Steve Thomas - IT Consultant

ElevateBio, one of the leading biotech companies focused on gene-based therapies has raised a massive $525 million Series C round of financing, more than doubling the company’s $193 million Series B funding which closed last year. This new funding comes from existing investor Matrix Capital Management, and also adds new investors SoftBank and Fidelity Management & Research Company, and will be used to help the company expand its R&D and manufacturing capabilities, as well as continue to spin out new companies and partnerships based on its research.

Cambridge, Mass-based ElevateBio was founded to bridge the world of academic research and development of cell and gene therapies with that of commercialization and production-scale manufacturing. The startup identified a need for more efficient means of brining to market the ample, promising science that was being done in developing therapeutics that leverage cellular and genetic editing, particularly in treatment of severe and chronic illness. Its business model focuses on both developing and commercializing its own therapies, and also working through long-term partnerships with academic research institutions and other therapeutics biotech companies to bring their own technologies to market.

To this end, ElevateBio is in the business of frequent spin-out company creation, with the new entities each focused on a specific therapeutic. The company has announced three such companies to date, including AlloVir (in partnership with Baylor College of Medicine), HighPassBio (a venture with gene-editing company Fred Hutchinson) and Life Edit Therapeutics (in partnership with AgBiome). There are additional spin-outs in the works, too, according to ElevateBio, but they are not being disclosed publicly yet.

As you might expect, ElevateBio seems to have benefited from the increased appetite for biotech investment stemming from the global pandemic and its impacts. ElevateBio’s AlloVir spin-out is actually working on a T cell therapy candidate for addressing COVID-19, which is potentially effective in eliminating cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 in a patient to slow the spread of the disease and reduce its severity.


Early Stage is the premier ‘how-to’ event for startup entrepreneurs and investors. You’ll hear first-hand how some of the most successful founders and VCs build their businesses, raise money and manage their portfolios. We’ll cover every aspect of company-building: Fundraising, recruiting, sales, product market fit, PR, marketing and brand building. Each session also has audience participation built-in – there’s ample time included for audience questions and discussion. Use code “TCARTICLE at checkout to get 20 percent off tickets right here.

Facebook will soon label all posts discussing the coronavirus vaccination with a pointer to official information about COVID-19, it said today.

It also revealed it has implemented some new “temporary” measures aimed at limiting the spread of vaccine misinformation/combating vaccine hesitancy — saying it’s reducing the distribution of content from users that have violated its policies on COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation; or “that have repeatedly shared content debunked as False or Altered by our third-party fact-checking partners”.

It’s also reducing distribution of any COVID-19 or vaccine content that fact-checking partners have rated as “Missing Context”, per the blog post.

While admins for groups with admins or members who have violated its COVID-19 policies will also be required to temporarily approve all posts within their group, it said. (It’s not clear what happens if a group only has one admin and they have violated its policies.)

Facebook will also “further elevate information from authoritative sources when people seek information about COVID-19 or vaccines”, it added.

It’s not clear why users who repeatedly violate Facebook’s COVID-19 policies do not face at least a period of suspension. (We’ve asked the company for clarity on its policies.)

“We’re continuing to expand our efforts to address COVID-19 vaccine misinformation by adding labels to Facebook and Instagram posts that discuss the vaccines,” Facebook said in the Newsroom post today.

“These labels contain credible information about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines from the World Health Organization. For example, we’re adding a label on posts that discuss the safety of COVID-19 vaccines that notes COVID-19 vaccines go through tests for safety and effectiveness before they’re approved.”

The incoming COVID-19 information labels are rolling out globally in English, Spanish, Indonesian, Portuguese, Arabic and French (with additional languages touted “in the coming weeks”), per Facebook.

As well as soon rolling out labels “on all posts generally about COVID-19 vaccines” — pointing users to its COVID-19 Information Center — Facebook said it would add additional “targeted” labels about “COVID-19 vaccine subtopics”. So it sounds like it may respond directly to specific anti-vaxxer misinformation it’s seeing spreading on its platform.

“We will also add an additional screen when someone goes to share a post on Facebook and Instagram with an informational COVID-19 vaccine label. It will provide more information so people have the context they need to make informed decisions about what to share,” Facebook added.

The moves follow revelations that an internal Facebook study of vaccine hesitancy — which was reported on by the Washington Post yesterday after it obtained documents on the large-scale internal research effort — found a small number of US users are responsible for driving most of the content that’s hesitant about getting vaccinated.

“Just 10 out of the 638 population segments [Facebook’s study divided US users into] contained 50 percent of all vaccine hesitancy content on the platform,” the Post reported. “And in the population segment with the most vaccine hesitancy, just 111 users contributed half of all vaccine hesitant content.”

Last week the MIT Technology Review also published a deep-dive article probing Facebook’s approach to interrogating, via an internal ‘Responsible AI’ team, the impacts of AI-fuelled content distribution — which accused the company of prioritizing growth and engagement and neglecting the issue of toxic misinformation (and the individual and societal harms that can flow from algorithmic content choices which amplify lies and hate speech).

In the case of COVID-19, lies being spread about vaccination safety or efficacy present a clear and present danger to public health. And Facebook’s PR machine does appear to have, tardily, recognized the extent of the reputational risk it’s facing if it’s platform is associated with driving vaccine hesitancy.

To wit: Also today it’s announced the launch of a global COVID-19 education drive that it says it hopes will bring 50M people “closer to getting vaccinated”.

“By working closely with national and global health authorities and using our scale to reach people quickly, we’re doing our part to help people get credible information, get vaccinated and come back together safely,” Facebook writes in the Newsroom post that links directly to a Facebook post by founder Mark Zuckerberg also trailing the new measures, including the launch of a tool that will show U.S. Facebook users where they can get vaccinated and provide them with a link to make an appointment.

Facebook said it plans to expand the tool to other countries as global vaccine availability steps up.

Facebook’s vaccine appointment finder tool (Image credits: Facebook)

Facebook has further announced that the COVID-19 information portal it launched in the Facebook app in March last year which points users to “the latest information about the virus from local health ministries and the World Health Organization” is finally being brought to Instagram.

It’s not clear why Facebook hadn’t already launched the portal on Instagram.

But it’s decided to double down on fighting bad speech (related to vaccines) with better speech — saying Instagram users will get new stickers they can add to their Instagram Stories “so people can inspire others to get vaccinated when it becomes available to them”.

In other moves being trailed in Facebook’s crisis PR blitz today it has touted “new data and insights” on vaccine attitudes being made available to public officials via COVID-19 dashboards and maps it was already offering (the data is collected by Facebook’s Data for Good partners for the effort at Carnegie Mellon University and University of Maryland as part of the COVID-19 Symptom Survey).

Albeit, it doesn’t specify what new information is being added there (or why now).

