, my first project was a a was uh developing a uh uh a novel antidepressant, which you know, and this is another reason that also, you know, for later that one of the lessons I think for me about moving from big pharma to biotech was, and this is an example where we did a big study with this drug, and it worked, but it was not it didn't work as well as as Paxel or peroxetine, which is an SSRI. And so they so Johnson and Johnson and had there were some side effects, but so Johnson just Johnson decided to kill the whole program. But but I had patented but from the data, I had patented a new use for this drug uh for uh sleep wake uh disorders and uh and and um and it because it had this like uh awakening stimulating property. Um and so um so they Johnson and Johnson just gave it back to uh uh SK Corporation of Korea, where they had they had licensed it from. Um, but they took SK Corporation uh they took that patent that I had filed, um, which they then owned, and they made that into uh a drug for sleep wake disorders, which is now on the market uh uh and sold by jazz pharmaceuticals and is you know, I I you know it's like a billion-dollar uh drug, most likely at some at some point. So so it so it struck me that that was another example where I another learning uh lesson for me, which was that you know that this sort of like the NIH, this was a you know, J and J, you know, was a you know a large bureaucracy.

Christian Soschner 44:08

And um uh and uh so the larger the comp, the larger the organizations, the more bureaucracy you get on the table, I guess.

Jonathan Sporn 44:16

Yeah, and and and sort of a rigidity in decision making and a lack of sort of uh creativity. And I was just like, this is terrible, uh, as much as I also like J and J. Um and I think by the way, the same thing. There's another, you know, kind of a follow-up to that, which was that you know, later, well, my a lot of the people I worked with in NIH, uh like Husseini Manji and and such, they all like left NIH and they all came to J and J, but they came as I left. And um, and they developed eschetamine or sprobato, as it's called, which is the first of these, you know, new rapid-acting antidepressants, you know, the as I kind of said, this glutamaturgic antidepressants. This was the first one, first drug approved. And um so that is kind of in it, it was sort of interesting because later when I uh left uh uh Pfizer, I I I decided to that I wanted to develop essentially the mirror image of what Jane J was doing, or you know, they were developing what's called S ketamine. And I decided that they they made the wrong call and and and ar ketamine was actually the better drug for psychiatry, which Jane J was not too happy about.

Christian Soschner 45:35

What's the difference between these these two?

Jonathan Sporn 45:38

Well, they're they're stereoisomers, so uh, you know, so they're you know the The equivalent of you know the the of your left hand and your right hand, you know, they're they're the same, but they're different, right? You know, you you you can't put your your your right glove on your left hand, but your hands are the same.

Christian Soschner 45:55

So they called in the dark sides, the cheddar and the uh what's the other side in the in the insta.

Jonathan Sporn 46:01

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So something like that. So uh the yeah, the uh um the light or the you know uh uh so so the um the yeah so so so uh so I think that's another example where you know they they decided we were developing es ketamine, and that's the answer. And and and they surprisingly left on the table what we think is the better isomer compound to develop for psychiatry. S. ketamine is better for anesthesia, I think, uh, uh where it's used and around the world. Uh, but our ketamine looks like it's the better drug for psychiatry because that different that stereochemistry creates different physicochemical properties, you know, because drugs are binding in receptors that have three-dimensional uh you know uh uh configurations. So um so so so that's another example where you know the the the the there's a problem of in terms of innovation um at these big organizations. And so so I I left there and went to Pfizer and you know, but along the way then you learn how to run big projects and you learn how to, you know, you learn a tremendous amount from the these organizations are very you know resource rich. Um and so um so I I left Jane J. My wife got a job at uh professorship at Columbia, so I left there, left uh Jane J, moved to Pfizer. But uh eventually it was the same sort of story where you know Pfizer also you know was very bureaucratic and very political and uh um and um uh and uh you know was spending a tremendous amount of money um and uh getting, I don't I didn't think a whole lot out of their research efforts, at least in psychiatry. Um and um and they figured that out finally and decided to leave.

Christian Soschner 47:59

Uh one more question for my end. Um Pfizer in these days, Pfizer Pfizer dis did uh still uh allocate large budgets to early stage research. I always I mean when in now look on the farm industry, it looks to me that uh all these big corporations focus more on marketing drugs and uh getting the regulatory approval processes done and do the large uh scale phase three trials, but not the earlier stages. But in these days, uh Pfizer was also and J were also involved in early stage research.

Jonathan Sporn 48:31

Yeah, no, I mean I think they're always doing early stage research at all these big companies, but they uh they're they they oftentimes I think don't end up uh being uh the the best at at doing that early stage research.

Christian Soschner 48:49

And I think what what's what's your opinion? Why why is that why is early stage research better in small companies than big corporations?

Jonathan Sporn 48:58

I um I think it's the I mean I think if you you study the culture of a biotech and then study the culture of a big uh pharmaceutical company, um there's a um a passion and a focus and an energy and a um scrappiness and a uh uh being able to make decisions, you know, at Pfizer, all decisions were political and took forever, you know, and at a biotech, the decision is made because somebody calls me, you know, and that's it, you know. So the the the the you know uh and and and of course most biotechs will fail, uh, but there'll be enough of them to succeed. And when they do, you know, they they tend to often be uh you know, um quite so so it's not entirely the case. I mean, there have been plenty of drugs, of course, being developed by big companies, but it's often this cultural issue. So if you look at like when the statins first got developed, you know, Merck um uh uh uh developed the first uh statin. And but at the time, uh, you know, uh uh Roy Bagilos could come from from St. Louis and it, you know, Merck was uh was you know not doing all that well. And you know, he kind of pulled up some dejected chemists from the basement and started drawing things on the blackboards and and had a vision, you know, and a passion for like this is how we're going to create the next drug for cardiovascular disorders. And and the science had was ripe for that, and he had, you know, so he brought that excitement and vision and and and you know to to Merck. Um and um and that but of course in the end, Pfizer, you know, then marketed Lipitor, which became even a bigger drug. Um so um the the the first horse uh it doesn't always uh win, you know, that starts the first horse out of the gate doesn't win the race necessarily. But uh uh but uh uh but but but I think again that's sort of even that in that case where Merck was a big company, it was that Vagilos coming and creating that excitement and energy and you know, kind of new blood, new new vision and blood and sort of leadership, you know, the kind of and that that's it's and you know, big companies just tend to become sort of mechanical and somewhat bureaucratic, and you're always sort of fighting up against the commercial people and the you know, uh, and the you know, they have strategies that they develop that's you know only allows you to do this and this, even though you kind of aware, like it'd be better if you didn't do that, but well, but that doesn't, you know, it we don't we're not interested in anything unless it has nine zeros after it, you know, the sort of thing where smaller smaller companies don't think that way. So I I think that sort of combination of things.

