[@jackneel] "They Don't Want This!" The Irish Founder Using Chili Peppers to Solve The Fentanyl Epidemic

Link: https://youtu.be/HB6E7TxGXqg

Duration: 87 min

Short Summary

Irish entrepreneur Gareth Sheridan (also known as Gareth Kelly), founder of Neutraband (formerly Avera), discusses developing abuse-deterrent technology for opioid patches by coating them with denatonium benzoate and capsaicin to prevent abuse and accidental exposure, starting with fentanyl as a proof of concept. He shares his bootstrapped business journey from Ireland to a $20M valuation with only $40 in the bank, surviving an SEC investigation, and briefly running for President of Ireland as the youngest nominee. Sheridan emphasizes his philosophy that "with the right mindset, there's no such thing as failure—it's only feedback."

Key Quotes

1. "fentinyl is a synthetic opioid that's 50 to 100 times stronger than heroin" (00:00:28)
2. "2016 to now the market size for fentinel patches if you want to use that as an indicator uh is down about 75%" (00:12:35)
3. "Probably about 20 million. >> And how much did you have in your bank account? >> $40" (00:59:00)
4. "with the right mindset, there's no such thing as failure. It's only feedback" (02:02:48)
5. "We're talking one person every 5 minutes. So, 24 people have died from an overdose since we started this." (02:02:12)

Detailed Summary

Overview

Irish entrepreneur Gareth Sheridan (also known as Gareth Kelly), founder of Neutraband (formerly Avera), discusses developing abuse-deterrent technology for opioid patches that could prevent both abuse and accidental exposure. The interview covers the fentanyl crisis (which claimed 24 overdose deaths during the ~120-minute recording), his bootstrapped business journey from Ireland to a $20M valuation with only $40 in his personal bank account, surviving an SEC investigation, and his brief presidential candidacy in Ireland as the youngest ever nominee.

Neutraband's Abuse-Deterrent Technology

Gareth Sheridan founded Neutraband to revolutionize the safety standards of easily abused medications by coating the back of fentanyl patches with two powerful deterrent agents. Denatonium benzoate—the world's most bitter substance—and capsaicin (red pepper spray) are applied in both immediate and slow-release forms, causing users to instinctively spit out the patch if they attempt to abuse it by chewing, sucking, or smoking it. Used fentanyl patches retain up to 70% of their residual fentanyl content and can be sold on the street for approximately $100, making them a significant abuse vector.

• The technology aims to achieve 90% greater safety while maintaining equivalent drug effectiveness for legitimate chronic pain patients
• Neutraband advocates for a government mandate requiring abuse deterrence in all opioid patches sold in the US
• The company plans to pursue regulatory approval to make the technology mandatory rather than optional
• Avera's threefold goal includes preventing abuse by people with addiction, increasing access for chronic pain patients, and nearly eliminating accidental exposure in children
• Dozens of hospitalizations of children under 5 have been linked to improperly discarded fentanyl patches left within reach
• The technology is applicable to an entire family of opioids including fentanyl and buprenorphine, as well as other addictive medications like methylphenidate
• The company is exploring a buprenorphine patch as a nicotine-patch-style replacement for methadone clinics

The Fentanyl Crisis and Its Death Toll

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 50-100 times stronger than heroin, causing overdose deaths by suppressing the respiratory system while users remain upright due to its lack of effect on balance or equilibrium. Prescription rates for fentanyl patches dropped approximately 75% from 2016 to present due to CDC anti-opioid guidelines and negative stigma, forcing chronic pain patients to seek illegal street sources. During the podcast recording (~120 minutes), 24 people died from drug overdoses in the US—effectively one person every five minutes throughout the interview.

• The anti-opioid clampdown achieved its goal of reducing prescription rates but created an unintended consequence
• Chronic pain patients who could no longer access legitimate prescriptions turned to illegal sources, potentially worsening overall overdose statistics
• The crisis has created a bifurcated problem: over-prescription of the past and under-prescription creating black market demand in the present
• Sherman argues that government-mandated abuse deterrence could address both issues simultaneously

Documentary: The Skid Row Reality

Gareth collaborated with Nick Shirley to create a documentary in Los Angeles's Skid Row area—located just 8 miles from Beverly Hills—interviewing residents about the paths that led them there. The documentary found that an overwhelming number of people interviewed were prescribed opioids without safety mechanisms, became reliant, and eventually ended up in addiction. One story involved a 12-year-old child living with his mother on Skid Row whom Nick helped by putting them up in a hotel temporarily.

• The documentary reveals how legal prescriptions without abuse-deterrent technology can lead to addiction and eventual homelessness
• Skid Row represents a stark contrast to the wealth concentrated in nearby Beverly Hills, illustrating economic disparity in Los Angeles
• The experience influenced Gareth's commitment to developing abuse-deterrent technology as a preventive measure

Pharmaceutical Industry Over-Prescription

The opioid crisis was driven by pharmaceutical companies that over-prescribed medications, pushed drugs on people who didn't need them, and offered major bonuses to sales reps who met quota targets. During the Oxycodone scandals, pill mills prescribed medications like 30-day supplies of OxyContin for routine dental procedures, surgeries, and minor injuries. Peak opioid abuse occurred around 2016, followed by lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and a clampdown on prescription rates.

• Sales representatives received substantial bonuses for pushing opioid prescriptions on patients who didn't medically require them
• Pill mills operated as illegal or quasi-legal operations prescribing opioids for cash payments without proper medical justification
• Suicide rates for chronic pain patients skyrocketed over the last 10 years because they couldn't access adequate pain care
• Patients were told to take Tylenol for extraordinary injuries or cancer pain, pushing vulnerable individuals toward illegal addiction sources
• The industry created a two-track problem: over-prescription causing addiction, followed by under-prescription causing desperate patients to turn to street drugs

Business Journey: From Ireland to NASDAQ

Gareth started his first company at age 22 in Ireland, inspired by his father who wore a nitroglycerin heart medication patch for 20 years—demonstrating the potential for transdermal drug delivery. He won €20,000 from Ireland's Best Young Entrepreneur competition as early funding, which he used to find a manufacturer in China and sell multivitamin patches through distributors in Dublin. The company was eventually sold to a Utah-based company after listing on the OTC market, then later listed on NASDAQ where they raised approximately $8 million by issuing 1.2 million shares to private individuals.

• Gareth built the company without traditional venture capital, relying instead on startup competition prizes and small distributor orders
• He had a business background but no scientific training, yet formulated vitamin patch products himself
• Neutraband acquired 4P Therapeutics in Atlanta, which had developed the initial concept and patent filing for Avera technology
• The company eventually achieved a valuation of approximately $20 million on paper at its peak

The SEC Investigation and Financial Hardship

The company faced an SEC investigation regarding a filing that stated a vitamin patch product would not need FDA approval based on legal and dermatology opinions that turned out to be incorrect in retrospect. During this investigation period, the company was valued at approximately $20 million on paper while Gareth had only $40 in his personal bank account. He lived in an $800/month studio apartment in Columbus with a mattress on the floor and a $100 couch from Amazon, while his wife Heidi worked as a nanny for a wealthy family. He drove for Uber while running the company and was at one point asking family for help with rent.

• The SEC flew Gareth from Columbus to Miami for an in-person meeting, which signaled the investigation was serious and potentially criminal in nature
• Co-founder Sergey had a shouting match with SEC investigators while Gareth maintained a more relaxed demeanor during questioning
• The final settlement was a cease and desist with a no admit, no deny clause, with fines of $15,000-$25,000 each for the individuals involved
• As a result of the investigation, the company now obtains four legal opinions instead of three on regulatory matters to ensure compliance
• The SEC investigation was triggered by incorrect regulatory assumptions about product classification

Early Setbacks and Business Failures

An acquisition of a company in Columbus, Ohio failed when the partner stole back the IP that had been purchased, resulting in a multi-year lawsuit that consumed resources and attention. Gareth was initially offered 5% equity in an OTC-listed company valued at approximately $1.5 million, which was then diluted to worth approximately $15,000 within days after the acquiring company issued billions of new shares to themselves and consultants—a scheme that regulators eventually caught onto with management ousted and a new CEO brought in. Sergey advised against taking a $1 million bridge financing offer as a convertible note, warning it would convert at a problematic rate that would severely dilute existing shareholders.

• The Columbus acquisition failure involved IP theft and extended legal proceedings
• The share dilution scheme demonstrated how OTC-listed companies could rapidly destroy shareholder value through deceptive practices
• Gareth ultimately lost nearly all value from the equity position when the company issued billions of shares to insiders

Personal Support System and Relationships

Gareth credits his wife Heidi with deserving founder-level credit for sticking by during the tough years, never suggesting he get another job, instead saying "Okay, let's regroup. We'll figure it out." He met Heidi while visiting Utah on business, and she worked as a nanny for wealthy families during the lean financial years. Co-founder Sergey became his business partner for 10 years after being connected through Dena. His parents helped with rent for years, sending hundreds of dollars when short, never suggesting he come back home and abandon his entrepreneurial path.

• The support from Heidi and family allowed Gareth to continue pursuing the company without the emotional pressure of family conflict
• Gareth credits surrounding himself with people smarter than him as essential to his success and resilience
• He emphasizes the importance of building a team where each person can contribute their particular strengths

Presidential Run in Ireland

Gareth Kelly briefly left Neutraband to run for President of Ireland, becoming the youngest ever nominee in the country's history. To officially run, a candidate needs four council nominations, and his campaign only received two of the three available nominations from that route, falling short of qualification. He argued that younger presidential candidates could keep issues like housing costs and immigration top of the national narrative, rather than having older politicians view the position as a "retirement position." The Irish presidential nomination process is primarily dominated by older politicians seeking post-career sinecures rather than younger candidates with fresh perspectives on contemporary issues.

• The presidential run required temporarily stepping away from Neutraband operations
• The nomination process requires gathering support from local council members, which favors established political figures
• Gareth's platform focused on representing younger Irish citizens' concerns about housing affordability and immigration policy

Entrepreneurship Philosophy and Mindset

Gareth emphasizes perseverance and cites historical examples: the Wright brothers were told they were mad for trying to fly, Elon Musk was told self-driving cars were impossible, and iPhones and touchscreens were considered mad ideas 30 years ago. He recommends welcoming negative feedback as essential for improvement, arguing it's hard to improve when everything goes smoothly. He believes entrepreneurs building a movement rather than just a company attract like-minded people and better talent motivated by mission rather than just money. The philosophy he credits with his success is that "with the right mindset, there's no such thing as failure—it's only feedback."