Also today it said it’s “making it easy to track how COVID-19 vaccine information is being spread on social media through CrowdTangle’s COVID-19 Live Displays“.

“Publishers, global aid organizations, journalists and others can access real-time, global streams of vaccine-related posts on Facebook, Instagram and Reddit in 34 languages. CrowdTangle also offers Live Displays for 104 countries and all 50 states in the US to help aid organizations and journalists track posts and trends at a regional level as well,” Facebook added, again without offering any context on why it hadn’t made it easier to use this tool to track vaccine information spread before.

Its blog post also touts “new” partnerships with health authorities and governments on vaccine registration — while trumpeting the ~3BN messages it says have already been sent “by governments, nonprofits and international organizations to citizens through official WhatsApp chatbots on COVID-19”. (As WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted there is no simple way to quantify how many vaccine misinformation messages have been sent via the same platform.)

Per Facebook, it’s now “working directly with health authorities and governments to get people registered for vaccinations” (such as in the city and province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, which is using WhatsApp as the official channel to send notifications to citizens when it’s their turn to receive the vaccine).

“Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have partnered with ministries of health and health-focused organizations in more than 170 countries by providing free ads, enabling partners to share their own public health guidance on COVID-19 and information about the COVID-19 vaccine,” Facebook’s PR adds in a section of the post which it’s titled “amplifying credible health information and resources from experts”.

Primary care startup Forward Health is looking to expand its tech-powered, personalized healthcare model across the U.S., and will use a new $225 million Series D raise to help make it happen. The new capital comes from Founders Fund, Khosla Ventures, SoftBank, Mark Benioff – and recording artist The Weeknd – among others. I spoke to Forward Health co-founder and CEO Adrian Aoun about his company’s plans for this fresh capital, and we also chatted briefly about how The Weeknd got involved.

Forward, which currently operates clinics in select U.S. markets including LA, New York, Chicago, SF and Washington, D.C., has a number of distinguishing features, but most notable are likely its tech-first approach that includes a full biometric assessment upon first visit, and its business model, which eschews insurance providers altogether and instead works based on a single flat membership fee.

Aoun and his co-founders created Forward Health with the idea of building a healthcare business that’s aligned with its customers in terms of incentives, which is why they sidestepped insurance altogether. That’s led to a focus on customer service and long-term patient relationships and outcomes, which Aoun says are stronger because they’re not bound by an individual’s relationship with their employer, for instance, which is often the case when an employer foots the bill for healthcare via company-provided insurance.

“The average person in the Bay Area is with their employer for about two and a quarter years,” Aoun told me. “So your employer is kind of sitting there thinking, if you get the flu, you’re missing three days of work – I’m out some money.” That means they’ll do things like institute programs to remind employees constantly to get their annual flu vaccine, and do other things to make that happen like provide on-premise shots. But Aoun says they’re optimizing for short-term outcomes, not long-term health – because that’s where their incentives tell them to optimize.

Image Credits: Forward Health

But when long-term healthcare programs, like lifestyle shifts that can lessen the potential of truly dangerous outcomes like heart disease and cancer, come into play, an employer who expects you to stick around for a few years at most is far less incentivized to want to fund that. Forward Health, which aims to attract subscribers and, for lack of a better term, minimize churn, actually is incentivized to make those long-term outcomes positive for everyone who comes through the door.

That’s part of why one focus with this new funding is to debut new doctor-led programs tailored to treating conditions that individual patients might be predisposed to – like heart health, if heart disease runs in your family, or specific types of cancer, if there’s a history of that, for instance.

“We’ve got our [in-clinic] body scanners, our blood tests, our gene sequencing – we basically collect on the order of about 500 biometric data points,” Aoun said. “The idea is you and your doctor then figure out which which kind of programs make sense for you based upon those.”

For example, Aoun says he’s actually at fairly high risk for developing heart disease, so there’s a Forward program that includes doing a heart risk analysis, blood tests, and regular at-home monitoring of key risk factors like blood pressure and weight. Another program for cancer prevention includes measures designed to help lessen the risk of contracting the top five cancers in terms of prevalence — so Forward created a dermatoscope for that, which is essentially a skin scanner to map out an individual’s moles and skin features and alert them of any changes.

This builds on work that Forward began at the outset of COVID-19 — its ‘Forward at Home’ program, which includes sending patients home with specialized sensors for remote care. Another specialized program tailored to COVID-19 actually offers monitoring specific to the disease in order to track a patient’s progress safely.

“We’re now launching programs for all the top diseases to help you get ahead of them,” Aoun said. “And whatever kind of programs you’re using, you walk away with plans that are tailored to you, again, to counsel you not only on the potential risks for the things like the cancer and heart disease, but also to be proactive, with guidance from diet, to exercise, to stress, and to sleep, etc.”

The programs are supported by Forward’s 24/7 worldwide care support team, which subscribers can access via their mobile app. It’s also complemented by the check-ins with your physician via the ‘Forward at Home’ in-home virtual visits.

Image Credits: Forward Health

While Forward is already rolling these out, it has plans to continue to develop new ones, and it’s also monitoring results in order to understand how they’re working for users, and will be sharing that data once it has collected a significant sample. I asked Aoun how Forward can scale this kind of personalized care – especially now that the startup plans to open additional locations in other parts of the country.

Basically, Aoun said that Forward approached it as an engineering problem. He argues that most solutions in healthcare see the fundamental issue as a labor problem — but trying to scale that, with the salaries that medical professionals command, and the limited availability of skilled talent, makes no sense. Especially because consumers are naturally looking for improvements in their standard of care over time, in the same way they expect improvements in the products they buy or services they use.

Rather than relying on a chain of increasingly specific medical professionals to address individual health risks and needs, Aoun said Forward identified that there’s a massive amount of overlap in preventative care courses of action. The Forward team focused on breaking the fundamental elements down into what equate roughly to reusable Lego blocks, which can be recombined with relative speed and repeatability to produce a program that’s nonetheless tailored to an individual’s needs.

Combined with Forward Health’s longitudinal approach to care, these programs and their recombinant nature should prove a good dataset from which to assess how a direct, client-focused primary care model affects overall health.

And, because I promised, I’ll leave you with how Aoun says The Weeknd got involved in the Series D.

“He literally just walked by one of our locations, and walked in and was like, ‘This is awesome,’ and then asked a friend, who asked a friend, who asked a friend to get connected,” he told me.

The UK’s medical device regulator has admitted it has concerns about VC-backed AI chatbot maker Babylon Health. It made the admission in a letter sent to a clinician who’s been raising the alarm about Babylon’s approach toward patient safety and corporate governance since 2017.

The HSJ reported on the MHRA’s letter to Dr David Watkins yesterday. TechCrunch has reviewed the letter (see below), which is dated December 4, 2020. We’ve also seen additional context about what was discussed in a meeting referenced in the letter, as well as reviewing other correspondence between Watkins and the regulator in which he details a number of wide-ranging concerns.