Christian Soschner 52:02

I think the eyes um it's like um it's like at the army do you need sometimes you need troops, and sometimes uh for some tasks, special forces are just better at smaller groups and yeah, um, they're much quicker. And it's I think it's the same with small biotechs and large farmers. So some tasks, especially the early stage development, is better allocated in small biotechs, and because the faster decision-making process is more passion, uh getting things done, um moving forward. And when I think, for example, at uh mRNA vaccines, I mean it's one of the recent examples. Um biotech advisor. I mean, once uh drugs really need to be spun out uh or pushed at scale to patients, I think the large pharma troops are the best solution for that. I mean, just imagine a small biotech building then sales forces uh would next to be impossible. So I think there is uh good and good and bad sites in both worlds.

Jonathan Sporn 52:59

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Well, well, the big farmer was it was it in some ways it was great for me because I, you know, first of all, I I steal other people, and uh, and also it just really uh you know gave me a background uh you know in in so many things. It was like a you know uh like a you know a 10-year training program or something.

Christian Soschner 53:22

I mean you had you had everything, you had uh university background, psychiatry, then you went to NAH for for research, doing research, and then uh the big pharma background. Uh and then I mean, from what you were saying, the logical decision then was to found your own company. When did that happen? When did you make the decision the first time that they say, okay, let's uh let's uh start something on my own?

Jonathan Sporn 53:43

Well, yeah, I mean, I I was the clinical disease uh area expert in at Pfizer for you know neuroscience and you know in the psychiatry area, and so I you know, at and I could see things kind of going downhill in terms of Pfizer's interest in psychiatry, and uh they they they weren't they they really didn't you know put much effort into that. And um, and and I realized that they were going to leave neuroscience. So I had to figure out well, what what do you want to do next? You know, and um and I tend to be a little rustled. I don't want to do the same thing, and I don't want to do something bureaucratic and repetitive. So um, and um, and then I went to a meeting of of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, the ACNP, which is this very elite organization that has a meeting every year, and I um and I heard uh a talk, uh talks on the whole you know, this whole glutamaturgic ketamine space, which I had sort of been out of you know for many years, and I was trying to make sense of the whole thing, and there was a lot of contradictory data and it was unclear what was going on, and then this guy um named Kenji Hashimoto from Chiba University in Japan gave a talk on our kidemy, and and and as I listened to this talk, I was like, I it sort of came to my mind that this may be, he may be right, and and it and and nobody seems to be quite registering that. And and I think that's that's that that happens quite a bit too. You know, there's sort of every everybody's kind of going down, you know, the orthodox, some orthodox route, you know, and and then and and and he kind of came with this idea that and and and and then and also there wasn't a strong understanding of like well, why you know our ketamine's a weaker, uh is is a uh it has weaker binding to its receptor, which is the NMDA receptor. So why would you pick the weaker isomer if you you know if you have a choice, you know, why would that be better? That doesn't make any sense, but I sort of realized like we don't really the NMDA receptor is very complex and it has variations across the brain and subunit uh composition. So it there was a lot we didn't know. And so it was sort of an empiric, my my empirical sense is like this may be right. And so I met with them and um and I uh uh brought my uh my my my old boss from Pfizer into the picture, Jake Kranzler, who had a lot of biotech experience, and we sort of negotiated with uh the university to license archetamine, and then we decided we would we would develop that as uh a drug. And you know, we had a little trouble because of the fact that uh people were like incredulous because they were like, well, you can't be right because J and J, if you were right, Jane J would have been all over this, you know, because they're like this giant company with all of these, you know, intelligence people and thousands of scientists. Like, how how could it be that they're like you just come along, you just as a person and and do this? And so people were not, they didn't really and Jane J was also very you know very defensive about this because of course if I was right, they would they looked not too great. Uh um so uh so there was a lot of internal, you know, kind of anger at from the Jane J people at our my old NIH colleagues who and and and what happened was that there was a uh my old colleagues at NIH, uh Carlos Arotti and company um and Todd Gould, uh they published a paper in Nature uh that essentially said that uh the what's really going on is that there's a metabolite of R- ketamine, of the R-isomer called 2R6R hydroxynorketamine, and it's that metabolite that actually is the um the anti-depress what what causes this antidepressant effect. And so it wasn't clear that they were right, but they replicated this arketamine data. But the but the NIH then said, well, we'll license to a company this metabolite because they had patented it, and so all the companies went scurrying off to try to patent uh to sort of to try to license this uh patented uh metabolite. And this left ar ketamine and the Japanese like sitting there and nobody was interested. So this so I was able to write them a check and um you know, first for a very small amount of money license in the uh the uh the compound and start to develop the program. Um and and so um so so I uh so this then so this this did they get it right?

Christian Soschner 58:55

This was the uh foundation basically of perception or neuroscience in your first company.

Jonathan Sporn 59:00

Right. And this is you know, in perception, you know, Jim Morrison had the doors as from the doors of perception, I took the the doors of perception, perception. And uh, and so uh we started, yeah. So I started perception and um and perception neuroscience, uh, you know, we start and we started to to get the trials planned and preclinical work going. Um and then uh as we were doing that, uh, you know, we needed to raise money. Uh and a couple of different folks came along, including Christian Engermeyer, uh, and who was now enamored with psilocybin and psychedelics and wanted to build like the bridge bio or Roy Vant kind of model and things. And and and he was very him and George Goldsmith, who runs Compass, they were very intent on doing a deal to uh uh to buy um a controlling share in perception. Uh and so uh so I negotiated a deal with them uh and uh you know so that the you know perception got funded and you know moved forward. So that's how that and and now it's in phase two uh development, um uh, you know, uh which is you know uh happening in the US and and Europe.

Christian Soschner 1:00:25

I mean it's it's it's it's a big success. I mean, given that uh I would say 99 out of 100 early stage biotech fail and don't move forward. So basically your company moved up to clinical phase two already with with the compounds. It's really complications, it's great success.

Jonathan Sporn 1:00:40

Uh thanks. No, I and now now the uh we we have to, you know, I think I think it's uh you know, there's a very high probability of success for that compound, um, uh, you know, given the data. And uh I you know I think well it'd be very surprising if it doesn't work.