• He received what he considered the worst advice—telling him not to develop Neutraband and come up with another idea—which he chose to ignore
• Gareth loves challenges and sees setbacks as opportunities for learning and growth
• He plans to pursue government mandates for abuse deterrence aggressively, arguing only safe versions of opioid patches should remain on the market

Full Transcript

Show transcript

Today's guests may have found the key to
ending the deadliest epidemic in
American history. You say something
hurts. Prescribers kind of have to rely
that you're telling the truth. You might
be prescribed something like a fentinel
patch. It's as easy to abuse as just
chewing tobacco. They will take a patch
and seep it in alcohol. People will
scrape the contents of the patch and
smoke it. A college student from
Ireland, he used the money he made
painting houses to build a company now
fighting the fentanyl crisis. How are
you using chili peppers to fight the
opioid crisis? And so we just took their
existing patch and we added an
additional layer on the back of the
patch again and it contains denatonium
benzoate which is the most bitter
substance on the planet and capsain or
red pepper spray.
>> But after nearly losing everything in a
pump and dump scheme, he rebuilt the
company and is now developing a
technology designed to stop fentanyl
abuse. So the SEC paid you to fly down
to meet up with them because you didn't
have enough money.
>> Yeah. What was the valuation of the
company at that time?
>> Probably about 20 million.
>> And how much did you have in your bank
account?
>> $40.
>> In this episode, we'll expose the dark
machine keeping fentanyl on America's
streets, reveal the technology that
could save millions of lives, and
question why it took a broke Irish
immigrant to build the solution big
pharma never wanted to exist. You're
developing these drugs to save lives.
Profits kind of come with that, but not
in reverse. You're not thinking profits
over people. Gareth Sheridan, welcome to
the Jagu podcast. Yeah, thanks. Great to
be on. Jack,
>> good place to start here. What is
fentanyl?
>> So, fentinyl is a synthetic opioid
that's 50 to 100 times stronger than
heroin. Was primarily, you know, created
for managing chronic pain. The problem
is again, it's 50 to 100 times stronger
than heroin. It's 50 to 100 times more
easily abused and easy to get addicted
to essentially. So, it's a very
effective pain medication, but has a bit
of a negative stigma around it because
it's so easy to abuse even accidentally
or become exposed to even accidentally
or misuse even accidentally. Um, so you
might have the best intentions in the
world to use this for chronic pain, but
unfortunately it has resulted
particularly over the last 10 years or
so in people becoming addicted to it
because they didn't know how much to
take or they lost prescriptions from
their physicians and so on. So people
get prescribed fentanyl.
>> Correct. Correct. There is a difference.
It's very important that we
differentiate between illegal fentinel
coming over the border and prescription
fentinel that manages people suffering
from chronic pain, cancer patients, end
of life care that has been around for
two decades now.
>> So if you had to paint me a picture of
this, what is the most common way
someone gets addicted to fentanyl? Like
what would they be doing? What would be
the series of events in their life? Like
what does that look like?
>> Let's say you were in a very bad car
crash. You had a spinal injury. You had
uh a neurological injury. You were
suffering with pain 24/7. And 10 years
ago, your doctor prescribed you fentinyl
to ease that pain. And you had a patch
that you could wear and it was a slow
drip feed of fentinel into your body to
kind of reduce the the pain levels that
you were feeling on a daily basis. And
then all of a sudden prescription rates
for fentinyl dropped by 75% and your
doctor said you could no longer get a
prescription for fentinel to manage that
pain. But you're welcome to go buy
Tylenol and see if that works. Now
obviously it's not going to have
anywhere close to the same effect and
you're back feeling debilitating pain on
a daily basis. So what do you do? A
thought comes into your mind. I'm just
going to go buy my fentinel from
somewhere on the street. I'm going to
buy it illegally. I'm going to buy what
I think is a correct amount to manage my
pain that falls in line with what I
thought I was taking when I was
prescribed by my doctor and I misjudge
it or you misjudge it and you start
taking too much and then you become
reliant and you become become addicted
and that's you in a fentinel cycle. Now,
when we've interviewed people across Los
Angeles as part of a documentary I done
recently, that that exact scenario
happened to them and that now fuels the
illegal opiate epidemic that we feel we
feel across the country on a on a daily
basis and is in the news on a daily
basis. So, you're addicted to fentinel
because you couldn't get it prescribed
safely anymore and you're also
contributing to the illegal fentinel
that's seen across the country every
day.
And why is fentanyl so addictive?
>> Fentinel is 50 to 100 times stronger
than heroin. Now again, when used
correctly,
there's ways to manage it. It's not as
addictive as it would be if you were to
purchase it illegally and you don't know
how much you're taking. But fentinel
basically interacts with the brain in a
way that it hits your dopamine levels.
You're on a high. You feel really
euphoric on it when you take it, you
know, illegally. And when you try to not
take it or try to come off it, then your
body's craving that dopamine rush and
it's not getting it. So your brain kind
of goes into this fight orflight kind of
mentality that you feel like you need
that opioid again to get that kind of
relief at a neurological level. So it's
very easy to get addicted to it because
you feel like almost you need it on a
daily basis just to function. You try it
once and you do it incorrectly. It's
very difficult to try and wind off that.
Again, it's 50 times stronger than
heroin. So you can imagine heroin
addicts and the pressure they feel to
get their fix of of heroin. Multiply
that by 50, it's not a small it's not a
small amount. You recently did a
collaboration with Nick Shirley and you
guys made a documentary in Los Angeles
Skid Row area. What was that documentary
about? We talked and wanted to learn the
backstory of people that had ended up in
places like Skidro, for example, and
what led to that and was it through
addiction? Was it through drugs? And an
overwhelming response from people that
we talked to was exactly what I just
described to you, that they were given
opioids to manage pain. They were given
opioids that didn't have a safety
mechanism attached to it like what we're
developing and they became reliant on
the opioids. back 10 years ago, you
know, during the the Oxycottton scandals
and when when opioids were really at the
forefront of of scandalous kind of news
headlines, um this is what was happening
all across the country. You had pill
mills popping up. You had people being
given oxycottton for a toothache. These
this is very problematic and the
knock-on effects were we're feeling
today because it gave opioids a very bad
name. We're now trying to fix that and
make it accessible to people that rely
on it and inaccessible to people that
are trying to abuse it.
What was the most heartbreaking thing
you saw on Skid Row?
>> I think the real heartbreaking thing was
just the amount of people in that
situation, you know, 8 miles from
Beverly Hills. Um, that's something I
think that's quite eye opening. Um,
>> how many people?
>> We're talking hundreds if not thousands
of people living rough in in bad
conditions in in conditions that I think
many of them never saw themselves in. A
lot of the times we'd ask people, you
know, did you ever see yourself living
here? Did you ever think that this would
be your situation? One lady in
particular that we spoke to came from a
medical background. Was prescribed
Oxycottton for a particular issue, ended
up beating it um and beating her habit
and through some bad friends was
reintroduced to drugs and became
addicted again. And that was somebody
who understood fully what we were trying
to develop with Avera because she said
if I had been prescribed an opioid that
had a safety mechanism attached to it or
it was very difficult to abuse, I would
never be in this position.
>> And a lot of people that had just ended
up down on their luck in that situation
that had big dreams and aspirations and
are now in that position. There was also
a overwhelming amount of younger people.
You know, there was one child, for
example, was 12 years old um that was
living with his mom and and you know, to
Nick's credit, put them up in a hotel um
for a couple of days and, you know, I
think he posted about it to try and
raise awareness and raise some some
funds for them to try and help them get
back on their feet. But that's one story
from thousands that are in that
position. And this is one section of one
city in America. Um you know, these are
it's all over the country. And I think
there's solutions there. It's just been
ignored for far too long, particularly
by the pharmaceutical industry. I mean,
I know we're a pharmaceutical company,
but we are very patient focused in what
we do. We're trying to have an impact.
You know, I'm a big believer that, you
know, physicians and doctors take an
oath to look after a patient. I don't
think pharmaceutical executives should
be any different. As far as fentanyl, I
think something a lot of people are
confused about is
I mean maybe just me, but when I walk
around LA, I see people like I don't
know almost like in this dreamy like
state where they're not really
conscious, but they're slightly
conscious or sometimes you'll see
someone folded over. uh like just
technically speaking like what is the
fentanyl fold or why are people folded
over kind of dangling when they're on
fentanyl?
>> Yeah. So that's a really good question
because it works. It's got complexities
in how it works basically. So it hits
your dopamine receptors. It makes you
feel euphoric. Makes you feel high.
Makes you feel really good basically. Um
and that's why you'll see people just
walking around in a days. They're just
in they're in La La Land if you want to
use that expression, right? Um they're
just in a very good conscious state of
mind. What opioids and fentinyl doesn't
do is actually affect your balance.
That's controlled primarily in a
different part of your brain at the back
lower back end of your brain and your
inner ear. So fentinyl actually doesn't
reach or or target those areas at all.
So you will see people walking around in
a days and kind of out of it, but
they're not falling over. So they're
losing control of you know in a way
subconscious decision-making and that
would lead into actually fentinyl can
cause a lot of respiratory issues
particularly when we talk about children
who are overdosing on fentinel by
accident for example it affects your
respiratory system we breathe
subconsciously we don't really think
about it right your brain gets a warning
that there's x amount of CO2 in your
blood and it tells your lungs to breathe
but if your brain is in this state of
eup euphoria it's kind of forgetting the
job it has to
So you actually basically your brain
stops sending signals to breathe and
that's how a lot of people die from a
fentinyl overdose. It just hits your
respiratory system essentially. At the
same time in its complexities it'll tell
your body to stop breathing but you
won't fall over in the process you know
and that's why it's it's quite a
dangerous drug especially when I talked
about people that are self-medicating on
opioids that used to rely on it from
their prescriber who can't access it
anymore.
it will be a rapid onset of a lack of
ability to breathe and before they know
kind of even what's happening because
they're in this state of euphoria
essentially um that's how the overdoses
happen. Fentinel takes your brain to a
level where it stops doing its job.
>> Do you know who created fentanyl? The
first fentinel patch was Johnson and
Johnson but they didn't create fentinel
the drug like the the actual compound
itself and that patch duresic is what it
was called was widely successful helped
thousands of people but then quickly
uh when generic versions came out people
with addiction suddenly realized that
these patches could be easily abused I
mean to give you an example on how
they're abused even like it's as simple
as just chewing the patch to take the
residual fentinel out of it and it'll
get you high. How can someone abuse
fentanyl patches and how severe is that
crisis? I think the big issue is
obviously still pills, opioid oral
pills, basically the oxycottton, the
oxycodons, these types of things. Um,