In an interview he emphasized that the concerns the regulator shares are “far broader” than the (important but) single issue of chatbot safety.

“The issues relate to the corporate governance of the company — how they approach safety concerns. How they approach people who raise safety concerns,” Watkins told TechCrunch. “That’s the concern. And some of the ethics around the mis-promoting of medical devices.

“The overall story is they did promote something that was dangerously flawed. They made misleading claims with regards to how [the chatbot] should be used — its intended use — with [Babylon CEO] Ali Parsa promoting it as a ‘diagnostic’ system — which was never the case. The chatbot was never approved for ‘diagnosis’.”

“In my opinion, in 2018 the MHRA should have taken a much firmer stance with Babylon and made it clear to the public that the claims that were being made were false — and that the technology was not approved for use in the way that Babylon were promoting it,” he went on. “That should have happened and it didn’t happen because the regulations at that time were not fit for purpose.”

“In reality there is no regulatory ‘approval’ process for these technologies and the legislation doesn’t require a company to act ethically,” Watkins also told us. “We’re reliant on the healthtech sector behaving responsibly.”

The consultant oncologist began raising red flags about Babylon with UK healthcare regulators (CQC/MHRA) as early as February 2017 — initially over the “apparent absence of any robust clinical testing or validation”, as he puts it in correspondence to regulators. However with Babylon opting to deny problems and go on the attack against critics his concerns mounted.

An admission by the medical devices regulator that all Watkins’ concerns are “valid” and are “ones that we share” blows Babylon’s deflective PR tactics out of the water.

“Babylon cannot say that they have always adhered to the regulatory requirements — at times they have not adhered to the regulatory requirements. At different points throughout the development of their system,” Watkins also told us, adding: “Babylon never took the safety concerns as seriously as they should have. Hence this issue has dragged on over a more than three year period.”

During this time the company has been steaming ahead inking wide-ranging ‘digitization’ deals with healthcare providers around the world — including a 10-year deal agreed with the UK city of Wolverhampton last year to provide an integrated app that’s intended to have a reach of 300,000 people.

It also has a 10 year agreement with the government of Rwanda to support digitization of its health system, including via digitally enabled triage. Other markets it’s rolled into include the US, Canada and Saudi Arabia.

Babylon says it now covers more than 20 million patients and has done 8 million consultations and “AI interactions” globally. But is it operating to the high standards people would expect of a medical device company?

Safety, ethical and governance concerns

In a written summary, dated October 22, of a video call which took place between Watkins and the UK medical devices regulator on September 24 last year, he summarizes what was discussed in the following way: “I talked through and expanded on each of the points outlined in the document, specifically; the misleading claims, the dangerous flaws and Babylon’s attempts to deny/suppress the safety issues.”

In his account of this meeting, Watkins goes on to report: “There appeared to be general agreement that Babylon’s corporate behaviour and governance fell below the standards expected of a medical device/healthcare provider.”

“I was informed that Babylon Health would not be shown leniency (given their relationship with [UK health secretary] Matt Hancock),” he also notes in the summary — a reference to Hancock being a publicly enthusiastic user of Babylon’s ‘GP at hand’ app (for which he was accused in 2018 of breaking the ministerial code).

In a separate document, which Watkins compiled and sent to the regulator last year, he details 14 areas of concern — covering issues including the safety of the Babylon chatbot’s triage; “misleading and conflicting” T&Cs — which he says contradict promotional claims it has made to hype the product; as well as what he describes as a “multitude of ethical and governance concerns” — including its aggressive response to anyone who raises concerns about the safety and efficacy of its technology.

This has included a public attack campaign against Watkins himself, which we reported on last year; as well as what he lists in the document as “legal threats to avoid scrutiny & adverse media coverage”.

Here he notes that Babylon’s response to safety concerns he had raised back in 2018 — which had been reported on by the HSJ — was also to go on the attack, with the company claiming then that “vested interest” were spreading “false allegations” in an attempt to “see us fail”.

The allegations were not false and it is clear that Babylon chose to mislead the HSJ readership, opting to place patients at risk of harm, in order to protect their own reputation,” writes Watkins in associated commentary to the regulator.

He goes on to point out that, in May 2018, the MHRA had itself independently notified Babylon Health of two incidents related to the safety of its chatbot (one involving missed symptoms of a heart attack, another missed symptoms of DVT) — yet the company still went on to publicly rubbish the HSJ’s report the following month (which was entitled: ‘Safety regulators investigating concerns about Babylon’s ‘chatbot”).

Wider governance and operational concerns Watkins raises in the document include Babylon’s use of staff NDAs — which he argues leads to a culture inside the company where staff feel unable to speak out about any safety concerns they may have; and what he calls “inadequate medical device vigilance” (whereby he says the Babylon bot doesn’t routinely request feedback on the patient outcome post triage, arguing that: “The absence of any robust feedback system significant impairs the ability to identify adverse outcomes”).

Re: unvarnished staff opinions, it’s interesting to note that Babylon’s Glassdoor rating at the time of writing is just 2.9 stars — with only a minority of reviewers saying they would recommend the company to a friend and where Parsa’s approval rating as CEO is also only 45% on aggregate. (“The technology is outdated and flawed,” writes one Glassdoor reviewer who is listed as a current Babylon Health employee working as a clinical ops associate in Vancouver, Canada — where privacy regulators have an open investigation into its app. Among the listed cons in the one-star review is the claim that: “The well-being of patients is not seen as a priority. A real joke to healthcare. Best to avoid.”)

Per Watkins’ report of his online meeting with the MHRA, he says the regulator agreed NDAs are “problematic” and impact on the ability of employees to speak up on safety issues.

He also writes that it was acknowledged that Babylon employees may fear speaking up because of legal threats. His minutes further record that: “Comment was made that the MHRA are able to look into concerns that are raised anonymously.”

In the summary of his concerns about Babylon, Watkins also flags an event in 2018 which the company held in London to promote its chatbot — during which he writes that it made a number of “misleading claims”, such as that its AI generates health advice that is “on-par with top-rated practicing clinicians”.

The flashy claims led to a blitz of hyperbolic headlines about the bot’s capabilities — helping Babylon to generate hype at a time when it was likely to have been pitching investors to raise more funding.

The London-based startup was valued at $2BN+ in 2019 when it raised a massive $550M Series C round, from investors including Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and a large (unnamed) U.S.-based health insurance company, as well as insurance giant Munich Re’s ERGO Fund — trumpeting the raise at the time as the largest-ever in Europe or U.S. for digital health delivery.