Christian Soschner 1:00:55

Um which which which indication does a time focus with the compounds now?

Jonathan Sporn 1:01:01

It's uh it's being developed uh for treatment-resistant depression. Uh and I think it could, you know, would be effective for pretty much any kind of depression or or an anxiety disorder, uh, and and and substance abuse disorders too. So so it has a pretty broad spectrum of activity and there's strong, strong intellectual property. So it's it's a it's a pretty good uh program. Um and um and and now uh ironically, they brought people from Johnson and Johnson in to run it.

Christian Soschner 1:01:34

So the the circuit is closed now, so it's basically Johnson Johnson back.

Jonathan Sporn 1:01:41

Who were like screaming at them like, why aren't you why aren't you talking to Sporn about licensing archetamine? And they were like, Shut up, don't don't ever.

Christian Soschner 1:01:52

That's a funny part of the story. Let me ask you one question. I'm I'm curious. I mean, usually here in Austria or in Europe, uh, the dream of uh scientists who got the entrepreneurial spark, found a company, sell a company. Um, and the dream usually ends with uh they live happily ever after on the islands with 10 Teslas and uh nice houses and just retire and enjoy life. Uh you decided to found another company. Why? Why why did you uh say there is something that needs to be done?

Jonathan Sporn 1:02:22

Christian's right, mental health problems are 100%, you see.

Christian Soschner 1:02:26

Okay.

Jonathan Sporn 1:02:28

Uh I I um I mean, I I don't see what I do generally as work. So I like I like it's just it's extremely interesting and fun. So like I I I think you know, I don't know what I would you know do on the island after I drove the Tesla around three times, you know. Uh so uh uh and so uh I think that so what you know I mean honestly what happened was I I I I stayed on at Perception as the chief scientific officer, but it just felt didn't feel like the right fit for me. I I I I you know, unless they were going to really take perception and make it into a itself into a larger enterprise, but you know, it was really a single product company. Um and so my the the best use of my ability wasn't really running, you know, those early stage you know projects um you know for that one molecule um at that point. So I think I I so I didn't stay that long there after that. And then I I had through, you know, and sort of again back to my Johnson ⁇ Johnson roots, one of my close friends was the head of sort of licensing stuff for Johnson ⁇ Johnson for neuroscience. And uh he brought me to his lake house north of New York with an in with this young uh uh medicinal chemist who and and and and he brought me because the chemist was interested in um a molecule called tyaneptine, which is an antidepressant in Europe. It doesn't exist in the US. Um, and um it was a survey molecule, and and he was making new uh salts or new new uh or uh some new uh forms of tioneptine. And um, and so and and and they and this guy knew that at J and J, I had been instrumental in getting J and J to make new salts of tyaneptine and try had tried to get them to develop it um to no avail. They they they they they they started a cut they were gonna start a company to do it, and then they lost interest somehow along the way, another big company story. And um, so they brought me to meet him, and then we stayed in touch, and then when I realized that I was gonna leave Perception, I called him up and said, we're starting a company. And um, and uh and he had already also started a company that he also now has sold to a tie to Christians folks, and uh called Cures of the K. And uh so I said we're gonna start a company and we're going to do what I think is not was not being done in the psychedelic space, which was to develop to develop novel drugs with IP on the chemical matter that were going to really innovate the space as opposed to psilocybin's a great drug, so why don't we develop it even though it's a generic drug or MEMA is a great drug, but it's a generic drug. There's not much innovation there. There's just you know pushing things through the system, and then of course, you know, pharma's not interested in those things because they can't protect them for their investment. Um, so um, so I had this vision that we would take what we both what we knew scientifically. Also, I realized that these chemists were really into psychedelics, and so they knew every compound that had been made and tried by people anecdotally. So, like the great chemist Sasha Schulgin, who you know used to work with the DEA, and then they they they uh and then he published uh his uh books, his sort of uh kind of recipe books on how to make psychedelics, and they uh you know parted ways with him. Uh, but uh he he had made, you know, changed Adam Adam, you know, uh uh by Adam these uh psychedelic drugs and then tried almost tried hundreds of them himself. Um and so uh he was sort of the you know the the great sort of father of the psychedelic, you know, you know, chemistry area. And so they knew every single molecule that Sastelogan and what he had said about them. And and also, you know, there's on the web, there's so many people with trip reports reporting on their, you know, all these psychonauts reporting on their experience with psychedelic drugs. So I realized these guys knew everything about this. And and and they were also really good academic, you know, experienced chemists. And and and Andrew Kruegel, my partner, was you know very uh entrepreneurial. So uh so I said, well, what we're gonna do is we're gonna take molecules of different kinds and we're going to then look at them, and then we're gonna say, what could be better? And so, as an example, Even though arketamine is this drug and I think is, you know, making great progress, we were like, well, it's good, but if it was a pill, it would be even better. So can we design a molecule that will have, you know, will where the properties of it will be uh, you know, uh uh commensurate with our ketamine, but it's a new molecule and it's different because it's a pill. Um, because ketamine you can't uh really use very readily as a pill because your liver chops it up uh fast in a in a variable way. So it's you know it's the first past metabolism problem. So uh so that's an example we where we realize like you know we we can likely do that fairly easily. Um and um and and given you have the right team.

Christian Soschner 1:08:36

So I think uh it's not it's not chemistry, it's not that easy.