fentinel patches though are problematic
in a sense that a used fentinel patch
can be sold to somebody with addiction
on the street for $100, for example,
after use. um which is about twice as
much as the price would be for a brand
new fentinel patch for somebody using it
to manage pain. So it's as simple as
just taking that patch. There's up to
70% residual fentinel left in the patch
after use in many cases. And like
chewing tobacco, put in your mouth, chew
it, extract the fentinel. People will
take those patches and seep it in
alcohol for example or try and make a
type of tea out of it if you want to
describe it that way and then drink the
concoction. People will actually scrape
the contents of the patch, uh, roll it
up and smoke it. So, there's multiple
roots of abuse, and they're all really
easy, but they all have one thing in
common for the most part, which is that
they're kind of oral or nasal in how
they're approached. So, again, people
will chew it, they'll drink it, they'll
smoke it, and all to get the residual
fentinel out of the patch extremely
easy. Um, and that's been a big problem,
and it contributes to the opioid crisis
that we're we're seeing. Uh, the the
abuse of these types of uh products,
particularly patches. Is it fairly easy
to get fentanyl patches or are they
prescribing them less because of the
abuse? Yeah, prescription rates are way
down. So 2016 to now the market size for
fentinel patches if you want to use that
as an indicator uh is down about 75%.
So prescription rates essentially you
can make the argument are down about
75%. And that comes back on prescribers
not wanting the liability associated
with opioids among, you know, there were
CDC guidelines that were very
antiopioid, which thankfully now is not
the case. They've actually come out with
a new opioid prescribing guideline only
2 years ago. And just the negative
stigma, the media attention just it it
just created havoc in the genuine pain
industry. So those prescription rates
are way down. When patch technology was
first invented, what were the main use
cases? Was it for uh fentanyl withdrawal
patients or were there other types?
>> Traditionally, there were obviously
we're all aware of nicotine patches to
help people wind off smoking. Um we have
issues or other indications like pain
which came around 20 25 years ago when
the introduction of these types of
patches were introduced to help people
manage pain. And uh they've been really
widely successful. But then we ran into
the issue where people realized that
these patches were easily abused. And
then we had the the opioid crisis of
2016 era and it just kind of made a real
negative impact on that industry which
has you know seen a negative outfall
from that and then has resulted in
people just trying to get access to
these types of drugs which were
traditionally successful illegally. If
I'm someone who has children, are they
at danger with the current fentanyl
patches?
>> Yeah. Why?
primarily accidental exposure. In all
good conscience, somebody wears a
fentinel patch. They're not really
familiar even with fentinel or how
strong it may be. They throw it in the
garbage.
Child under the age of five gets into
the garbage one day, takes the patch out
of the garbage, they chew on it, they
get it on their fingers, they put their
fingers in their mouth. It's enough
fentinel actually to cause a reaction
and in many cases death. Um, which is
really problematic. So that's another
thing that our technology would would
tackle. It's risky in a sense that often
people don't know or aren't aware of how
to properly discard these types of
products. And unfortunately that's it's
been a data point that we're looking at
across the states where dozens of
hospitalizations
uh with children under the age of five
have been associated with just an
improperly discarded fentinel patch.
Your company Neutra created a technology
called Avera to help fight the abuse of
fentanyl patches.
How are you using chili peppers to fight
the opioid crisis?
>> Yeah, so that's a good question. Um, I
think if you understand the
accessibility to these types of patches
and how they're abused, it it helps
answer that a bit. So pain is
subjective, right? You say something
hurts, prescribers kind of have to rely
that you're telling the truth. So you
might be prescribed something like a
fentinel patch if you're saying the pain
is unbearable. So there's a combination
of genuine pain patients that are really
in that situation and then people who
are just trying to access these
medications or drugs to use them
incorrectly. Um and once they get their
hands on a fentinel patch uh it's as
easy to abuse as just chewing it like
chewing tobacco. um they will take a
patch and seep it in alcohol for example
to let the fentinel drain out of the
patch and then they'll drink the
concoction or you will have people will
scrape the contents of the patch and
smoke it. Um so they're all kind of oral
or nasal in their approach. So we looked
at that and it was really important that
we developed a technology that was easy
to understand. It couldn't be overly
scientific. It wasn't just for people in
white coats, right? it was for people
with with addiction to understand that
this was not going to be a route for
them to access these drugs as well.
So when we look at these roots um
they're primarily oral or nasal. So
what's something that's easy to
understand? Let's make it taste
horrific, really bad. Let's make these
patches so unbearable to chew anymore
that they'll uh they won't be able to
essentially. Let's make them unbearable
to smoke. Let's make it really really
potent if they tried to seep it in
alcohol. So we coated the back of an
existing patch that was already on the
market. So we partnered with a company
called Candeva Drug Delivery. It's
formerly 3M drug delivery and they had a
generic fentinel patch on the market
already. And they offered their fentinel
patch to us to add this technology and
we've been developing it with them for a
number of years. And so we just took
their existing patch and we add an
additional layer on the back of the
patch again. And it contains denotonium
benzoate which is the most bitter
substance on the planet and capsain or
rep red pepper spray. So we put it in
high dosage form. It's a slow immediate
or it's an immediate release and a slow
release. So you can't wait it out
essentially. And now if you want to chew
the patch you have to chew a combination
of pepper spray and the most bitter
substance on the planet. If you want to
smoke it you have to smoke that. If you
want to try and seep it in alcohol, you
have to drink a combination of the most
bitter substance on the planet and red
pepper spray. It is extremely potent. It
is extremely
extremely unbearable is probably a a
simple way of putting it, but it's not
harmful, non-toxic. Um, food grade
ingredients, but I will tell you for a
fact that your body has like a reaction
to it that you spit it back out. I've
tried it myself personally now without
fentinel on the patch obviously um and
it's not something that is for the
light-hearted and you can imagine that
will make it very difficult for people
with addiction to try and abuse those
patches in those roots. Um, it will also
make the patches theoretically more
accessible for people dealing with
chronic pain because there won't be a
reluctance on prescribers to give access
to this type of drug because it's not
going to be easily abused. And then I
think we'll 100% eradicate accidental
exposure in children. If a child picks
one of these patches up out of the
garbage, they put it in their mouth,
they will spit it back out instinctively
and you'll hear them crying probably
about it. Um, but it will save lives
from accidental exposure. So, it's a
very simple fix to a very complex issue.
And nothing is 100%, nothing's abuse
proof, but if we're going to be nearly
the same price, the exact same
effectiveness, but 90% safer than what's
there on the market today, I would count
that as a win. Hey, really quick. Do you
have a 401k, a Roth IRA, or happen to
have a lot of money in crypto? Because
you're definitely going to want to hear
about this. See, the biggest supporters
of this podcast right now are the guys
over at iTrust Capital. And when they
first reached out to me and explained
what they did, it literally sounded like
a cheat code. See, with their platform,
you can convert your existing 401k or
Roth IRA into one that lets you buy
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and over 80
cryptocurrencies while maintaining the
same tax-saving benefits. Now, of
course, you can start a new IRA with
them if you're bullish on Bitcoin and
want to save on taxes if you ever decide
to cash out. But if you're someone who
already has a lot of crypto and you're
worried about it getting hacked or
stolen, iTrust also offers a PCA
account, which is institutionalgrade
level custody, meaning your assets are
fully insured, ultra secure, and never
sitting on any risky exchanges. So, if
you guys want to get access, just go to
jacknil.com/iritrust
or scan the QR code on screen. Again,
that is jackneil.com/itrust
or hit the first link in the description
for an easy $100 bonus. But anyway, back
to the podcast. So, I think a lot of
people might be thinking,
"Okay, great. You made a patch that
tastes bad." Uh,
but why would the person take that if
they can just get the normal patch? You
know what I mean? That they can just put
in their mouth and chew. Uh, it kind of
reminds me of like I saw something come
out years ago called consent condoms
where it had to be two people opening
the condoms and it's like well why would
someone who doesn't want to have
consensual sexual relationship uh buy
those condoms? It's like kind of stupid
in theory. Uh but this I'm guessing that
there's more to the situation. Uh do you
want to expand upon that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's a good question to
clarify. I think um we're not launching
this product targeting people with
addiction directly. We're launching this
product to make sure that people
suffering from chronic pain can access
this drug. Because if you have this
safety mechanism on the patch,
prescribers won't be as reluctant to
prescribe to genuine pain patients. And
then it also cuts out that secondary
issue where these patches can be resold
to people with addiction and and abuse
that way. So you cut out the
accessibility to this drug for people
with addiction. At the same time, you
increase the accessibility for people
with chronic pain. And then thirdly,
again, and equally as important, you
almost eradicate accidental exposure in
children. M.
>> So the goal is, you know, it's it's kind
of a trifecta in a way. You make these
products very difficult to abuse for for
people with addiction or people using it
incorrectly. As a result, again, you
make it accessible to pain patients and
you wipe out accidental exposure.
>> We also have to assume that doctors
would prescribe your technology over the
previous technology. Would you want the
previous technology to be banned? I
think we have a strong case for a
mandate on abuse deterrence. I mean, if
we're doing exactly what the other
patches do on the market, but we're 90%
safer, why should they still be on the
market?
>> It's in the interests of of the country
that they're not available when when
there's a much safer version. There's a
precedent there when with abuse
deterrence and that's something that
we'll be making a push for. If we're
successful, I don't know, but we'll be
loud about it and we'll try and uh make
sure that only the safe version is
available. We we do have a another
approach we're taking and it's not
really typically seen in
pharmaceuticals. We are going to launch
this pretty much at the same price.
Going to be a very small premium to
account for the cost of the additional
technology. But what you typically see
for a new product coming to market like
this, there'll be a,000% markup or
something and half the insurance
companies will take it and half won't
and it's just kind of messy. But that's
been an accepted norm in the
pharmaceutical industry, right?
We're coming in virtually the same price
with most likely 100% insurance
coverage. So, we're coming in with a
safer version that does the exact same
thing as what's there now. And we won't
be doing it at the expense of patients.
Everybody will have access through their
insurers to this product and it's
non-transferable for a generic
competitor as well. So, this would be a
branded product, not a generic. Um, so I
think we'll see significant market share
with it out the gate because if you're a
doctor, for example,
and a patient can get one or, you know,
a generic version of this patch or our
patch virtually the same price.
Insurance companies are going to take
both, but we're 90% safer. You're going
to prescribe ours all day.