“It should be noted that Babylon Health have never withdrawn or attempted to correct the misleading claims made at the AI Test Event [which generated press coverage it’s still using as a promotional tool on its website in certain jurisdictions],” Watkins writes to the regulator. “Hence, there remains an ongoing risk that the public will put undue faith in Babylon’s unvalidated medical device.”

In his summary he also includes several pieces of anonymous correspondence from a number of people claiming to work (or have worked) at Babylon — which make a number of additional claims. “There is huge pressure from investors to demonstrate a return,” writes one of these. “Anything that slows that down is seen [a]s avoidable.”

“The allegations made against Babylon Health are not false and were raised in good faith in the interests of patient safety,” Watkins goes on to assert in his summary to the regulator. “Babylon’s ‘repeated’ attempts to actively discredit me as an individual raises serious questions regarding their corporate culture and trustworthiness as a healthcare provider.”

In its letter to Watkins (screengrabbed below), the MHRA tells him: “Your concerns are all valid and ones that we share”.

It goes on to thank him for personally and publicly raising issues “at considerable risk to yourself”.

Letter from the MHRA to Dr David Watkins (Screengrab: TechCrunch)

Babylon has been contacted for a response to the MHRA’s validation of Watkins’ concerns. At the time of writing it had not responded to our request for comment.

The startup told the HSJ that it meets all the local requirements of regulatory bodies for the countries it operates in, adding: “Babylon is committed to upholding the highest of standards when it comes to patient safety.”

In one aforementioned aggressive incident last year, Babylon put out a press release attacking Watkins as a ‘troll’ and seeking to discredit the work he was doing to highlight safety issues with the triage performed by its chatbot.

It also claimed its technology had been “NHS validated” as a “safe service 10 times”.

It’s not clear what validation process Babylon was referring to there — and Watkins also flags and queries that claim in his correspondence with the MHRA, writing: “As far as I am aware, the Babylon chatbot has not been validated — in which case, their press release is misleading.”

The MHRA’s letter, meanwhile, makes it clear that the current regulatory regime in the UK for software-based medical device products does not adequately cover software-powered ‘healthtech’ devices, such as Babylon’s chatbot.

Per Watkins there is no approval process, currently. Such devices are merely registered with the MHRA — but there’s no legal requirement that the regulator assess them or even receive documentation related to their development. He says they exist independently — with the MHRA holding a register.

“You have raised a complex set of issues and there are several aspects that fall outside of our existing remit,” the regulator concedes in the letter. “This highlights some issues which we are exploring further, and which may be important as we develop a new regulatory framework for medical devices in the UK.”

An update to pan-EU medical devices regulation — which will bring in new requirements for software-based medical devices, and had been originally intended to be implemented in the UK in May last year — will no longer take place, given the country has left the bloc.

The UK is instead in the process of formulating its own regulatory update for medical device rules. This means there’s still a gap around software-based ‘healthtech’ — which isn’t expected to be fully plugged for several years. (Although Watkins notes there have been some tweaks to the regime, such as a partial lifting of confidentiality requirements last year.)

In a speech last year, health secretary Hancock told parliament that with the government aimed to formulate a regulatory system for medical devices that is “nimble enough” to keep up with tech-fuelled developments such as health wearables and AI while “maintaining and enhancing patient safety”. It will include giving the MHRA “a new power to disclose to members of the public any safety concerns about a device”, he said then.

In the meanwhile the existing (outdated) regulatory regime appears to be continuing to tie the regulator’s hands — at least vis-a-vis what they can say in public about safety concerns. It has taken Watkins making its letter to him public to do that.

In the letter the MHRA writes that “confidentiality unfortunately binds us from saying more on any specific investigation”, although it also tells him: “Please be assured that your concerns are being taken seriously and if there is action to be taken, then we will.”

“Based on the wording of the letter, I think it was clear that they wanted to provide me with a message that we do hear you, that we understand what you’re saying, we acknowledge the concerns which you’re raised, but we are limited by what we can do,” Watkins told us.

He also said he believes the regulator has engaged with Babylon over concerns he’s raised these past three years — noting the company has made a number of changes after he had raised specific queries (such as to its T&Cs which had initially said it’s not a medial device but were subsequently withdrawn and changed to acknowledge it is; or claims it had made that the chatbot is “100% safe” which were withdrawn — after an intervention by the Advertising Standards Authority in that case).

The chatbot itself has also been tweaked to put less emphasis on the diagnosis as an outcome and more emphasis on the triage outcome, per Watkins.

“They’ve taken a piecemeal approach [to addressing safety issues with chatbot triage]. So I would flag an issue [publicly via Twitter] and they would only look at that very specific issue. Patients of that age, undertaking that exact triage assessment — ‘okay, we’ll fix that, we’ll fix that’ — and they would put in place a [specific fix]. But sadly, they never spent time addressing the broader fundamental issues within the system. Hence, safety issues would repeatedly crop up,” he said, citing examples of multiple issues with cardiac triages that he also raised with the regulator.

“When I spoke to the people who work at Babylon they used to have to do these hard fixes… All they’d have to do is just kind of ‘dumb it down’ a bit. So, for example, for anyone with chest pain it would immediately say go to A&E. They would take away any thought process to it,” he added.

“That’s how they over time got around these issues. But it highlights the challenges and difficulties in developing these tools. It’s not easy. And if you try and do it quickly and don’t give it enough attention then you just end up with something which is useless.”

Watkins also suspects the MHRA has been involved in getting Babylon to remove certain pieces of hyperbolic promotional material related to the 2018 AI event from its website.

In one curious episode, also related to the 2018 event, Babylon’s CEO demoed an AI-powered interface that appeared to show real-time transcription of a patient’s words combined with an ’emotion-scanning’ AI — which he said scanned facial expressions in real-time to generate an assessment of how the person was feeling — with Parsa going on to tell the audience: “That’s what we’ve done. That’s what we’ve built. None of this is for show. All of this will be either in the market or already in the market.”

However neither feature has actually been brought to market by Babylon yet. Asked about this last month, the startup told TechCrunch: “The emotion detection functionality, seen in old versions of our clinical portal demo, was developed and built by Babylon‘s AI team. Babylon conducts extensive user testing, which is why our technology is continually evolving to meet the needs of our patients and clinicians. After undergoing pre-market user-testing with our clinicians, we prioritised other AI-driven features in our clinical portal over the emotion recognition function, with a focus on improving the operational aspects of our service.”

“I certainly found [the MHRA’s letter] very reassuring and I strongly suspect that the MHRA have been engaging with Babylon to address concerns which have been identified over the past three year period,” Watkins also told us today. “The MHRA don’t appear to have been ignoring the issues but Babylon simply deny any problems and can sit behind the confidentiality clauses.”

In a statement on the current regulatory situation for software-based medical devices in the UK, the MHRA told us:

The MHRA ensures that manufacturers of medical devices comply with the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (as amended). Please refer to existing guidance.