Jonathan Sporn 1:08:39

No, no, right, but it but but uh for the right chemists with the right ideas, it wasn't that hard. And and it was like it, and and and and what was interesting was that in the space, all the people interested in ketamine were mostly clinicians and not chemists. So they were looking at ketamine, arketamine, metabolites, but they weren't thinking about making new molecules. Um they didn't know how to do that. Uh and and and uh and this is and this really hadn't caught the attention yet of too much of uh big pharma and um Jane J was already already pot committed with S-ketamine. Uh so we realized we could do that, and then we we just went down the line. We were like, okay, well, uh, you know, for example, DMT, which is you know one of the active components of ayahuasca, you know, which is this you know Peruvian uh uh you know concoction that people make that are that's very psychedelic. But people vape DMT, but it's very it only lasts about 10 minutes or 15 minutes. Um, and so we thought, well, DMT is a great drug, but it's so fat, it's so short acting, we weren't sure that that was long enough to really be fully therapeutic. And on the other hand, things like psilocybin or LSD last, you know, four or six, eight hours. And that's really hard on you know our healthcare system, right? Like, how do you you know have people sitting around for six hours in your clinic, you know? Uh so um so we decided that what we'd like is a molecule that maybe lasted that was like DMT, but lasted about an hour, and and also DMT has some serotonin releasing properties, which is partly what MDMA does. So it gives you this sort of warm, emotional, connected feeling. So we realized that we could have a molecule that was a little bit like psilocybin, but also a little bit like MDMA, and lasted about an hour. So we designed a molecule with those properties. Um, and um, and that uh and that's another example where now we we think that that will, it's a hypothesis that that will have about the right uh you know characteristics uh therapeutically for you know uh neuropsychiatric kind of conditions. Um and and this this has sort of been now an iterative process that there's this tremendous amount of this stuff going on in the company. You know, another example is we we thought, well, you know, people love microdosing, but the problem with microdosing is you know, you're taking say a tenth or two tenths of a dose of a psych of a full psychedelic dose of say LSD. But the problem is that you know, you don't want to send your grandmother home with a big bottle of LSD and tell her to take one because she might, depending on the grandmother, take more than that. And um, and so you know, and then and that's it, so it's not it, it has problems as a take-home medicine because of the potential uh for it to be uh you know abused or not adhered to uh dose-wise.

Christian Soschner 1:11:55

So uh did they understand you right? So the current uh treatment regimen is that people go to the clinic and uh get the dosing then um under observation of a clinician of a doctor or nurse. So it's uh not for take-home uses what's currently in development and close to market.

Jonathan Sporn 1:12:12

Right, like MDMA and psilocybin and LSD and all these things are being generally developed for use in a supervised setting. Um and and and and and and uh uh so uh we what we wanted to do was say, like, well, if you could if you had a microdose, but you knew that people couldn't take couldn't get a whole psychedelic trip out of it, it would be it might be an ideal drug for mood and anxiety symptoms. And you see, this is all very anecdotal and not uh demonstrated in controlled fashion, but there are I there are so many thousands of people that are micro-dosing these drugs to treat mood and anxiety symptoms. Uh, you know, and and also they seem to enhance creativity and mental flexibility uh for people. So um so what we wanted to do then was to develop uh a drug that these drugs hit what's you know called the 5-HT2A serotonin receptor that hits this receptor but does so in a way where it sort of has a sealing effect. So so even if you take a lot of it, it's not going to be very psychedelic, you know, be minimally psychedelic, even if someone takes more of it than they're prescribed. So we wanted to create them and and and and uh what it wasn't clear how you would do that exactly, but this was again an example where there were case reports of people making new psychedelic drugs where they weren't all that psychedelic. And you can test this to some degree in rodents by the that their heads twitch when they're having when they're tripping. They they have this sort of characteristic very fast twitching of their head and ears. And so uh so we could we so we could we so we would see we saw these reports and we were able to bring those molecules now into the lab and start to look at them and see what do the rodent head twitch experiments confirm what these people are saying uh from their anecdotal human use that this drug is not doesn't have a strong psychedelic effect. But and then the second question becomes well, maybe that just means it doesn't do a damn thing. Uh so we wanted to also show that it even though it's not doesn't have powerful uh psychedelic effects, it's still antidepressant. So we were able to then take that into like stress models and such in rodents and show that it it retained the antidepressant effect.

Christian Soschner 1:14:57

But how how question I'm curious, how do you model that in rodents uh antidepressant?

Jonathan Sporn 1:15:04

How can you how can you how can you measure that a rodents depressive and uh well the the there's no perfect way and the models are are not ideal, and in fact, Gilgamesh is is working on its platform and creating better methodology there, but there's enough there, you know, the sort of the gold standard would be that you take rodents and you stress them for a few weeks. Uh and and mild mild stress, you know, the the the bedding's wet or their the light cycle is is is not right for them, you know, lights light dark cycle. Um, so you can stress them. And then when you stress them, they stop drinking sugar water as much. So that's like a sort of an a model of what's called anedonia in humans or or lack of you know, sort of impaired uh pleasure response, you know. Um uh so you can measure this in rodents. And um, and so what you're able to see is when you stress these animals chronically for a few weeks, they stop drinking uh sweet stuff that they like. They they reduce the amount of of sugar water they drink. And you can show then that with antidepressants, it reverses this. So you can you can show that it's it it's it protects them against this stress-induced um uh uh uh anhedonia. Um so um so we were able to show then with we're we've been able to show them with that we're able to make molecules that are not that psychedelic, but still look like, of course, you still have to prove that in in humans, obviously, but that looks like it preserves the antidepressant response, but without the psychedelic. So if that's the case, if that works, then you have a drug that you know you can go to your uh local pharmacy and you know pick up a prescription for, and the risks of of that you know being used at home are mild. But we'd still probably want to have some sort of psychotherapy with it. Um, but but it make it really becomes a very different, you know, becomes much more universally available for treating these conditions.

Christian Soschner 1:17:23

This would be a would be a great thing.

Jonathan Sporn 1:17:24

This would be a great thing to have more of that on the other example of what Gilgamesh is working on, and uh, and uh you know, we're talking to some of our pharma peers that are interested in what we're doing in this respect. Um, so who knows at some point we might partner with people on it on some of these things. Um, and then and then you know, the other example from our you know core portfolio is that there's a very interesting molecule called ibogaine. And uh and ibucaine is uh uh is a compound that comes from a um uh uh a bush in Africa in places like Gabon that's used for initiation rituals. Uh and uh it's a very, very powerful psychedelic drug uh with a very it's very long-lasting. And it's also dangerous uh because it can cause uh cardiac rhythm abnormalities. It can it has a QTC prolongation effect. So there are people that have died from uh uh from taking ibogaine. Uh but uh a uh some heroin addict in New York um uh was given some of this uh you know many uh decades ago, and he was surprised to find that his uh craving for heroin completely disappeared. Yeah. And so um this then, this observation led to a tremendous interest, and and the FDA was involved, and the NIDA at the NIH was involved, and they were going to develop it. Um, but because it, you know, the policy you know, as you know, the politics of psychedelic drugs was that the they're all terrible, you know, uh, this is your mind on drugs, you know. Uh and um and so uh so uh and because also they had this cardiac toxicity risk, uh this was they were unable to uh to to develop this, but it was so clearly uh there were so many clear anecdotes of of ibogaine being um extremely powerful in one dose to treat heroin addiction or opiate addiction, that clinics sprung up in other countries, like in Mech, like in Mexico, uh, to treat people, you know, sort of the the rich and famous go to you know these ibogaine clinics and can and such, you know. And so uh, but nothing then really happened with it because it's now a generic drug and it's not that safe and this sort of thing. Um, and uh, but actually a tie now is developing ibogaine and door. Ibogaine is uh one of their programs. They have many, many programs. And um, but what and and and but this is another example of what Gilgamesh is doing is we were like there's no way in hell we're gonna develop a generic drug. Um uh, you know, uh it's too expensive. It and and and especially a generic drug that's has safety issues. Um and so what we did was uh that that the uh the the the labs at Columbia University, which you know we're you know kind of uh uh partnering with, had spent a decade working on ibogaine uh chemistry. And they had you know meticulously changed one atom after another and looked at how the pharmacology morphed um with these changes. And uh and they were able to find molecules that had very that were similar to ibogaine, but were tweaked or tuned in terms of uh in this case, for example, being more uh kappa opiate opiate uh antagonist activity, but but that's not abuse, kappa doesn't cause abuse. Um and so they uh they they uh and they realized these drugs were very powerful and they were novel molecules. And what we've been uh finding now, and this was not intelligent design, this was just stupid luck, was that um some of these molecules that cardiac abnormality, that cardiac risk was tuned out inadvertently, so they were safer and they were they looked at least as effective as as ibucaine. Um so so so Gilgamesh is now moving forward with developing novel analogs of Ibucaine that have this better uh therapeutic index.