>> So there's a kind of a safe lock added
in there. Whether you get a mandate or
not, we're aggressively coming to the
market. I mean, we don't think these
unsafe versions should be easily
accessible,
>> right? So, the patches aren't for it's
not like a nicotine patch in that you're
trying to beat the nicotine addiction.
It's for chronic pain. It's just a use
case
>> primarily, but we do have a secondary
indication for the buponorphine patch.
That is something we will be exploring
is a nicotine patch type of of product
um to replace methadone clinics. So, we
think there's a wide array of targets
that we can have here. It's primarily
for treating chronic pain in a safe way,
but we do have a pivot with our
buponorphine patch to try and create a
technology that's a bit more modern and
a bit more what we think will be a bit
more successful than a traditional
methadone clinic for for winding people
off opioid use.
>> Right. So, one's for treatment and one's
for uh like recovery essentially, like
trying to get you unaddicted.
>> Yeah, exactly. So the the primary uh
goal with these products is for treating
chronic pain,
>> right?
>> But in a roundabout way, you wind people
off accessibility to the drug that has
them addicted. So there will be an
impact on addiction
um kind of subconsciously with the
product. So because you're you're taking
certain drugs that are typically abused
and you're making them very very
difficult to abuse. So, some people are
just going to not have an alternative
and they won't have another choice but
to wind off their opioid addiction as
hard as it may be. We're going to do our
best to make it as easy as possible
through our secondary products. Um, but
the goal is to just tackle it head on
from all angles because what was really
lost in me over the last 10 years is how
forgotten people with chronic pain
became. It became a sole focus on people
with addiction. And what was overlooked
was people that suffered from chronic
pain who didn't have access to adequate
care that literally were being told to
take a Tylenol for extraordinary
injuries or cancer pain. And that
flushed those people into the addiction
space. But it also what we don't talk
about is suicide rates for people
suffering with chronic pain skyrocketed
over the last 10 years because they
couldn't get access to adequate care. So
that was another kind of heavy fallout
from the mentality around opioids.
When we talk about opioids, somebody
says the word fentinyl or somebody says
the word opioid, we instinctively just
go negative. But if you have a
substantial injury that only opioids can
help, you won't think that way.
And you're not thinking about it to get
high. You're just thinking about it that
you can walk around your apartment. Were
you thinking about it that you could get
up in the morning? That's the sort of
patient we're talking about here.
>> Right. So, if I were someone who wanted
to be treated for chronic pain 20 years
ago, what would that process be?
>> You could be given a derogic patch. It
depends on the the the severity of the
pain. You could have been given a
buprenorphine patch for example. You
could have been given oxycottton.
>> But what changed? Like did it get worse?
Did the introduction of fentanyl make it
that much worse?
>> Not necessarily the introduction of
fentinyl, which is a it's a weird um
kind of dynamic there. What made it
worse was an an industry that over
prescribed opioids, pushed opioids on
people. It's well documented. We've all
seen, you know, the the dopick shows and
everything else.
the types of companies and the types of
uh people that were involved in that
industry at the time were pushing and
pressuring doctors to prescribe opioids
for things that didn't need opioids.
Like you would have somebody going in
for a routine, you know, crown in the
dentist getting a 30-day supply of
Oxycottton, you know, things that years
ago you'd be sent home with a towel and
uh, you know, some painkillers over the
counter. So what really fueled the
opioid crisis was a I think it was a
realization from the industry that they
could get people addicted unfortunately
and that's why often the pharmaceutical
industry has such a bad reputation
because they put profits over people. So
they were pushing these types of drugs
out and offering major bonuses to sales
reps and doing what they could to sell
more and more of these types of products
to people that didn't need them. And
then all of a sudden we found ourselves
in a an opiate crisis, you know, a
pandemic almost, if you want to call it
that, because people didn't realize that
their doctor was giving them something
so addictive. Now, it was primarily
pill form. So even though fentinyl is 50
times stronger than heroin and is an
extremely addictive drug when used
incorrectly, it wasn't really fentinyl
that drove that issue. um it just being
the strongest opioid that is prescribed,
it fell into that negative stigma
naturally.
So that was kind of 2010 to 2020,
somewhere around 2016, I think, is where
the peak was in terms of that abuse
level. And that's when everybody
realized there was an issue. And I think
there was lawsuits, there was jail time,
there was a clampdown on these
prescription rates because people
realized that it was a a scheme
essentially to make money at at patients
expenses.
And because of that, the negative
fallout then was to become very
anti-opioid as a country, right?
Prescribers tried to not prescribe. Um,
the CDC revised prescribing guidelines.
And I get it. We had to look like we
were taking a stern stance on these
overprescribing of opioids, but it it
wasn't fully thought out and there was
genuine patients that were using
everything correctly and on these types
of products and relying on them that,
you know, fell into the mess that was
the opioid scandal. we hit that peak and
we're kind of turning a corner now,
particularly with technology like a
Versa where
we'll make these types of products
accessible, but we'll do it safely. And
you know, these types of patches can't
be overprescribed. These types of things
aren't going to be pushed on people with
a toothache. I think we'll be careful
this time around. And it's easy to be
careful when you take out the ability to
abuse the drug as easily.
I mean, there's drugs on the market
today that are, you know, wildly
dangerous in their own right. You know,
it's not just opioids. Opiates just have
that stigma. Like, I'm not sure how many
people are aware of the effects on your
liver if you take too much Tylenol.
Tylenol and alcohol is a vastly
dangerous concoction for your liver. But
how many people go out on a Saturday
night, get drunk, and take Tylenol
Sunday morning? You know, it's
normalized. It doesn't have that same
negative stigma, that same bad rep. But
opioids do because of the name. If
opioids was named something else in the
morning, I don't know if the bad rep
would follow it if it was doing the
right work. What do you think people
most misunderstand about the way big
pharma works?
>> Big pharma is obviously another bad
word. People don't necessarily trust big
pharmaceutical companies. They don't,
you know, it's a it's a hard stigma,
right? And we're not big pharma. We're
just a pharmaceutical biotech company
trying to do good in an industry full of
people with bad reputations. I guess I
think the darkest part of the machine
and there's definitely a feeling in it
that when you get to a point that people
are priced out of care that's
problematic for me. Again, I I talk
about, you know, doctors taking an oath.
As a pharma company and as a pharma
exec, you should be doing the exact same
thing. People come first. You're
developing these drugs to save lives
essentially in many cases and you know
profits kind of come with that but not
in reverse. You're not thinking profits
over people. You shouldn't be thinking
that way anyway. You know I'm reminded
often
there's an old case study that I learned
about in college and maybe I won't name
the exact car manufacturer and won't get
into any sort of details like that but I
think it was in the 70s. Um, this
particular car manufacturer
had a issue with the brakes in one of
its cars and they worked out that
the cost of a recall would have been
more than the cost paid out to the
families of people who died in crashes.
And that stuck with me forever. When I
built a farmer company, I said I was
never going to price people out of care.
I was never going to have a premium
product uh charging 100% premiums or you
know versus competitors at the expense
of patience. We're going to come in and
we're going to show how pharmaceuticals
can be developed right with patients in
mind and all of our shareholders are
going to do great in the process but
it's not going to be at the expense of
patients and I think that's often
forgotten on the industry.
So big companies in the pharmaceutical
industry care about their P&L, their
profit and loss, and they don't really
care as long as they're profiting like
who dies and what happens to them.
>> I mean, I can't come out and say that
directly, but that's certainly the
mentality and feeling I think people
have, especially if someone's suffering
from cancer, for example. I mean the
financial impact that has on them for
the rest of their lives or for their
families or whatever it may be when in
certain circumstances I'm sure it
doesn't have to be the case. Um, I think
these companies are so big now that they
have shareholders to answer to, they
have boards to answer to, and it's it's
run
um, you know, it's run basically looking
at numbers, but people aren't numbers.
You know, people are people. And I think
that's what's a lot of uh, you know,
patients maybe feel certain c certain
circumstances that if they're priced out
of care or they can't afford their
medications. And I know it's the case
for thousands of people that they can't
afford their prescriptions.
>> Can you break that down for me? So
priced out of care, like what are the
most common things that are overpriced
and like as someone who's building a
pharmaceutical company, what are the
margins on these things? Like how much
does it cost to make a bottle of Xanax
perhaps? How much does it cost to make
that? And how much do they sell it for?
>> Well, I can give you an example using
our numbers, right? We're coming in at
generic pricing almost, right? a small
premium to cover the additional tech and
our margins at what many people would
deem lower prices is still 60 70%.
So when it's typical for a big pharma
company to come in and charge a premium
of a,000% their margins have to be I
can't say for sure but their margins
have to be significantly higher than
that again
>> so that's common a premium of a,000%.
Well, you had the situation, what was it
a number of years ago, where Pharma bro
purchased a certain drug and I think he
was around a,000% premium or he
increased the price by 1,000%, held the
patent on it. I don't know the exact
story, but it was the only drug of its
kind. And you know, he made the argument
that I think that the increase in price
was to fund additional research, but
you know, ultimately that priced people
out of care. So, how much does your
product cost? We don't have final
pricing on it just yet, but a typical
patch like this would cost about $40.
>> And if you were purchased right now by
a big company, what would you guess they
would sell it for?
>> Hard to say. It's hard to say, but I
don't think it would be unreasonable
to estimate $200.
>> Interesting. So, but you know, we've had
people that are aware of our company
say, "Oh, no, you should sell this for
like $200 or $300. It's fine." I mean,
that's that's what you do in this case.
And they're almost taken back when we
say, "Why would we do that?" Because if
we increase the price to $200 or $300,
we probably lose 30% insurance coverage.
That's 30% of people that need access to
this drug that won't have it. And we'll
be great. We'll get more money in the
company, maybe. Or why don't we approach
it different for once and instead of
just trying to get market share, why
don't we come in at virtually the same
price, 90% safer than what's already on
the market. Let's take the whole thing.
Let's take the whole market and let's
make this the new safety standard
>> and that will put matters on people and
that will put manners on competitors and
and it's a different approach. We're not
coming in for market share. We're coming
in for the market
>> and we're not doing it at the expense of
patience.
Are you afraid that if you did
capitalize the entire market, you would
have pressure from any shareholders, any
equity stake members to increase prices?
>> No, I don't think so. No, I think um we
have a very loyal shareholder base.
We're all on the same mission together.
We're all aware of our strategy. It
actually when you run the numbers, if we
were to come in and try and take 20%