The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 provides the foundation for a new improved regulatory framework that is currently being developed. It will consider all aspects of medical device regulation, including the risk classification rules that apply to Software as a Medical Device (SaMD).

The UK will continue to recognise CE marked devices until 1 July 2023. After this time, requirements for the UKCA Mark must be met. This will include the revised requirements of the new framework that is currently being developed.

The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 allows the MHRA to undertake its regulatory activities with a greater level of transparency and share information where that is in the interests of patient safety.

The regulator declined to be interviewed or response to questions about the concerns it says in the letter to Watkins that it shares about Babylon — telling us: “The MHRA investigates all concerns but does not comment on individual cases.”

“Patient safety is paramount and we will always investigate where there are concerns about safety, including discussing those concerns with individuals that report them,” it added.

Watkins raised one more salient point on the issue of patient safety for ‘cutting edge’ tech tools — asking where is the “real life clinical data”? So far, he says the studies patients have to go on are limited assessments — often made by the chatbot makers themselves.

“It’s one quite telling thing about this sector is the fact that there’s very little real life data out there,” he said. “These chatbots have been around for a good few years now… And there’s been enough time to get real life clinical data and yet it hasn’t appeared and you just wonder if, is that because in the real-life setting they are actually not quite as useful as we think they are?”

Presight Capital has closed its $350 million second fund only a year and a half after it announced an $80 million first fund. In fact, General Partner Christian Angermayer told me that the fund was raised in just a few weeks, and that it shot past the initial goal of $250 million.

Presight is the international venture arm of Angermayer’s family office Apeiron Investment Group, which has more than $2.5 billion in assets under management. When I spoke to him about Presight’s first fund, he emphasized the firm’s ability to help U.S. startups expand into Europe while navigating the regulatory landscape.

Angermayer told me the strategy remains the same for the second, and he pointed to a couple other key elements to the Presight approach. For one thing, there’s the firm’s co-investing approach: “Sometimes we’re co-leading [the round], but there’s always a partner we work with.” And although Presight has a relatively small investment team — besides Angermayer, there’s General Partner Fabian Hansen and Principal Philipp Schreiber — portfolio companies also have access to the larger Apeiron team (20 full-time employees) and network.

Hansen said that Presight remains sector agnostic in its investments, with a particular interest in biotech and deeptech. It’s already had some big successes in these fields, with an early investment in AI-powered drug discovery platform AbCellera leading to an IPO and Compass Pathways (a company that has patented a synthetic version of psilocybin to treat depression) also going public.

Fabian Hansen

Fabian Hansen

In a LinkedIn post published last fall, Angermayer argued that biotech will be the biggest sector over the next 10 to 20 years, and that the key metric in this field is quality-adjusted life years — the idea being that a year of life at perfect health is worth 1 QALY, death is zero, while life without perfect health is somewhere in between (or could even have a value below zero).

“And here’s the real conclusion: The big winners – besides everyone benefitting from these advances – will be the companies who are PRODUCING QALYs: biotech companies,” Angermayer wrote. And he is open about the fact that he has a personal motive in this: “Put simply, I want to live forever! And in perfect health! And it is my sincere belief that we will achieve the means to do this within the next 20-30 years.”

Hansen added that there’s a “whole generation” of executives at biotech firms who are launching new startups as they realize, “I can start my own company, it’s not that expensive to try out new things, I can raise a venture round.”

According to a source with knowledge of the firm, limited partners in Presight Fund Two include AbCellera founder and CEO Carl Hansen, former Goldman Sachs CFO Martin Chavez, Uma Thurman, Founders Forum co-founder Brent Hoberman, Point72 and the family offices of XING founder Lars Inrich, Nicole Junkermann, Louis Bacon, Alan Howard and Mike Novogratz. Plus, Angermayer himself invested $60 million.

Existential risk has been on many of our minds the past year. Sales of survival goods from food kits to nuclear-proof bunkers are way up, we doomscroll on Twitter all day, and it seems like there isn’t a week that goes by where civilizational collapse isn’t at least a possibility on the agenda.

Yet, if you hang out in tech circles long enough, there remains an astonishing divergence between the realities of existential risk and the speculative nature this subject tends to push us towards.

In Silicon Valley, the fun topics here are scenarios like custom-designed pathogens that assassinate individuals or the entire human population constructed in a small biolab by an irascible bio PhD (throw in CRISPR as an acronym to make it sound interesting). Coronal mass ejections or some sort of electromagnetic bomb comes up frequently, events that could knock out all power as we know it. You’ll also frequently run into some sort of hacking scenario where all the chips in the world are vulnerable to the same line of code (perhaps inspired in the vein of Meltdown or Spectre).

These scenarios are fun and imaginative, and it’s a great Zoom drinking game in an otherwise “what do you do for a living” conversation.

What the last year has shown, however, is that we have a very bad cognitive bias here where we think about the speculative dangers far too much and the mundane civilizational dangers far too little.

COVID-19 is the too-obvious example, a global pandemic that has been predicted in some form or another for literally decades. But it’s hardly the only “boring” disaster that’s befallen us. The failure last month of much of Texas’ energy grid knocked out power for days for millions of people at some of the coldest temperatures experienced locally — no electromagnetic bomb required. California’s wildfire season has expanded, leading to lives lost, wide-scale power outages, billions of dollars in damages and that iconic orange air — no Hollywood special effects required. A “software issue” led to a swath of the East Coast losing the internet in January, while a lone bomber in Nashville knocked out much of the telecommunications in that metropolitan area over the Christmas holidays.

Here, then, is the divergence: we have had forms of civilizational collapse, but so far, they’ve been limited in duration and limited in scope. We didn’t all lose power: just Texas last month and California last year. We didn’t all lose internet: just the East Coast and Nashville at different times. We didn’t lose civilization, we just had a pandemic that has forced much of the world to regularly shut down schools and stores to limit viral spread. It’s almost like a disaster doesn’t count if Netflix still operates for 10% of the population.

So we have folks talking about artificial general intelligence and the singularity and fleeing to Mars, when the immediate reality is that there are thousands of dams under incredible strain where millions of people could perish in the coming years if a number of these fail. Not just fail hypothetically, but fail as predicted when these structures reach the end of their usable lives and become increasingly vulnerable to collapse.

What’s strange is how much we as people have begun to cognitively route around these quotidian catastrophes. AWS outages that used to elicit extreme opprobrium a few years ago are now a snow day from Zoom calls. Power outages are just the new normal. Pandemics — well, why bother wearing a mask at this point anyway, even as variants start to threaten the recovery we all expect? As one colleague put it me, just buy a battery-powered radio — you know you’ll need it here soon, as if we should just expect to lose connectivity at any time.