Christian Soschner 1:22:10

Uh did I understand you right? So Gilgamesh's mission and vision is to take uh drugs from the psychedelic space, look at what works already, and uh make the existing uh approaches in drugs much better, so safer and more effective on the chemist bench. Is that the right uh perception?

Jonathan Sporn 1:22:28

That's that's that's how we're started. We're we're not some of them are not exact, you know. And for example, ketamine is uh it it's not cla classically, it's not a psychedelic drug. It's it's not they're not 5 HTT UA agonists. Um so uh Ibogain's an atypical uh psychedelic, and we're we're not we're not wed to things being you know psychedelic or uh drugs necessarily, but we we realize that this particular area, you know, uh uh, you know, the the where, for example, the 5 HT2A receptor, the NMDA receptor, these were uh uh the cat cap opioid uh receptors, these were areas that were ripe for innovation, but we're not uh we we'll we'll and we thought that these drug using these targets was safer um as a starting point because there's already essentially uh um you know precedent uh for their precedented targets um in humans. And so we thought that these drugs will be rapidly effective, powerful drugs that will be, and if we can make them innovate innovate on them, uh it's a great starting point. But in the future, you know, we'll we'll we'll broaden broaden that out. But most of the things we're going to be doing will be around these particular targets uh at this point. And you know, where we go from, I mean, you know, that's part of the problem, you know, back to your question about like why, you know, with Big Pharma is that you know, sometimes big pharma did great things in the sense that they were very innovative and they would go after targets that were uh completely, you know, where there was really very little information, you know, and and and they weren't they certainly weren't like in the old days trying their own drugs. Uh, you know, so you know, but back in the old days, you know, uh when the benzodiazepines were, you know, created, Sternberg would, you know, make Ben the first benzos and try it with a soup spoon and uh tell his wife he won't be home, you know. Uh so uh that didn't happen. So so there were a lot of these programs in big pharma that just in theory, you know, were interesting, but their chances, their probabilities of technical success were small. And we think that in this case, you know, starting with precedented targets, our probability of success is much, you know, much, much larger. So we think that that's the we think that innovating around these areas is the is the you know kind of the best starting point for the company.

Christian Soschner 1:25:04

So this gives you basically then uh um composition of meta patents in in this area. I mean, if you remodel the molecules, right. We have where is very strong patent base.

Jonathan Sporn 1:25:15

Yeah, we we're we're we're basically our philosophy, you know, it's it's a it's a uh somewhat fraught, you know, uh kind of crowded IP space. But what we've been able to do is to is to show you know very unexpected results uh for these molecules that you know no one skilled in the art would be able to predict. And that's been you know successful for us. We have for the you know, for example, for our first two, our lead two lead programs, we uh you know, we we've already uh you know um uh you know been successful in uh getting uh the first two uh patents uh uh you know now you know getting near to be issued. And you know, so so those that that's worked out uh perfectly well for us for the first two. And we expect that'll be the iBook game ones are even easier. Um so but yeah, so we're we're we're that's probably one of the big uh biggest things with Gilgamesh is we're very good with IP, we're very good with uh unknowing, understanding a very complex uh intellectual property space.

Christian Soschner 1:26:26

And compared to perception, your first company. I mean, you said it's uh one product company basically. It's been a one-product company, purchase by a Thai life science. Now Gilgamesh uh has a pipeline. So you're building a pipeline, and the vision, I believe, is uh creating a lasting company with Gilgamesh. Is this the right perception?

Jonathan Sporn 1:26:44

Uh yeah, we we we you know we expect to do partnering and licensing deals. Uh, we think that we'll have more substrate than we can actually prosecute ourselves. So we think that there'll be um and you know, there'll be uh demand for from companies that need pipeline to to work with us. But yes, we want to build not only this machine to the future of the space vis-a-vis uh chemistry, uh, which we're I think we're doing a tremendously good job of, but but also then we're we're we're we're putting a small amount of our effort into a uh platform that is uh essentially saying, like, well, you know, the big the elephant in the room with psychiatry is that you're developing drugs, and however good your drugs are, the disorders are not um carved at the biological joints. They're sort of, you know, sort of, you know, you you you're you can meet the definition of depression, you know, umpteen ways. Uh, you know, and and so you're it's depression, but you you may have very few symptoms in common with somebody else that has the same uh uh uh disorder uh uh uh syndrome. So that that that that really creates a lot of challenges uh for drug development. If you know if you you're trying to make chemicals to target a target, but the disorder is not you know connected necessarily to that particular any particular biology, but is a description. So so that's that that that's been one of the big, big challenges in psychiatry. And so what we're trying to do with Gilgamesh is to create a platform that will begin to allow us to have um biomarkers vis-a-vis, for example, um electrophysiology. So we do a lot with EEG uh signals, um, and we have in-house uh uh capabilities in that regard. Um and uh we do that in people, and we do that in rodents, and we use neuropixels and rodents so we can you know uh interrogate the electrophysiology of individual neurons across the neural axis. And so we're we're um we're we're trying to create uh a better scientific capability to do all of this stuff um than head twitches and rodents, which is you know been around for you know, throwing throwing them in a tank of water to see how long they swim. You know, it sounds very almost medieval. Uh so we we think that that that that's sort of the will also be, I think if we're successful, be part of the special sauce of the company in the future as it has this sort of ability to do, you know, we we do a lot of machine learning of rodent behavior and a lot of machine learning and and electrophysiology work. Um, you know, we'll start to you know look at uh natural voice recordings and such in humans, most likely in the near future. And patients. So there'll be a you know, and that'll also be machine learned. So we'll we'll we'll we'll start to create a way to in you know, as a goal, to be able to predict what drug a particular individual should get based on their history, their biology, um and uh and such and their you know their their um and their behavior.