market share but charge a bigger premium
on the product, we actually do better
financially as a company if we don't
charge that huge premium and we just
take a majority market share. And it's
nice to be able to go to bed at night
knowing that you're not doing that at
the expense of patients. We're in a very
it's a very unique situation and it's
quite niche in a sense that we're going
to do great for our shareholders.
They'll all be really happy, but we're
going to do great and save thousands of
lives in the process. And that's twice
the happiness. You know, we're not doing
it at the expense of people getting
priced out of care. I think that's the
most important thing here. And that's
often what we see and kind of deemed to
be forgotten. Now, I can't say I think
actually big pharma, if you want to
describe it that way, have turned a
corner and are their their mentalities
are improving and you know, the approach
they take is better. And I know a lot of
them offer uh payment assistance to
patients because I think we you know it
peaked a number of years ago where
people were just bitterly frustrated
with the setup and the the system. So I
think they're turning the right corner.
But we got to keep heading that
direction now. And if we can, you know,
be at the forefront of that and kind of
act like what our type of company should
act like, then we'll we'll all be better
for it.
What's the most important moment from
your childhood to understand why you
built your company?
>> The one that stands out, I guess, I
think I must have been 12 or 13 and all
my friends were getting the new Nokia
3310 or whatever it was, like the new
Nokia phone. And I asked my parents if I
could get the same one. I just said,
"Can I get the new Nokia 3310?" And my
dad turned around and said, "Of course
you can. Yeah, no problem. What days do
you want to come to work?" And I just
taken back a little bit and I was
thinking, "What?" And he said, "Oh, you
can of course you can get it. When do
you want to come earn your money and
then you can go buy it?" And um my dad
had a painting company. He was a
painting contractor. And I just said,
"Okay, we'll go over the weekend, I
guess." And he said, "No problem." And I
know he brought me to the most miserable
job that he had on his his list that it
wasn't outside. It was a cold like
freezing day. We were painting window
sills. And I know he threw me in the
deep end basically and you know whenever
he's kind of reminded of this story or
is talking about it you know apparently
I turned around and said you know do you
do this every day and he said yeah of
course I do and if you don't want to do
this every day then you don't want to
answer to somebody and go and build your
company work on your terms and remember
how hard it was to raise this money for
your phone and went to work for two or
three days with them got paid a50 a day
or 50 a day at the time can't remember
Exactly. And went and bought that phone
and I held on to that phone like it was
a piece of like a bar of gold, you know,
and we all had the same phone. My
friends had the same phone, but that my
phone felt a bit more special because I
knew how hard it was to get that phone.
So, I thought at the time I thought, you
know, this is terrible. Why would why
would they do that? It was only when I
got a bit older I realized kind of the
lesson in that that you don't take the
value of a dollar for granted. you know,
it's hard to make money and when you do
kind of earn it, you hold on to it and
you feel that bit better about it and
you feel like you've achieved something.
And I think that's a mentality that
we've had with this company. Um, and it
kind of fell into my entrepreneurial
career, I guess, if you want to describe
it that way. That's the lesson I always
go back to that I'll never take the the
value of a a dollar for granted anyway.
I know how hard it is to make it. And
>> do you still have that phone?
>> I think I do still have that phone.
Yeah. It's in a drawer somewhere. I
mean, that's again, that was my first
that was my first big purchase myself.
So, yeah. And it's probably still
probably still has battery. It was a
Nokia back then, so it's indestructible.
>> Yeah.
>> Your father, he
he has a heart condition, right?
>> He takes a nitro uses a nitroglycerin
patch. It's a heart medication. Um, kind
of widens the the veins and the arteries
and it's a very successful patch
technology actually. It's been around
for decades now as well. So, he's been
on that for, I want to say, 20 years. It
was actually the original inspiration
for the company cuz I saw him wearing
that one day and I was thinking, "Wow,
if you can take heart medication through
a patch, it's obviously quite trusted.
Why aren't we using that for other
things?" Like, I got very in into the
idea of diabetes medication through a
patch because how uncomfortable it must
be for a diabetic to take an injection
every day, even though I know plenty get
used to it. I'm sure plenty don't. I got
really obsessive with that idea.
and it was a bit ahead of its time. It
really wasn't there wasn't much of a
technology that could do that at the
time, but there is now. We're actually
exploring that in in neutrand as
particularly for pediatrics. So, if you
think of a child that has to, you know,
take insulin every day, maybe they don't
have to take an injection anymore. Maybe
in a few years time they can wear a
Peppa Pig sticker and it's fun for them,
but little do they know they're getting
a dose of insulin or exenitide at the
same time. These are the types of things
that we're we're going to work on as a
company as well. And there is
theoretically, I think, ways to achieve
that. So, it's exciting. You know, the
future is exciting for Neutra as well.
If we make a big dent in the opioid
crisis with our first line of products,
wouldn't it be great to make a big dent
in the diabetic market, particularly
with children?
That's interesting. Um, this is super
off topic, but have you heard of insam?
>> Insam. It's like a medication that
really rich people take. It's like
$10,000 a month. Sam Bangman Freed was
taking it when he was running FTX. Okay.
Have you heard of this? But
>> is it a methylenadate patch? Is it
similar to that?
>> It probably is similar to that, but it's
like its own thing. I don't know what
insim stands for. But it was weird to me
because my friend, he takes it. He's
very into pharmaceuticals. Uh, and once
he made enough money, he's like, I'm
taking this [ __ ] But it I was like, I
wonder why it's in patch form. Like I
wonder if it's uh if it's easier to do
patches or if it's easier to do like
pills. I think if it's if it's similar
to methylenadate for example um it's the
slow delivery slow release rate over
time. So if it's it's for people with
ADHD which I know is rampant and that's
you know rich people space. Um if it's
an ADHD issue
>> typically when you take something orally
you'll kind of hit a peak and then
you'll get this kind of comedown on it.
You take it in a patch, it's more
gradual in its delivery.
>> Do you sleep with a patch or you take it
off right before bed usually? I guess
maybe with something like a um
>> methinidate uh patch, you might not
sleep with it or would you?
>> It's really it's on a case by case basis
really.
>> Um yeah, but like but the nitroglycerin
patch that my dad wears for example,
that's a 24-hour patch.
>> So
really just depends on people's
tolerance for things as well. But
certain patches are definitely 24.
Actually, fentinel patches can be I
think up to three days in a row without
taking it off. So, um
>> that's interesting. I I would assume
that medication would be like better to
be taken in a patch if like you're
taking anything that wears off. You know
what I mean? Like a lot of people who
take stimulants, it's like they have it
for a few hours, then they like get a
crash from it. Or like even caffeine.
I'm sure there are caffeine patches.
>> There are. I mean, there are caffeine
patches. They don't typically I mean
they kind of go through phases of
popularity I feel like these caffeine
patches um but patches in general offer
a huge benefit right it's not just the
kind of release rates that you see but
it doesn't have the same negative impact
on your stomach you don't have to digest
it that way it doesn't have um kind of
those sort of reactions a lot of drugs
can be hard on your stomach for example
or hard on your liver so when you're
taking it straight into the bloodstream
it's just a different way of delivery
that in and often many cases can just be
better for you. So, I'm sure that's part
of the reason as well with the, you
know, the hyper wealthy people taking a
$10,000 patch.
>> I think it does something where I can't
remember exactly. It just always keeps
the dopamine levels high and it's just
consistent, which makes sense that it
would be in patch form.
>> Yeah, but isn't that isn't that
problematic that we're talking about a
$10,000 patch?
That just falls right back into the
previous conversation we had. No, I mean
that should not be I can tell you for a
fact that the cost of that patch is
nowhere near $10,000.
So if they they just know their market.
Whoever selling it knows their market
and people are willing to pay it. So
I'll have to research that a bit more.
So Gareth, your company is listed on the
NASDAQ
valued at tens of millions of dollars.
Uh how did you take a company public
with zero investors?
not easily is the simple answer. It was
kind of a theoretical approach that we
had that we thought would work um and
hadn't really been done successfully
before. So I started the company in
Ireland originally and spent a couple of
years trying to get it off the ground
and you know with varying levels of
success and non-success and you know we
had won some startup awards we had you
know developed a bit of a you know
reputation and a small customer base. I
was originally selling like vitamin
patches. Um I started in my final year
in college so 22.
>> It was actually my thesis at university.
It was a thesis around delivering
medication inspired by the patch my dad
was wearing.
>> And the more I was writing that thesis,
the more I was thinking, this looks like
a business plan to me. I mean, I'm just
going to go scrap that thesis idea. I
think I did my thesis on like I had to
do I had to pull it together in like 3
days. So, I did it on like corruption in
Italian football or something. Just
filed it, submitted it, see you later.
And I have now a business plan that I'm
going to go and start right out of
college. And so graduated uh all my
friends went into industry becoming
accountants, you know, lawyers,
whatever. And I went painting houses for
my dad's company and putting money aside
to try and build what I thought was
going to be a game-changing company,
basically. And it was a little bit of a
learning curve. I just thought everybody
was going to see the idea I had.
Everyone was going to think it was
great. I was going to be thrown money
and we were going to build this big
amazing company and it would be simple.
>> Did you want investors
>> at the time? Probably. Um but luckily
never really got to the point where it
was really investable early stage I
think. Um you know I started struggling
to really get it off the ground and then
I just said I need to you know raise
some capital some way. So I started
entering startup competitions that came
with prize money. So I got €20,000 euro
from Ireland's best young entrepreneur.
I got uh a small injection of cash then
from a a local enterprise office. I won
other national awards which drew
attention from some distributors who
place small orders.
But the product was a little bit
premature I think.
>> What vitamins?
>> It was like a multivitamin
>> in a patch form.
>> Yeah. And it was maybe at the time um a
little bit naive from a scientific
standpoint. I didn't have a scientific
background. I had a business background.
I formulated the products myself. I
found a manufacturer in China. I got it
shipped over to Dublin and I went
knocking on doors trying to sell it.
These vitamin patches, it just didn't
sell through like I thought it would.
Sold a little bit here and there. I was
wasn't enough to make a living really.
But I caught the attention of a company
in Utah who became very interested in
it. And I thought, great. Um, you know,
this is the ticket now. I mean, let's
let's start selling together. And that
relationship just kind of fell apart. I
actually ended up selling my company to
them after they they listed to go public
on the OTC market.
>> What's the OTC market?
>> So OTC market is the over-the-counter
stock market. So it's basically the
penny stocks. It's the ones that are a
little bit less regulated than the major
exchanges like NASDAQ or New York.
>> You know, a lot of companies use it
because they haven't reached a big
enough stature to list on a major
exchange. So, they'll list there and and