The solutionism that makes Silicon Valley an entrepreneurial spectacle never seems to migrate over to the solvable world of most daily existential threats. Power grid failures are preventable. The internet was supposed to be designed to route around damage, not be based in a couple of central data centers and exchanges where one rogue patch or saboteur brings down the global GDP. Health care systems are capable of managing outbreaks — we know the playbook, if only we could execute on one.

Perhaps more frustrating than the lack of resilience and planning, which use precisely the sort of analytical skills that the Valley loves, is the sheer lack of action during these catastrophes. If the last year has shown us anything, it’s the complete lethargy from government to organizations to everyday citizens, all of which are apparently completely unprepared to do anything if disaster strikes.

Now, I don’t want to cast aspersions on the crowdsourced projects that sprung out of COVID-19 to direct people to hospitals, or to track data, or to guide people to finding vaccines today or finding masks in the early, hectic days. These projects are important despite their fumbles, and represent a fresh and flourishing civil society. It’s key though not to assume that keyboard actions can somehow compensate entirely for a lack of action in the field. The tech industry loves to code up a web app to solve all problems, when most disasters really and truly can’t be responded to with Python code.

Within the tech community, the one exception I have been able to find is Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who seems to have put his time and resources behind building out global capacity for disaster response with an organization called Global Support and Development, which Mark Harris described at length in a piece last year. Per his article:

For the past five years, GSD has been quietly using high-tech systems to rapidly deliver humanitarian assistance during high-profile disasters, including the COVID-19 pandemic. These range from drones and super-yachts to a gigantic new airship that the outfit apparently hopes will make it easier to get aid supplies into disaster zones.

We need more of this, and stat.

Existential risk has always been at the heart of the tech industry. From a radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds and the Manhattan Project to AI and cybernetics in the 1960s, cyberpunk and climate punk and all the other punks in the 80s, continuing right up to artificial general intelligence and the singularity today, we’ve always known that the technological progress we make could have massive consequences for the world as we know it.

Yet, it’s time to turn our attention away from the crazy and speculative and future, and more toward the chaos and challenges facing our world right now, using tools that we have available to us today. Most of our major challenges aren’t just solvable, they’re eminently solvable if we put the time into them. But that requires us to actively thwart our cognitive bias away from the scary and improbable to the mundane and normal — the boring events that almost certainly will actually kill us in the end.

Tonal, maker of the smart home fitness trainer, announced it is more than tripling the number of physical locations it sells devices in through a new partnership with Nordstrom.

Starting this month, Tonal will have 50-square-foot stations in the women’s activewear departments of at least 40 Nordstrom locations across the U.S., bringing the total number of Tonal physical locations to 60 by the end of 2021. Shoppers will be able to walk in or book appointments to try Tonal devices and purchase them through employees on-hand.

“As we looked to expand our retail footprint and strategy, we looked to the retail landscape, and we really feel like Nordstrom says ‘best-in-class’ — the department store is well-suited to succeed in a COVID and post-COVID world,” explained Christopher Stadler, Tonal’s CMO.

Tonal, which manufactures a wall-mounted device with a digital weight system that emulates various traditional gym stations, already operates 16 locations across the country with devices shoppers can try and work out to, with plans to open four additional showrooms later this year. But the partnership with Nordstrom, which expects overall sales growth of 25% in 2021, marks a first-of-its-kind for at-home fitness makers. Peloton, for instance, operates a larger network of dedicated showrooms in the U.S., Canada, Germany and the UK, but it has yet to partner with an outside retailer to display and demo its bikes and treadmills.

Tonal’s physical expansion arrives amid a boom in demand for at-home equipment during the pandemic. According to Stadler, sales of Tonal equipment surged 800% from December 2019 to December 2020, causing 10-12 week wait times for deliveries. Those delays are somewhat comparable to Peloton, which has also faced significant delivery wait times in recent months and currently reports 6-10 week delays — an issue Peloton CEO John Foley acknowledged and apologized for in a note to users.

Tonal, for its part, is working to address shipment delays. According to Stadler, the startup has significantly ramped up production of devices, increased employee headcount, and in some cases, now air-ships equipment from Taiwan to the U.S. to meet demand.

“We have seen extraordinary demand for Tonal, and we’re working aggressively around the clock to produce, deliver and install Tonals faster and faster,” says Stadler. “We’ve absolutely ramped up production, and all facets of the organization are rallying to deliver our customer orders as quickly as we can.”

Clue, an early pioneer in the femtech category with a well-regarded period-tracking app that’s used by around 13 million people, is getting ready to launch a digital contraceptive which will offer users a statistical prediction of ovulation as a birth control tool.

A US launch of Clue Birth Control is slated for “this year”. The team won’t be more specific on the date yet.

Pricing will be “premium” — but they’re also keeping the exact cost under wraps for now.

The Berlin-based company is today announcing that they’ve gained FDA clearance for the forthcoming product, clearing the way for a US launch in 2021.

Europe is the next region on their launch list but the necessary regulatory clearances mean the roll out will be gradual, going market by market.

The startup has also recently made a number of operational changes — including to the leadership of the company — to reflect becoming a medical-device grade regulated entity in the US.

The short version is that founder and CEO, Ida Tin, has moved up to become chairwoman of the board, while Audrey Tsang (who was leading product) and Carrie Walter (formerly general counsel), are now Clue’s co-CEOs.

TechCrunch chatted to all three women — along with Clue’s chief medical officer, Lynae Brayboy — to get the lowdown on its latest news.

Clue Birth Control

Clue is not the first to market with an app offering a statistical prediction of fertility but unlike first mover, Natural Cycles — which gained FDA clearance back in 2018 — its product, Clue Birth Control, is being billed as “all-digital”; aka it will work without the user needing to take their temperature daily.

There’s also no need to track other bodily changes (such as monitoring cervical fluid). The method is based on women inputting a single data point regularly: The start date of their period.

This means it looks like a major step up in ‘ease of use’ vs the earlier-to-market rival — which Clue has achieved within similar efficacy margins (see below).

Clue’s algorithmic prediction is based on Bayesian modelling — with the app displaying a high risk window across a number of days of the user’s cycle, during which having unprotected intercourse could result in the woman getting pregnant. It shows a window of low risk when the opposite is true.

[gallery ids="2118831,2118832,2118830,2118829,2118828"]

The length of these windows is likely to change as the user inputs more data, with the risk-window starting out longer and typically shrinking as the app becomes more personalized to their individual cycle data.

“Bayesian modelling has been used in medicine for a lot of different applications. What that does is it takes population data and it puts that population data into an algorithm — which is a mathematical model — and [that] basically borrows from what has been found in the population in terms of cycling and ovulation,” explains Brayboy, who was appointed as Clue’s first ever chief medical officer last summer.