Christian Soschner 1:30:08

Um so let's tell a little bit with the machine learning. Um do you have an in-house department or uh do you partner up with yeah it's it's we're doing both.

Jonathan Sporn 1:30:18

We have in we have an in-house uh uh data science that that uh uh has a lot of expertise. We we and we then we partner uh we have uh uh we have embedded it at at Harvard at uh Bob Data's lab um folks uh uh helping us with um running experiments as we speak um uh with machine learning and rodent behavior. And uh uh Bob's one of the world experts in this. And then at NYU, um at Andre Fenton's lab at NYU, we also have our own like small lab uh kind of in inside his lab uh that's doing a lot of the electrophysiology work. And we have some another lab in England uh that's our uh the sister lab, the electrophysiology. So so we have a few sort of boutique, uh, you know, most of what we do at this point is, you know, working with CROs around the world, you know, for efficiency, but we have a few sort of boutique uh operations that are um you know exploring this uh you know kind of this this uh uh you know, trying to create this sort of uh platform capability.

Christian Soschner 1:31:25

You put an amazing experience to expertise together with your team. I mean, you have uh chemistry, you have the early stage drug discovery, drug development expertise, you have the clinical development expertise, uh the biology, uh, an understanding of uh psychology, psychiatry from the practical point of view, so from the patient point of view. And then now you start integrating also machine learning, artificial intelligence, and you really create a nice engine. Sounds to me like that.

Jonathan Sporn 1:31:57

Yeah, no, I I look, I think there's been a lot, there's been a lot of people. I mean, I think what I'm particularly good at is just identifying the people and trends to put together that will make things happen. So, for example, on the machine learning and side and electrophysiology side, my my friend and colleague Amit Etkin uh you know started a company, um uh Alto out in front, and he's a professor at uh at Stanford, and and he created this company uh that's all built around uh electrophysiology and other biomarkers uh for prediction. So I was very influenced by him, and he went off and did his own thing and consults a little bit to us, but but I but it was like, you know, that's where I want to go. And that's that's also where companies, you know, other companies in the space, in the psychedelic space, really have limited capabilities that they they may partner with people, they may bring people in, but they're not built at core to be innovators. They're more sort of let's let's buy up a bunch of different companies or let's you know push you know MDMA through this through through to approval, but they're not built around uh uh you know the the sort of ability uh to to do the science. Um, you know, that and that's that's kind of where we're I think you know a little bit different than most of our competitors, you know. So um, you know, with with a couple of exceptions, that's that's I think what makes us uh you know a different kind of company uh is that we're sort of, you know, we're we're we're focused on moving things fast in the clinic, but we're not that's not the only the only thing we're we're doing. And it's it's it's and it's all pretty much you know under one roof.

Christian Soschner 1:33:54

Innovation is challenging. I completely agree to that. Um let me ask you one question when I look at the the article, uh which is titled with the Harvard Scientists acting as a Thais Treasure Trove, launches a new psychedelics firm focused on drug analogs. Um analogs. Um I did work, I worked in antibiotics, so it's about 15, 16 years ago. And then back in 2006, uh the market, the investment market was good for antibiotics, but then it really went southwards and went down. Vaccine was the next phase I was uh I did work with. Um, and uh I was raising funds for companies in 2013, 14, and 15, which was basically next to impossible. Nobody was interested in uh putting anything on the market against viral diseases, and uh this changed with the pandemic, obviously, and uh it became a lot easier. Uh, I never worked with um companies in your field. So I'm really curious. I read in the article that Gilgamesh Pharmaceutical completed that 27 million series A. It was the article that's uh May 6, 2021. Um how is the investment space? How are investors are investors aware of this great opportunity, or uh is it still early? So that there is uh some work that needs to be done on the investment side.

Jonathan Sporn 1:35:10

Well, there's definitely work to be done. I mean, this was a very super hot space. Um uh, you know, sort of psychedelics, longevity things, you know, there were all these sort of hot, you know, areas that you know the Christian Engermeier was in every one of. Uh and uh Bitcoin, and Bitcoin. So yeah, and they often come together, the same people are interested in all those three things, you know. And um so uh it's been it was very hot. And then of course, you know, the uh as you you know know better than me, the whole you know, biotech sector's been you know pretty much slammed uh uh uh in in in recent times. And um, and I think uh that uh that's now had a some somewhat chilling effect on I think uh uh the whole space. And I think you know, we're sort of in a little bit of a lucky position, um, you know, because we think that you know we've we we raised you know our series A. Um we're we're um we're now uh you know uh you know we're we're now sort of doing pretty well uh you know even beyond that. So we we're we're right now very well funded, you know, to sort of uh weather the you know this sort of uh uh you know winter uh uh in space. So uh we think that right now, you know, we have we'll you know, we're we we we're we're it's pretty clear we'll have enough money to run multiple programs into into human data uh and uh and you know and build out what we need to build out. And so, you know, um, and then data will rule, you know. So I think if the data looks good, um then uh you know, and hopefully in a year or two, uh, you know, it's it's all you know kind of somewhat uh trends, uh, you know, the biotech space will sort of recover somewhat from you know some an extreme. So I I yes, I think that, but uh I think that despite that, um, there's still a tremendous interest in this space. I mean, you know, uh no matter where I I'm always still surprised, no matter where I go, putting aside investors, just the population is pretty well versed around this whole psychedelic revolution. People are interested, people are trying it, um, you know, especially on the probably on the you know coast, like in New York and California. Um, so um, so I think that that that will continue and build uh you know, the press has been, you know, uh, you know, back in the in the in the old days, the press was, you know, you know, drugs will kill you, everything, you know, uh anything uh you know, psychedelics are terrible. And now, you know, they they can't write enough excite articles about how exciting the space is. So I think that's helping. I think what's you know limited still is you know, the you know, big pharma, um, some of the you know the the the the you know larger institutional uh you know venture capital kinds of folks are still sort of watching this carefully, but you know, with a few exceptions, like Azuka, you know, most of these pharma companies are still sort of on the sidelines, sort of watching what's happening. But it's very clear they understand the potential of these things. It's just that you know they tend to be, they tend to, you know.