you know, they'll trade in good faith
and they'll do what they can to grow.
But, it's it's also where, you know, the
pink sheets are that could be 5 cents a
share today and $30 a share tomorrow.
Just it's a little bit tricky in that
sense. And so they listed on the OTC
because they didn't qualify to list on a
major exchange
>> and they were trying to get like in
theory someone who puts their company on
one of these exchanges is trying to get
capital from retail investors.
>> Yeah. Primarily trades retail. Most
institutions won't touch it. Yeah. So
it'll trade retail. You'll you know
sometimes
>> is that the main mechanism like just so
you can get capital like do if I buy
$1,000 of your company do you does that
money go in your bank account? does not
if you buy it on an exchange. So, if you
directly invest in the company, you
know, it it'll give companies the
ability to raise money privately and
say, "Well, our share price is $4. Uh
we'll let you directly invest in the
company at 350." And it gives them that
ability. So, if you buy $10,000 of our
company, which is on the NASDAQ now, um
you're buying it in most cases from
another individual who's selling it. So,
you're just trading. It's just
exchanging.
>> Well, who bought it first? So you sold a
percentage of equity to the exchange.
>> So if we when we listed on the NASDAQ
for example, we raised through an
institution $8 million thereabouts. And
that was directly into the company. But
to raise that $8 million, we issue at
the time, I don't know, 1.2 million
shares to these private individuals who
then can go on the exchange and sell
those shares if they want,
>> right? And then the exchanges want the
shares so they can make money off of
transaction volume.
>> Yeah. Like they'll they'll make money
that way. They'll make money by listing
fees. Uh and just generally there's
there's tons of different mechanisms.
Like Robin Hood, for example, is feeless
trading to an extent, but they make
money through settlements. So there's
always like a couple of cents here and
there between buyers and sellers that
kind of they'll be able to pocket. And
when there's millions of trading happen
a day, um, you know, that adds up very
quickly.
>> So you before you were a public company,
you had sold your company.
>> Mhm. Yeah.
>> Tell me the story then.
>> Yeah. So this company that had listed on
the OTC and I was a bit naive back then.
Um, you know, a young business graduate,
thought I knew it all. Uh, thought I had
all the answers. You know, business was
easy. They said, "We want to purchase
your company. We'll give you 5% equity
in the new public company." and we'll
own your product and your you know IP
and we'll launch it and try and market
the product in Asia and you know sold a
dream basically and I was like 25 26 at
the time and I was thinking wow my the
shares the 5% equity that I was going to
get in this company I think was worth
about a million and a half and I was
thinking wow 25 one and a half million
business is easy I'll just start another
company sell it again you know fall into
that kind of cycle so I did the the
transaction and then a couple of days I
don't even know if it was a couple of
days later that company had issued I
think billions of shares new shares that
didn't exist when we did our deal. So
that diluted me down to not point not
not how many zeros fit on a calculator
type percentage when I was at 5%. And my
shares were now worth like 15 grand. So
I had in the space of a couple of days
become a millionaire
and in the space of a couple of days
later had sold my company for $15,000.
And I was thinking again naively, oh,
you know, it's all part of the master
plan. Surely, I mean, there no way they
were going to do that to me.
>> Who did they issue the shares to?
>> Themselves, consultants, like you name
it. Just it was just a very
>> So, it's a clever way to devalue
the money that you had in the company
and they also acquire yours.
>> Yeah, I was an afterthought really. They
used me, I think, mostly for a press
release that it looked good that they
bought this company. But these guys were
just issuing shares and selling into the
market, I think, and they were just
making they were pocketing money
themselves. Anyway, it became a problem.
Regulators got involved. They caught on
to it. The management was kind of
ousted. A new CEO was brought in. Um,
you know, I was kind of collateral
damage really with with what happened.
Did they try to make you CEO?
There was a conversation about that.
Yeah, I think that was uh when I think
back on that, I was thinking great,
yeah, I'm going to be CEO of a public
company, but little did I know and only
later in life, I was like, oh, they were
trying to make me the the fall guy, you
know, which would have just been
like unfixable from a reputation
standpoint when everything kind of when
the roosters came to rooster, whatever
the expression is, you know. Luckily, I
just never got mentally to the place
where I accepted that. I thought it was
great. I was trying to almost convince
myself, but you just, you know, when you
just have that feeling in the back of
your head, it's like too good to be true
kind of stuff. And so, I didn't do it.
And I kind of just got into this state
for a while of just feeling like I
thought I was still going to work with
them. I thought everything was going to
work itself out. The new CEO was going
to fix things. Everything was going to
be fine. And I just kind of got a little
bit complacent and waiting for things to
just, you know, hopefully turn a corner.
And I was wrong. And then I remember it
was like a cold Tuesday rainy afternoon
in Dublin and a mutual contact that I
had made in Utah had reached out and he
said, "I know this lady Dena who is
flying to Ukraine has like an 18-hour
layover in Dublin. Nothing might come
from it, but I think you should meet her
and just tell her your story and tell
her what you're doing uh and see what
happens." And I remember just saying,
"Yeah, okay. Thanks for the
introduction." and then hanging up and
saying, "I'm not going to that." Like,
that sounds awful. Well, this random
lady with a layover in Dublin. It's it's
miserable outside. I'm cold. I'm, you
know, riddled with self-pity. And
something in my brain just said, "Get
over yourself. Go take the meeting." At
the very least, you know, it's another
connection. You don't know what might
come from it. And so, I went sat down
with Dina and told her the story, told
her the company I was trying to build.
And she said, "That's really
interesting. and I need you I need to
introduce you to a guy called Sergey
who's now the chairman of the company
business partner for 10 years and tell
them about what you're doing and what
company you have and I'll set up a call
and so we left the meeting Dina set up
the call I think next day day after and
I got on Zoom or Skype at the time and
was telling Sergey about the company and
you know he was like oh it's very
interesting I think I might have an idea
for this and I just said great and then
at the end of the call I said oh by the
I sold it. Don't really have it right
now, but I think maybe I don't know.
Maybe we can get it back. Or maybe we
just I think I said to him, I didn't
have a whole lot, so we can just do the
exact same thing again and call it
something different. And he just goes,
"No, go get your company back and then
we'll talk." And I think it was like a
test. Like, have I got the the stones
basically to to fight for what was
really mine and get it back? And so
that's what I did. I just reached out to
the new CEO that was there, explained to
him what happened and I just said, you
know, the decent thing here to do would
be just to sign my company back over and
thankfully that he he just said, "Yeah,
I agree." So, it's just lucky he was a
nice guy.
>> Yeah, pretty much. I just lucky that I
don't think he wanted to deal with it
and like in in a way. I mean, it wasn't
like it was a huge thing for them. It
wasn't there wasn't like IP associated
with it. It was just a brand that they
had going to bought and they were going
to sell in Korea, right? And so I flew
out to Salt Lake and sat down with him.
And he just said, "Yeah, and you know,
I'll sign it back over and let's see,
maybe we can work together down the
line." And I said, "Yeah, no problem. No
way working with you guys again, but um
you know, whatever I need to do to to
get it back." And I did. And so that led
to organizing a meeting with Sergey to
sit down and and talk about it more and
make a plan. And it was Thanksgiving of
2015.
I had started seeing a girl actually who
is my now wife, you know, on visits to
Utah with this company. Um, Heidi is her
name. And
we, Sergey said, uh, I can meet you in
Las Vegas in, you know, around
Thanksgiving. And I said, Thanksgiving?
You're not going to spend it with your
family? And he goes, no, usually I go on
a scuba diving trip or something around
this time, but that got cancelled. and
my in-laws make a really bad turkey. So,
I'm looking to get out of Orlando and do
something else. And so, myself, Heidi,
we drove to Vegas from Salt Lake and met
with Dina and Sergey and we sat down and
we formulated a plan in theory that we
would take all of the ideas
and to avoid raising expensive money at
the time, which would have been kind of
an angel round, which would have been a
huge amount given that we didn't have a
huge amount to to offer. Um, we decided
that we were going to, you know, pull
together some money and list the company
on the OTC,
essentially what that other company had
done in in in Utah. And but we were
going to do it right. And we were going
to use it as a means to build the
company using stock in place of cash. So
we would start buying up smaller patch
companies using it the trading stock to
do so uh instead of raising expensive
money. And so we started a multi-year
plan of acquisitions using shares as an
OTC company. Uh the biggest kind of most
important one was an acquisition of 4P
therapeutics in Atlanta. And they had
developed the initial concept and patent
filing for what is now the Avera
technology that we were developing to
tackle the opioid crisis. So you did a
massive roll up with a company as the
parent company and essentially
issued them shares. Would they sell
immediately or would they just be a part
of the
>> They just came under as a wholly owned
subsidiary. So the individuals would get
shares in the company. For the most
part, they wouldn't sell. I don't know
where their sales records are today, but
at the time we all basically said we
were going to take this journey together
as shareholders in a bigger company and
let's aim to get listed on the NASDAQ
cuz it's your it's in your best interest
as a smaller company to be acquired by
someone doing a rollup because you'll
get a higher multiple if in an exit
scenario or it'll just be worth more if
it's on the NASDAQ.
>> Yeah, exactly. 4P had developed what is
going to be a really great technology,
but it needed additional funding. It
need like we couldn't really finance
heavily the Aversa technology till we
listed on the NASDAQ because that gave
us the ability to raise millions of
dollars. When we were on the OTC that
was much tougher um to bring in any sort
of financial raises. We did a couple of
small raises that helped us with
purchases like that um but nothing to
the level that we were able to do on the
NASDAQ. How many companies have been
listed on the NASDAQ in the last like
few years that didn't take outside
funding? Is your store unique in that
way?
>> Yeah, I mean we took outside funding but
not anywhere close to the levels like
when we listed on the NASDAQ we raised
money that day.
>> But most companies will go back three,
four, five times a year sometimes.
>> I guess how many you're bootstrapped
until that point?
>> I would say we're bottom 1%. to in terms
of bootstrapping. I'd say we're bottom
1% in terms of compensation for
executives.
>> So, how do you make money during this
time?
>> We have a subsidiary and we've just been
very careful with how we spend money.
So, we've raised money with existing
shareholders as recently as last year,
but we haven't raised it with
institutions on Wall Street since, you
know, a number of years now.
>> I guess if you were reinvesting
everything, like how did you stay
afloat? You had said something along the
lines of you were driving Uber while
running the company.
>> Back to kind of building the company, we
we came up with that idea that we'd
start buying smaller companies, but we
were very reluctant to to take money. We
actually got offered at one point a
million dollars as like a bridge
financing and it was going to be a
convertible note that when we listed it
would convert to stock and blah blah
blah. It was just a bit messy. And I
thought, "Wow, a million dollars. I
mean, that's going to help us so much