“Before we had a fertile window [i.e. displayed in the Clue period-tacking app to illustrate the stages of a cycle] — which is not a reliable, nor is it a tested, model of contraception. So now we’re using a bayesian modelling concept,” she says. “It personalizes over time. So as the individual puts in their cycle day one then we’re able to personalize the window of their high risk days vs their low risk days.

“[The high risk window] will start out long… Usually it’ll be 16 days within the cycle — but it’ll shorten over time. It probably won’t shorten to more than nine days.”

For the product to work as a contraception, users must either abstain from sex on high risk days or use additional protection (such as condoms). That’s why it’s a more involved method than some established birth control alternatives (especially vs an IUD; intrauterine device). On low risk days Clue users are relying on the app’s statistical prediction of their (low) fertility risk to not get pregnant.

Clue says the product has been shown to be 92% effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy under ‘typical use’ and 97% effective under ‘perfect use’ — referencing the standard research terminology for measuring contraception effectiveness (the latter meaning the product is used exactly as instructed every time the woman has sex vs ‘typical’ use which accounts for some usage slip-ups).

What those percentages mean in practice is that under typical use, eight couples out of 100 would be predicted to get pregnant over a year of use of Clue’s digital birth control. While — in the perfect use scenario — the failure rate would be three out of 100 over a year’s use.

(For comparison, Natural Cycles says its product is 93% effective under typical use and 98% effective under perfect use; while — per the Guttmacher Institute‘s US study — the pill is 93% effective under typical use and 99% effective under perfect use; and male condoms are 87% effective under typical use vs 98% effective under perfect use.)

Clue isn’t disclosing how many users it’s expecting to sign up — but the length of time it’s taken to bring the product to market suggests it’s confident Clue Birth Control will find a sustainable user base. (It’s been quietly working on the development since at least 2019 — but will only say the product has been “a long time” in the works when we ask.)

The extra time Clue’s taken to bring its digital contraceptive to market does look like time well spent. The statistical method underlying Clue Birth Control has, for example, undergone rigorous pre-market clinical testing — via a prospective effectiveness trial which reported results back in 2019.

“It’s been in development for a long time because work like this and proving the efficacy of something like this takes a long time,” says Tsang. “From a product perspective as well we want to make sure that these are experiences [that are] easy to understand and that matches the safety and efficacy of this type of product. So that as well.

“It takes a long time to make sure that we develop something that is also usability validated on that front and that we put that out with confidence and with an exact understanding of how well users will understand that.”

The ovulation prediction algorithm was put through a year-long, full-scale, representative (of the US population), independent clinical trial involving more than 700 women. This was conducted by researchers at the Institute for Reproductive Health (IRH) at Georgetown University in partnership with a third company, called Cycle Technologies — using a research app, called DOT (Dynamic Optimal Timing), for the purpose of the trial.

Clue says it acquired the assets of DOT — both the algorithm and the app — in summer 2019 and it’s that clinically validated technology which it’s implementing into its own app now, as Clue Birth Control.

“This was a ‘proper’, full scale clinical trial that was designed to be a clinical trial — rather than put a product out there, see if it works and collect the data,” says Walter. “This was done by academics. We then bought the algorithm and the app and we implemented the features of the app into Clue Birth Control which is a feature of Clue.”

“The clinical trial shows you both what the algorithm does and how the user interacts with the app. Because the algorithm is only part of the story — the main part is can a woman understand what’s going on, track and check and then act on the information,” she adds.

The FDA clearance process for Clue Birth Control involved scrutiny of the efficacy of the algorithm’s statistical predictions and also how Clue presents the information to users. So the whole package has been examined by the regulator. (To be clear the DOT app was not FDA cleared; rather Clue implemented that clinically tested algorithm in its own app and submitted the package for FDA clearance.)

“When you get FDA clearance as a medical device that is for a very specific product — you don’t then get to just take it away and tinker with it,” says Walter. “So I’m sure that there will be further iterations. This is iteration one of a new kind of birth control — but as of right now the thing that is going into our app is the thing that FDA saw and cleared. So the only piece… that we put significant creative work into was making sure that the usability interface is totally user tested and safe.”

Going forward, Clue’s business processes will be subject to ongoing regulatory scrutiny — a considerable switch for the startup that Tin describes as a “huge maturing process”.

“Another big part of the work that happened is to live and be a regulated company,” she tells TechCrunch. “That in itself is a very big change and a huge amount of work… So that’s another thing that has to happen. So one thing is what you put out in the market that users see but as a company you really have to operate in a completely new way — it’s a huge maturing process that we have gone through.”

“It feels like the baby can walk and talk and is actually more like a teenager and now it’s like leaving home — and I say you can do this!” she adds when asked what it feels like to see her femtech startup becoming FDA regulated.

Suitability

No method of contraception — except for abstinence — is 100% effective, of course. But just comparing the varying efficacy percentages of different contraception methods may not be super helpful given how personal birth control choices are.

A digital contraceptive certainly has a bunch of pros and cons that need to be considered. And Clue is being up front that its product is not suitable for everyone.

Top line: Clue says Clue Birth Control is only suitable for women, aged between 18-45, who have regular periods. (It also says: Users must also be able to track their period; check the app each day they have sex; and be prepared to use a condom or avoid sex that may result in pregnancy on high-risk days.)

Clearly there are various additional considerations beyond having a regular cycle that potential users should weigh up before signing up. Not least being comfortable with the stated degree of pregnancy risk.

That’s also true of all FABM (fertility awareness based methods) of birth control — including the old fashioned, non-digital/manual-tracking version (sometimes referred to as the rhythm or calendar method). But app-based products like Natural Cycles and Clue Birth Control are undoubtedly making FABM accessible to more women. Which means that communicating — and even enforcing — suitability is a key component of responsible product development in this category.

This is because the level of commitment and attention to detail required to act on changing fertility information makes FABM more complex than some birth control options. An IUD, for example, works without a woman needing to do anything once it’s been inserted. The pill is also more simplistic — in the sense that it only requires a woman to remember to take a tablet daily.

At the same time, it’s clear that hormonal contraception isn’t for everyone — or may not be accessible to everyone (Brayboy points to rising difficulty for US women specifically to access contraception as a relevant point here, for instance). And the convenience of an app-based form of personalised contraception has quickly convinced a new generation of women to try an alternative. (Natural Cycles’ reported some 1.5 million users worldwide last year.)

App-based convenience can invite missteps too, though. After its launch in Europe in 2017 Natural Cycles quickly attracted criticism over misleading and aggressive social media marketing. It was also investigated in Sweden after a hospital in its home market reported a number of unintended pregnancies from women who had been using the app. Although that probe confirmed the number of pregnancies was within the claimed margin of efficacy Natural Cycles agreed with the regulator to clarify the risk of its product failing.

So how digital birth control is presented is a vital consideration.