Christian Soschner 1:38:43

What I'm I'm curious, what is hold, in your opinion, what is holding the traditional life science VCs back? Um, I mean, when I think about oncology, for example, oncology is a no-brainer. You can put any oncology project on VC's table. And as long as they are doing something noble and innovative, which is quite normal in that space, um, they step in. I think it's also far more. What is the reason that you say that uh the VCs or the life science VCs are aware of the opportunity, but not really willing currently to step in?

Jonathan Sporn 1:39:14

I I I think you you may have ideas about it too, but I think that part of it is that they're looking at whether big pharma or pharma in general is you know, sort of buying into this because in some ways they're the customer, right? Yeah. Um, and I think that uh big pharma uh is still uh you know looking to see, you know, what is the business model here for these things? Um, how well do they actually work in trials? Um, you know, they they they're they're they're being you know cautious about about it. Um and um and and they want to sort of, you know, just just as Pfizer was not the first statin, you know, uh the uh you know, they're waiting around. And and some of it's also that some of these earl first level compounds, they lack uh innovation, they lack IP. So, you know, none of these companies is gonna buy uh a drug with no IP. That makes no sense at all. Um, so I think that there, and they're and with with a company like us, we're just entering the clinic um in the fourth quarter. So that's you know, so uh so I I'd expect that, you know, a year from now or so, uh, that you know, there'll be very interesting conversations going on if we're successful.

Christian Soschner 1:40:42

Um when I understand your approach, you're creating drugs with Noble IP with a very strong uh patent protection. And then you bring that to the market. I understand, for example, I mean, I had a conversation last um, it was in October last year, in uh, with a researcher in the long charity space, and there I had really difficulties to say, okay, how does a truck look like? And you say, okay, there is no truck, so it's basically uh just change your habits, change your lifestyle. And this is really hard to sell to VCs to put money into a company that at the end of the day don't create novel IP and they don't create something, a product. Uh, as far as I understand, your description also with some existing approaches on the market, it's basically um going into the generic space, repurposing drugs, but um not with very strong IP protection and Gilgamesh changes that. So your approach is clearly to uh go down the drug development route.

Jonathan Sporn 1:41:38

Well, yeah, and what we expect is that these other the fact because there's been a lot of sort of excitement, Christian Engermeyers and Peter Thiels and these people who have been funding uh Mike Novogratz, a lot of these people that have been funding the space, um, it's been very valuable because you know, by the time we and and J and J with Scravado, that they're building out the market, they'll build out some of the infrastructure for these things. Um, so but they're doing it with molecules, including J and J, that have you know limited or you know, weak intellectual property, which you know just goes to show you how much you know desperation there is for molecules, is that J and J was willing to develop in a non-patentable molecule. Uh, you know, eschetamine obviously has been around for 50 years or something, right? So um so so so this this this uh you know is is you know what I think was very surprising, uh, but it it speaks to you know the the level of demand. But yeah, I think that that's what that's what's going to happen is that is that as these things are shown to be effective and um and uh you know the compasses of the world and a tie and uh maps and uh whoever else uh you know puts effort into this space, it it it all is you know, I think a wind at our back. Um and you know, at this point also we're very happy that we're a uh kind of you know thriving private company um and right now not you know not having to you know be looking at stock prices.

Christian Soschner 1:43:23

This is always a good thing. I think currently the stock market is uh in unknown territory, I would uh would flash it that way. Um, do you see uh some disruptions in your area? I mean, um uh or is it business as usual? Is there any in the United States in in uh on the East Coast, is there nervousity on the market or is there uh any fear on the market, in your opinion, uh when it comes to funding in your area?

Jonathan Sporn 1:43:51

I I I think that funding has dried up. Um, you know, we we just kind of have been just in time to you know kind of make sure we we're we're pretty well funded. Um but it at the mark, I think a lot of these markets have dried up to a large degree. Um and um and so that will be interesting to see what happens because you know when everybody was excited about this stuff to the extent that almost anything could get funded, you have just a lot of you know dubious things, uh, people throwing a lot of money at a lot of dubious things. And so I think what we're starting to see is you know, a lot of those things are are, you know, we'll not be able to raise money and will fold. And but some of them are so dubious, there's not much for us to do about it. It's not like, oh, that's a great project, why don't we buy it? You know, uh there's not that many things that seem all that valuable, but maybe there'll be one or two. But um, but we think that that's what's gonna happen now is there's gonna be a you know considerable consolidation, and you know, it'll be a tie and Gilgamesh and uh uh and you know, maybe one or two other names that'll uh you know will you know will remain the you know, sort of doing the bulk of the work.

Christian Soschner 1:45:14

No, I think um you're absolutely right that the market is a little bit in a turnaround situation. What's uh interesting to me is that uh when you remember the last two crises, one was in 2000 and the other one in 2008, there was much more fear on the market. What at the moment, what I miss is this this fear moment. So uh it was amazing the last three to four or five years. Uh you were um you were mentioning some names. I mean, they invested in Bitcoin, they invested in uh longevity in the psychedelic space and did a lot of groundbreaking work, and with that came a huge push also on the public market. I just think about um Cafe Wood, for example, with her investment approach. Then in the tech sector, there was a market correction. Many public companies corrected between 50 to 90 percent, and this also has ripple effects on the private market. But what I miss still is this are this fear moment, so that people are really fearful and pulling money out, and uh also from other sectors. This has not happened yet. What's your opinion on the market development when it comes to investments in the coming one or two years in general, general economy?

Jonathan Sporn 1:46:27

I'm not uh a macroeconomic expert, so uh I I'm probably the wrong person to ask, but um I mean, I you know, the you you certainly get the feeling like you know, the stuff pushed at me is that you know, we're entering, you know, a period where things are going to be, you know, uh there's gonna be more fear and more discounts over the next couple of years. Uh and um, and that uh you know uh you should you know batten down the hatches, you know. So uh uh so we, you know, that's that's the the word on the street. Now, what exact what happens, I think, you know, is is is uh you know uh not entirely clear, but you would just think that we this is one of those times where tremendous amounts of money were flowing into everything from everywhere, including the government. Um and when that music stops, you know, uh, you know, you know, you you you tend to see some some big problems uh arise and uh and a lot of strains. So I think that uh, you know, uh but on the other hand, you know, uh I think that the the biotech sector was already sort of in correction for quite a while down. So if you think about it, it it like I'm guessing, and you you may know better than me, that you know the those sorts of cycles will typically last for you know one, two, two, three years, something like that, and um uh you know, at most. And so, you know, I think we may be, at least for biotech, sort of half halfway or so through that cycle. Um, but it's hard to know.