with what we need to do and what we need
where we need to go." And it was Sergey
in fairness to him just said, "We can't
touch that money." And I was like, you
know, living if we were taking a
paycheck from anywhere we could get it.
>> We were living paycheck to paycheck. And
he just said, "That's going to come back
to bite us in 2 years time, we can't
touch it." And I just said, "Okay, we
won't do it then." And we didn't take
it. And he was right. It would have
converted at a stupid rate. And you
know, that person would have been a
major shareholder and a massive
headache. And um that was another kind
of learning curve. But
we actually
got to a point where we acquired one
company in Ohio in Columbus.
That went south. Relationship fell
apart. They actually from under our nose
kind of stole back the IP that we
purchased from them. It ended up in a
lawsuit for that lasted a number of
years and it was just a another learning
curve basically. But it was while I was
in Ohio. Um I was driving for for Uber
and we actually had filed to list on the
NASDAQ. We we then ended up in a
position where
you know in good faith we got into an
SEC problem. And I you know when we
listed on the OTC we said we're going to
act like a NASDAQ company. We're going
to do everything right and everything by
the book. we're going to grow this uh
idea through acquisitions and then we'll
grow big enough that we list on a major
exchange like NASDAQ.
And then while we're in Ohio, the SEC
contacted and basically said, we're
doing an informal investigation on the
company. Can you provide this
information? And I just thought like
what's that about? You know, like we've
we've done everything, you know, right
in in our minds.
And unfortunately, despite the fact that
we had taken an opinion from two lawyers
and also a dermatologist on the
regulation of one of the products we
planned to create, it was an expansion
on that vitamin patch, I think.
So, we filed in one of our SEC filings
that it would not need FDA approval
because that's what we were told from,
you know, expert opinions. Um, and it
just happened to be wrong. And the SEC
have this, you know, mentality that it
doesn't matter if you did it on purpose
or not. If you're wrong, you're wrong.
and you you you pay the price.
So, I remember I was sitting in a car
park. Uh we had no money. We were
actually at the point like where I was
calling home embarrassingly asking for
help with rent and like that was became
quite a frequent thing and I got a call
on my phone and it said something on it
like US government or something and I
was thinking oh what's this like this is
weird and I answered and the lady said
hi my name is whatever Lisa I'm with the
securities exchange commission in Miami
just wondering if you can come in and
answer a couple of questions and I just
thought yeah no problem. Um, where is
your office again? Did you say? And she
said, "We're in the Miami office." And I
just kind of said to her, "Uh, yeah,
that's no problem, Lisa. Um, the only
problem is I don't think I have the
money to fly down there." And you know,
there was kind of this pause for a
second and then she says, "Is this
Garage Sharon, CEO of Neutraand, your
publicly listed company?" And I said,
"Yeah." And she was like, "You can't fly
down to Miami?" I said, "No, I'm to be
honest, I'm sitting in a car park right
now, ready to go to do my other job, and
I don't have the means to get down
there." And she just said, "Hold on a
second." And then came back on the phone
a couple of minutes later and said, "Uh,
we'll fly you down and put you up." And
that's kind of when I knew we were in
trouble. Um, and so I was like, "Oh, so
the SEC paid you to fly down to meet up
with them because you didn't have enough
money?"
>> Yeah. They flew me to Miami from
Columbus, Ohio. What was the valuation
of the company at that time?
>> On paper, probably about 20 million.
>> And how much did you have in your bank
account?
>> $40.
>> So
>> So were you where were you living? Were
you
>> We had a a studio apartment in Columbus
that was I think like $800 a month that
was basically I was scrging money
together. My wife was nannying for
another family and we were just pulling
money in piece by piece to try and make
it work. We we had a studio apartment
with a mattress on the floor and a $100
couch off Amazon and that was it.
>> Just in the corner and we kind of just
lived like like two broke college
students building the company basically.
Um
>> so yeah, basically Sergey got the same
call. Um, Sergey was very Sergey's, you
know, a bit more, we have this good good
cop, bad cop kind of situation where
he's a bit more fiery and a bit more uh,
you know, gung-ho and I think I'm a bit
more relaxed. So, he went in first, went
down to Miami. He said that they ended
up getting in like a shouting match with
each other and basically came out and
said, you know, I don't know what
they're after and, you know, good luck
uh, when you go in, but maybe you should
win with a lawyer. So, we actually found
a lawyer that took shares in the company
to come represent me and thankfully he
did because I went in for like a 4-hour
interrogation then as well. And I came
out saying, "Well, I don't know what
they're looking for either, you know,
like we'll see what happens here. Maybe
it's just I kind of naively convinced
myself that it was just housekeeping.
They were just making sure we were doing
everything right. You forget about the
fact that they actually flew you down to
Miami and put you up in a hotel. That's
usually not how people are treated if
they're doing something right." Couple
weeks passed and then we got a letter
that basically said we've turned the
investigation formal and uh you know we
believe you've broken whatever law or
whatever guidance.
We just thought, you know, that they
were wrong and we kind of went back and
forth a bit and eventually we spoke to
an FDA attorney who was like a
specialist in the area and he said, "No,
look, this product would be considered a
drug because uh the method that it's
delivered. It doesn't matter if the
ingredient itself is a supplement." Uh,
and we had basically filed that we
thought it would be supplement and
wouldn't need FDA approval. So we ended
up getting to a position where we had to
hire an ex SEC enforcement attorney,
Joe. He spoke their language. We went
back and forth for a while. You know, at
one stage they were threatening to I
think Joe called up at one point and
said, you know, they want $75,000 each
in a fine. You can never trade a share
under $5 again and you can't be an
executive or director in your company.
And I just thought, well, that's like
that's like Bernie Maidoff type stuff.
for me and I don't think that deserves
that sort of treatment but okay and so
we can surely we can't accept that like
that would have been career ending kind
of stuff. So he kept at it and
eventually got to the point where it was
a a cease and desist no admit no deny
settlement. They were aware of the fact
that we relied on information in good
faith but it was still wrong. So, we
acknowledged that it was wrong and I
think maybe they acknowledged I can't
say for sure. Maybe they acknowledged
that we really didn't mean to be wrong.
But the the real kind of settling point
was that the shares never really traded
on the information. There was nobody
harmed essentially um because I think it
happened before the stock started
trading on the OTC.
>> So, we ended up paying a a fine of 15 or
25,000 each um which was a huge amount
of money at the time. didn't have that.
Obviously, uh we had a shareholder in
the company who said he would help with
the the fine and we pay him back down
the line. But, you know, I always laugh
at the fact that Sergey went in kind of
aggressive. They were yelling at each
other across the table back and forth.
They offered me to pay it in
installments, but they didn't offer him
to pay in installments. And I think that
was kind of the last like the last win
on their side,
>> right?
>> Um and we've never had an issue with the
SEC since. It was a learning experience.
It was really in the grand scheme of
things. It's not like it was anything
huge, but I can't be on the record
saying that it was right or wrong. It's
a no admit, no deny, cease and desist.
Can't say we were right. Can't say we
were wrong. But you can get read between
the lines if you want or make your own
judgment on it. How serious it really
was. Um but yeah, I mean, so we're extra
careful now. Now we get four opinions on
things like that instead of three. You
know, it just kind of you take it as a
learning curve.
>> Yeah. So to touch on the period of your
life where you were driving Uber. So
you're driving around the country with
your wife, broken brakes,
you're staying at different Airbnbs,
you're driving for Uber sometimes, and
you have millions of dollars on paper in
your company.
Do you think picking the right wife is
the most important business decision a
man ever makes?
>> Oh, it's huge. Like I don't know.
Like when I think of what Heidi went
through during their startup years, I
don't know how she stuck by basically. I
mean, first of all, she's way better
looking than me. She could have any guy
she wants. Um, but second of all, like
the that was real tough times. That was
uh different level kind of supporting
one another. And I mean, she got a job,
you know, as a nanny for a pretty
wealthy family. So, she'd be among that
lifestyle of wealth every single day.
and then coming home to me in our, you
know, studio apartment with a mattress
and a $100 couch off Amazon and nothing
else. Um, so yeah, I think partners in
general are huge. So obviously your
first partner was your wife or your
girlfriend or whoever it may be, uh,
your husband, whatever the case is. And
but partners extend to business as well.
Like I think Sergey is there is no
Neutra Band without his partnership and
what we tackle together. You know, Heidi
deserves a huge amount of credit almost
as like a founder for sticking by
through all of that because uh it
couldn't have been easy. Why do you
think she stayed?
Um I like, you know what, through all
the tough parts and all the setbacks and
everything else, she never once said to
me, "Maybe you should do something else
and get another job." She always just
kind of subtly believed it would work
out without ever being too emotionally
expressive about it. It was just in her
mannerisms. She just said, "Okay, you
know, I'd come back with terrible news
again and she just say, "Okay, let's
regroup. We'll figure it out." You know,
that sort of person by your side is
huge. And I'm lucky now that I have a
huge amount of people like that
surrounded in my life. Like my parents
again for years and years would help
with rent and would send over, you know,
a couple hundred euro if we were short
or dollars and um never once said maybe
it's time to come back and get a job.
They always had just this subtle way of
letting you figure it out. I think
that's really important and I think it's
it's often overlooked. I'm glad you
brought it up cuz it's often overlooked
in these kind of entrepreneurship
stories that
entrepreneurs are always viewed as this
like one person that has done something
big, but very few if any have done it
alone. They've done it with the right
people by their side. And I think that's
that needs to be talked about a little
bit more. You know, things only changed
for me as an entrepreneur when I started
talking to people about the idea and
started asking for advice and started
realizing that the smartest version of
you is to surround yourself with people
smarter than you. That's still something
I stick by today, I think. Um, and yeah,
just yeah, Heidi deserves a huge amount
of credit uh for for where Neutra Band
is today. I think a big reason people
supported you on this journey.
This is just my assumption is that
because it wasn't like uh I'm just
trying to get rich, you know? It wasn't
like I hate my life and I'm just a guy
on Wall Street and I'm just making a
bunch of money. uh like there's a
movement attached to it. To
entrepreneurs thinking about starting a
company,
why should you build a movement instead
of a company?
>> Yeah, that's a that's an interesting
question. Um I think
you want you want to have and and it's
you know Warren Buffett I'm not
comparing myself by any means to Warren,
but Warren Buffett isn't motivated by
money. He's motivated by the
competition, you know, having an impact,
wanting to be the best at something. I
think that's what a lot of entrepreneurs
feel as well. But our big motivation and
what I'm really excited about the most
is the fact that we'll be able to
confidently claim that we're saving
lives through a company we built. I
think that's really nice and it's really
great and the impact that will have.
Building a company is it's, you know,
it's complex in a way because I think
