Pitching prospective investors

The goal is to be persuasive but not aggressive.

It amazes me that despite the scientific basis for dopamine reduction therapy and desperation for a treatment directed against the cause of disease, it's hard to get professionals (investors and physician) to look with us at the data, operational plans, detailed budgets, etc. I understand that the approach may seem nonsensical, but my track record shows I am a serious person.

Because of the contrarian nature of what we are advocating, it makes sense that we see disbelief. But the actual objections can be addressed by science and data. For example, we are sometimes asked to perform studies in non-human primates. I am not crazy about performing such studies, and there is no evidence showing they predict how a drug such as RB-190 will effect people. Often tell us they are not interested but would welcome another meeting after we have clinical data. At that point, we'll have many pursuing us to invest.

While we prefer the a response of "how much money do you need" rather than either of these responses or a flat out "no" we do learn about these investors. Such responses tell us that they are not early adopters or risk takers. So we can prioritize others as we seek the $5MM needed to generate clinical proof-of-concept data.

Of course, it is easy to blame the mindset of the people who are not interested in investing. We spend a lot more time evaluating how we are presenting our story, the data, the opportunity. And often we think about whether our pitch is too simple or too complex, too optimistic or too contrarian. While we need to stick to the data, there are different ways to pitch. Sometimes it feels like a Goldilocks problem. To the same presentation, one day we are told it is too detailed and the next too superficial.

It is easy to make the pitch too complex. If you've watched my videos on line or read the paper published this summer in Journal of Neurology, you can see that I enjoy and understand the science. I wonder whether we should shift to a real simple pitch, one without slides, that simply comments on the current state of Parkinson's care and defines the possibilities we see.

What do you think of a 6-point pitch like this?

1. The problem with Parkinson's is that no one gets better.
2. The state of the art treatment is palliative and is unchanged since the 1960s.
3. We discovered the reason these treatments don't work. And then we discovered a treatment that will.
4. In contrast to the typical scientific breakthrough, we are developing a therapy that is not an incremental advance - it will completely change the landscape.
5. We're talking about a transformative, paradigm-shifting, contrarian approach supported by experimental data in 9 models of disease, for which the FDA agreed we are ready to launch Phase 2 trials.
6. How would you feel to be part of this once in a lifetime opportunity to permanently change the understanding of a common, debilitating, neurodegenerative disease, and in doing, transform the lives of millions?

It will take about 1 minute. I don't want it to seem too aggressive. Do you think this pitch would engage or push them away?

If you think this would be a useful pitch, then please forward it to as many people as you know who may be interested in learning more.

As an update on progress, several people have contacted me asking to be considered as a participant in the first clinical trial. I appreciate your faith greatly. It is a strong motivator for me. When the trial is even close to being ready to launch, I'll announce it here and also post it on clinicaltrials.gov.

Please keep in mind that I will not be the arbiter of who participates. We will negotiate in detail with the FDA the characteristics required for people with Parkinson's to participate. And when the trial launches, it will be up to the Parkinson's experts at each study site to select the participants.

Stay tuned for more information.