Christian Soschner 1:48:19

When you look at the challenges in fundraising in 2008, I think the companies that are following your approach, that you create solid IP, that you are innovative, there is always market, uh, there's always capital on the market for such companies.

Jonathan Sporn 1:48:35

Yeah, that's what we expect. So we're we're trying to take all of the you know doom and gloom uh you know uh messages I get with a grain of salt that you know we if we create some strong products that actually are an answer to some of the mental health problems that exist, um, and uh and that are really you know differentiated that we should be able to, you know, there should be capital uh that will uh flow into that uh almost in any kind of market.

Christian Soschner 1:49:11

I mean, when you look at the statistics, there is uh this is termed dry powder, there is enough capital in in VCs. So they were quite successful in fundraising. Um, the difficulties that I see are companies that are not really innovative, but it's in all sectors currently. So that uh the Me Too products, for example, where people just see, okay, uh 10 companies are doing something noble, and I'm the 11th or 12th company. And then the other ones, uh which is also something that helps failing, is when uh the product development doesn't move forward. So when they are just stuck in the discovery stage or in the pre-clinical stage, and there is no progress in the product pipeline. But I think as long as the company creates IP and uh holds the team together and moves the lead candidates forward into the clinical development area, I think there is there's no there's not much to worry about.

Jonathan Sporn 1:50:11

Yeah, I mean I think I I I think uh uh we're we're right now, you know, sort of all eyes are focused on, you know, uh this coming year's data, data readouts and and uh and building building the you know, building the uh our our capability to run these trials and uh you know pretty excited about you know, pretty much every month there's some innovation that's going on in the chemistry space. Um sometimes I don't even know what's happening, there's so much going on. So I think it's you know, it I'm encouraged that and uh and I'm you know I'm I'm I'm I'm rooting, you know, I having started perception, I'm I'm rooting for the Itali people too. Uh, but I think that you know there's there's gonna be uh you know room for uh for for a few good companies in the space.

Christian Soschner 1:51:03

Jonathan, it's amazing listening to you, and I learned a lot about psychedelic track development. We have five minutes left. You said that you need uh to run off in uh at 11 o'clock. You have the next meeting. Let me ask, let me ask you one one final question. Uh we're talking about fundraising. Uh, is Gilgamesh open currently uh to talk to investors? So there are some investors in the audience. Uh, if someone gets interested, can they reach you? Are you open for investment or uh are you waiting for your clinical data and then start the next round of financing?

Jonathan Sporn 1:51:36

Yeah, um, we're the I I think there's a small window that right now, if people are are were you know interested in uh investing in Gilgamesh that that they should they can contact us and we can we can explain to them where we're at with that so there's some there's some there's some optionality uh uh you know in the in the very near future what's the best way to reach out to Gilgamesh is it directly to you via LinkedIn or uh do you have an email address that uh people should yeah yeah so certainly I'm on LinkedIn and I check that uh periodically and then uh they can uh you know also uh directly reach out to me as fine which is uh john jo n at gilgamesh pharmaceutical call not not plural but singular uh uh dot com john at gilgamesh pharmaceutical call dot com if you don't mind i would add it to the description of the podcast so that when someone is interested they can directly connect you um did did they did i miss something do we want to add something at the end of the podcast is there a topic a question open that you would like me to ask um no i i don't think so i mean i think we've covered a lot of material um and um i i think that uh you know the uh um i i i think that one of the interesting things about this space is that you know for people that have never uh experienced these sorts of drugs it's almost uh ineffable it's really hard to almost describe the the uh the the the sort of the the the kind of uh you know so the word psychedelic means mind manifesting you know the sort of uh way in which these things are sort of a way uh a way into um you know understanding human consciousness and understanding uh some of the challenges that that people have so um so I think uh you know I'd in encourage people to you know uh um to to read about it and and to you know uh and uh to uh be uh uh you know sort of to look at this uh what looks like a um you know a a true revolution in in in psychiatry you know that uh that this this is going to happen now and uh who who ends up winning the the the race and such is you know anyone's guess at this point but we think that you know Gilgamesh probably has a good a good shot at uh at being uh a major player in the space and you know when we look back now you know a few years from now so no I I think there's no particular uh uh other uh uh questions I think you know we've covered some of the issues around how these uh drugs uh have this way of um of changing uh the brain of of causing neuroplasticity and that you know this is it's interesting because it's a very unusual experience uh uh for psychiatrist because the drugs are both enhancing people's ability to have insight about themselves and at the same time they're having sort of direct biological effects so uh so I think and you know even if they that that there's a way in which those things probably go together in a certain way but there's a psychological or sort of software experience of of these things and then there's this a sort of hardware you know effect on uh on the actual um synaptic um and and circuitry uh of the brain uh that that these things are sort of changing and and um and uh that and so I think it's a very interesting time right now for us because of that fact that you know those are sort of a little bit like you know light's a particle in a wave you know sort of like the they're working through psychological mechanisms but they're also working through you know uh second messenger signaling cascades uh uh and uh and changes in um in the complexity of neurocircuitry that you can read out in neuroimaging uh experiments and such so I I I think that uh we've covered most of the most of the uh excitement here and I think um uh you know I'll be more than happy to to uh chat with folks who if they're if they're interested in hearing more.

Christian Soschner 1:56:15

And I completely agree to what you say that um there is a huge need in society for your products and for your developments. And I'm looking forward to hearing more from your team and uh the clinical results then I think next year when they when they are available and maybe do another episode when you see how the drug works then in the clinics and what the results are and what the next steps are of the company. Yeah well thanks for this it's been a great uh pleasure and and uh and and very enjoyable so I'll I'll I'll look forward to uh uh our our our next podcast episode thank you very much for your time Jonathan and all the best and good luck for your team have a great day thanks a lot bye bye bye did you like the episode then please please please leave a five star review on Spotify and Apple and make sure that you like comment and share the YouTube episode it helps that the algorithm delivers the episode to people who also benefit from it the same way than you did. Have a great day