most successful entrepreneurs build a
company around something they're
passionate about. Anybody can start a
industry firm and build it up that way
and like you said have their 9 to5 and
maybe they're not passionate or excited
about it but if you're going to have an
impact that's lasting that's something
that really drives me is we like to
think big have an impact how are we
going to leave an impression and that's
something I think that we'll do with
Neutra Ban now and numerous other things
over the last number of years that I
worked on have been surrounded uh you
know kind of revolving
leaving an impression and and doing
something big. And I love when people
say you can't do something or it will
never work out cuz that happened with
Neutribrand numerous times in the early
years. But, you know, advisers that you
would typically rely on. I mean, I had,
you know, state bodies in Ireland that
said the company would never work.
Here's all the reasons why. And, you
know, there's there's two mindsets you
can have as an entrepreneur. And you can
have a growth mindset or you can have a
fixed mindset. And a fixed mindset
thinks you're born an entrepreneur. A
growth mindset thinks you can learn to
become one. And a fixed mindset will
hear negative feedback and take it as a
decision. And a growth mindset will hear
negative feedback and ponder how to fix
it.
>> So I think having that sort of mindset,
I just I just love that. I love hearing
that something will never work or that's
a crazy idea and then saying, "Okay,
perfect. Let's get to work."
>> Can you break that down for me, the
movement portion? cuz like I'm curious
of the benefits of uniting around a
goal. Like this podcast for instance, I
can hire an editor and tell him I need
my videos done and you'll get paid uh
this amount of money. Or I can say,
"Hey, do you want to edit for the
biggest podcast
or the fastest growing podcast in the
world?" Like there's that version of the
story, but like what does that really
do? Cuz people don't think that's
tangible. Like do you notice you attract
better talent? I think you definitely
you definitely do attract similar
mindsets if you act that way and that's
your mentality. There's certain lang
like people different entrepreneurs kind
of speak different languages, right? So
you have entrepreneurs that will you
know start a a little retail store and
they'll be happy living that
entrepreneurship kind of style. Um or
you'll have entrepreneurs that want to
have an impact and want to go big and
want to make a change. And typically
when they're loud about it and they get
stuck in and they're confident about it
despite maybe people saying it won't
work, they'll usually attract people if
they push through that initial negative
uh kind of feedback. Um, so yeah, that's
certainly something I would say from my
perspective, I'm surrounded with very
like-minded people. Like I have a
network of people that I'll I'll
approach and say, "I have this idea.
What do you think?" Uh, and they'll say,
"It's everybody's going to think it's
mad. Let's do it. And I love that. Yeah.
On that point, I seems to me that if you
want to attract top level talent uh
and you are someone who's addicted to
making money, like the only way to get
top level talent working for you is
basically a pyramid scheme. Or you have
a situation like Wall Street where
they're just vicious with each other and
there's different levels to it basically
organized like a pyramid stream
structure. uh or you have a company that
it's like, hey, we want to create
tremendous impact and people aren't as
motivated by the money and they're
motivated by the mission of it. Um
that's what I would guess.
>> Yeah. Usually if you have a major impact
or you create a major impact, it comes
with financial reward,
>> right?
>> So we're going to have a huge impact
with a Versa, right? And our
shareholders are going to do really
well.
>> But you know, the stock price goes to
$100 because we own this particular side
of the market. Everybody's feeling happy
and everybody's feeling great. But the
last thing I'm going to think about at
night is how many lives do we save today
from a company that was a college
project. You know, the money stuff comes
secondary almost. Now, I know there
shareholders that are are going to be
primarily focused on returns and that's
great. But if you have a big impact and
you become the uh kind of number one in
your space, then the reward comes
financially anyway. But it's hard to do
it the other way around. And it's hard
to try and become financially the most
rewarded company, but your impact isn't
as big because that financial reward,
how long is that going to last? You
know, if uh you know, a young upand
cominging company is more aggressive
than you, wants to have a bigger impact,
then pretty soon they'll have the best
financial reward. So, um you just have
to put one in front of the other
sometimes. So, you left your company
briefly to run for president of Ireland.
They don't really like outside
candidates uh entering that space. So,
it ultimately didn't work out. But now
that you're back as CEO of Neutraband,
uh just what did that political defeat
teach you?
>> Um I suppose firstly of no regrets with
with how things went. I think we
definitely started a positive
conversation about the nomination
process. for example. Um we definitely I
would hope encouraged some younger
people maybe to look at politics in
Ireland which is primarily dominated by
an older age group
>> cuz you were the youngest person to run
ever. Right.
>> Correct. Youngest ever nominee.
>> Nominee. Got it.
>> So it's a nice that's a nice kind of
record to have but I think the impact I
think firstly people were surprised by
it. It wasn't typically done. Uh it's
usually a position for you know an
outgoing politician who's kind of you
know they've done their their work in in
the doll or or parliament for example
and are looking for a role to go into
that's kind of almost like a retirement
position. Um and I said look the
president of Ireland should be an active
engaging you know energetic role and
with so many of the issues facing
younger generations today like the cost
of housing and you know immigration uh
people leaving the country because they
can't afford you know to rent even in
big cities like Dublin wouldn't a
younger president be a great candidate
that is of that generation and can keep
those issues top of the narrative and uh
yeah I think
it went uh pretty well. I think in the
grand scheme of things, considering
there was a very aggressive, you know,
block, but in terms of outside
independent candidates, I think for the
first time in decades, um our council
route was more or less blocked off. We
only had three nominated councils. I got
two of the nominations from that three.
You need four to officially run in the
end. So, we're the youngest ever
nominee. We didn't pull it off in the
end. It was always going to be a long
shot. Um but hopefully there's positives
to be taken and it encouraged maybe
politicians that would be far better
than me up and down the country that uh
would get into politics now and and not
be restrained by age. So but it was
another thing that fell back into that
kind of entrepreneurial mentality that
you want to be impactful. You want to
make a change. You want to take on
things that people think is mad. And
that's exactly where that one fell. Has
it changed the way you think about
companies in general?
>> Um not really. I think um you know
probably
it hasn't really changed the way I think
about companies. No, I think we've the
mentality stayed the same through the
the election versus how we run neutrand.
You know, we think big. We we dream big.
We we take things on that people think
are going to be very difficult to do.
Like we basically created a whole
company around developing opioid
medication in a time when even the word
opioid is a negative word, you know. But
we're trying to have people think about
things differently. You know, opioids
are dangerous when you use them
incorrectly. But, you know, so are lots
of things. If you use, I don't know,
what's like a silly example? Like, if
you use like opioids incorrectly, it's
dangerous. But if you use uh, you know,
bleach incorrectly, it's dangerous. But
you can get you can get bleach at the
store. You know, if you use Tylenol
incorrectly, it's dangerous. Gareth,
we've been filming this podcast for
120 minutes. How many people have died
from fentanyl since we've been filming
this podcast? We're talking one person
every 5 minutes. So, 24 people have died
from an overdose since we started this.
>> That's 24 people in many circumstances
that probably didn't need to die if
circumstances were different. Um, so
it's it's not a small number and this is
just the United States.
>> And do you think fentanyl is the
problem?
I think it's a major part of the
problem, but people overdose from lots
of different drugs. Opioids and fentinyl
are the largest component of that
>> number. So, fentanyl, if used correctly,
is it a miracle drug?
>> I would imagine if you asked anybody
suffering from roundthe-clock chronic
pain that question, they would say yes.
If your technology, the abuse deterrent
patch works the way you hope it will,
what could the fatol crisis look like in
10 years?
I don't think it'll be solved. I would
hope that it would encourage other
solutions to to come to market at the
same time, but I we will definitely see
a positive impact on numbers. Uh we will
definitely have an impact on overdose
rates. We will have an impact on debts
and we will have an impact on adequate
care for pain patients. And it doesn't
stop at fentinyl. You know, we have an
entire family of opioids that this tech
is applicable to. Uh buprenorphine next
for example and other addictive
medications like methylenadate. Um so
we're proving the model with fentinyl
but the goal is to revolutionize the
safety standard of easily abused
medications period starting with
fentinel. And I think we've a proper
candidate there to set the tone.
Gareth, after building your company,
losing it, taking it public, and running
for president,
what do you think is the best piece of
advice you've ever received or given?
That with the right mindset,
there's no such thing as failure. It's
only feedback. So you can take any
outcome,
even negative, and use it to create a
positive or try and achieve what you're
trying to do. I think that's something
that's been really powerful for me.
Lord knows we had a lot of negative
setbacks along the way and a lot of
people would have taken that as a
indication to call it a day. But you
know, I think everything improves and
can improve with negative feedback. It's
hard to get things to improve if
everything is going smoothly. So, if
you're always trying to better yourself,
negative feedback needs to be welcome as
well.
What's the worst piece of advice you've
ever received?
The worst piece of advice I've ever
received was
don't develop neutra band. Come up with
another idea. I would say that was a
terrible piece of advice because it was
from somebody who I should have maybe
listened to. Uh, you know, and had I
listened, probably wouldn't be sitting
here chatting to you. Don't know if we
would have a potential solution to the
opioid crisis in the works. Um, you
know, that piece of advice, had I
listened to it, wouldn't just impact me
today, it would impact thousands of
people that we're hoping to impact as a
company.
>> So, it had a knock-on effect. So, I
don't know if that is necessarily the
piece of advice uh you were looking for
in terms of how it kind of structured
you as a person, but for me it was
terrible advice and it was probably not
wrong advice in a way when they looked
at things black and white. Maybe I
shouldn't have tried to develop the
company. It was a uphill battle and it
it proved to be. But that comes back to
that kind of same mindset again. Do you
like challenges or do you like, you
know, an easy an easy ride? I I love a
challenge. I love when people say
something's mad because the Wright
brothers when they were trying to fly,
I'm sure were told they were mad a
million times.
>> Mhm.
>> And you know, I flew here yesterday on a
big old metal plane in the air because
they didn't take that advice.
>> Um, you know, if you want to if you want
to change things and you want to have an
impact, most ideas sound mad before they
become reality. I think Elon Musk, I'm
sure, was told he was mad a million
times.
Uh, self-driving cars was a mad idea 20
years ago. Um, you know, iPhones,
touchscreen were was a mad idea 30 years
ago. Things that we just consider normal
now were mad ideas at some point. Maybe
safe opioid treatment uh, won't be a mad
idea in another year or so. Well,
everyone, uh, this has been your guest,
Gareth Sheran. This is the Jack Neil
podcast. Thanks, Jack. I appreciate you
coming on, brother. Absolutely. Thanks.