Clue doesn’t look like it’s taking any risks with how it communicates suitability for Clue Birth Control — prospective users have to go through an eligibility process which requires them to not just say they’re eligible but demonstrate eligibility by being able to provide key information, including about their own cycle.

If the user can’t show eligibility the app will “boot them out”, as Tsang puts it. She says they’ll also then be locked out for a period of time so they can’t just go back in and try different answers. While users whose cycle becomes too irregular for the product to work properly will similarly be prevented from continued use.

“There is a very detailed assessment process as soon as you try to sign up for Clue Birth Control,” she says. “It asks you a series of questions that really even in the questions themselves and how you answer — it’s like a question with a drop-down underneath it — even in how we’ve set those up it makes it so that users actually have to explicitly say that they are eligible. It’s not a true/false kind of situation. It’s ‘how are old are you’?… We ask these explicit questions so what that does is it actually draws the information out of the user in a way where we can be sure that they are actually eligible to use this feature as it is regulated to be used.”

“That process itself was scrutinized in detail by FDA,” adds Walter. “This is a device that you can use in the privacy of your phone — nobody else has to be involved in it — so it’s really important that that funnel is correct and so that is something that we talked about in a lot of detail.

“And one thing that you do need to be aware of is that you’re not going to be able to answer these questions unless you have some awareness of your cycle going in. Because you’ve got to know is your cycle typically this long or this long. What does your longest cycle look like? What’s your shortest cycle look like over the last 12 months?”

“The [FDA] clearance is related to the product as presented. The product — because it relies purely on one data input and statistical predictions — there’s obviously some level of… ‘irregularity’,” Walter adds. “If your periods are wildly unpredictable this isn’t going to work. What our science team says is… about 70-80% of currently cycling women fall within the bandwidth that could be covered by it.

“It’s 20-40 day cycles and 9 days or less of variation between them. So it’s not like you have to know to the day.”

“We know that it’s impossible to be perfect and so we make sure to tell people that typical use is 92% and so we don’t at all try to oversell ourselves. And that this is better than doing many things which are commonly done by users in the US,” says Brayboy.

“The pill and the IUD have very very defined risks,” she adds. “So we essentially explain that we are not as effective as those methods but our users potentially would have benefits because some of them cannot tolerate those methods for whatever reason.”

“Unfortunately a lot of people do rely on coitus interruptus and a lot of people do rely on condoms which are great but you have to use condoms every single time in order to be effective. And so those individuals might really benefit from having some idea of where they are in their cycle and it’s not only some idea — it’s a rigorously looked at algorithm that they can use in the privacy of their home,” Brayboy goes on.

“It’s really getting difficult… for a lot of American women to actually access birth control. One because of job loss; two because of a recent supreme court ruling in 2020 about opting out of contraceptive coverage. And so this is something they can do in collaboration with their healthcare providers but they don’t have to go out to a pharmacy and hopefully people will see that it’s easy to use. It really is easy to use. You never [don’t] leave your phone at home so you can’t lose this contraception.”

Another major consideration for users of digital contraception is that unprotected sex offers no protection against STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) — rates of which have been increasing in the US in recent years.

Clue therefore recommends its product for women who are in stable relationships — and/or are getting regularly screened, along with their partner/s — i.e. rather than for those who don’t know the sexual history of the people they’re sleeping with.

“It was sort of a premise from the beginning that we only want people to use this product for whom it’s really truly a good product,” says Tin. “It’s like we’re building this product because we think many people will benefit from it and we’ve seen many people needing it and so that’s the core. We want to be helpful. We don’t want people to use it for whom it’s not a good solution. And that’s how we’ve built it.”

Asked who the ‘perfect/ideal’ user for Clue Birth Control, Brayboy puts it like this: “This is someone who — as I envisage as a physician — potentially wants to get pregnant in the next couple of years but is not ready and does not want to use hormonal birth control for whatever reason and is already using condoms.

“So this is someone who wants to not get pregnant just now but is preparing, is planning — and they don’t want something that’s long acting.”

She also points out that many of the most effective methods of contraception (“like the levonorgestrel IUD or the Mirena”, which are ~99.9%) have draw-backs too — in that they have to be placed and removed from the woman’s uterus. They may also, she suggests, have a long term effect on the endometrium.

“So [Clue Birth Control] is something where if you decide okay in the next few years you want to get pregnant you absolutely can stop [following the regime] and you can get pregnant. And you also have a better idea of your cycles at the same time — so it gives you that added benefit,” she adds. “Again, our indication’s 18-45 but a lot of people who are in their late 20s and 30s would be ideal candidates for this.”

Tin also points to the “staggering amount of unwanted pregnancies” in the US and around the world — noting that many women currently still don’t use any birth control, for whatever reason. So an app-based fertility prediction might be an alternative that works for them.

Brayboy notes that unintended pregnancy in the US is about 45% but can be as high as 69% in some ethnic groups, per figures from the American College of OBGYN.

“Unintended pregnancy is also hard to study because people don’t typically plan to become pregnant — and so it makes it difficult. But this [app-based FABM] is a way — also people could really think about how do I want to plan my family in the next couple of years? And so it really is a lovely way for people to start really thinking about becoming parents.”

The marketing for Clue Birth Control will reflect that it’s a “serious choice” people are making to opt for a digital birth control, per Tsang.

“We make sure that people understand that no form of birth control is 100% effective. And that this is a choice — and this is a serious choice that they make,” she says. “In our marketing we plan to help people make that choice — make a choice that’s right for them. And be transparent about the risks and how it works and what it means.”

“I would say that we don’t have huge plans to do social media and influencer marketing,” she adds. “But again we do have these standard operating procedures that make sure that we both speak about the labelling, we speak about our product in a way that reflects exactly what it is.”

Retooling to be regulated

The aforementioned changes to Clue’s leadership team are coupled with a wider retooling of its internal processes — reflective of its new status as a regulated company.

“Something that a lot of people aren’t aware of is that to be allowed to have a medical device on the market you have to operate a quality management system that covers your entire company. And as you know if you cover tech startups that’s not how tech startups tend to work!” says Walter. 

“Which is why it’s incredibly important if you’re going to use an app to make important life decisions about your health you want to make sure they’re building their product in a quality controlled way. And of course any app that you find out there on the market that is not a regulated medical device pretty much 100% will not be working in this way. And so one of the things that we had to do — and that we will be audited for once we have the product in the market — is to show that all of our processes, from design over software development, testing, user testing, all of these things are quality controlled every step of the way. So that’s the big change that we’ve gone through in the last two years.”

“It’s a really big change,” adds Tin. “And for us it’s been important to get the team along in a really good way — not lose who we are. We think of it as acquiring a new ninja skill — something new that we’re learning to do that we’re adding to who we are — so that we can still be user focused and maintain all the qualities that we care about and always have cared about but now doing it sort of at a higher level under this quality management system.

“I think it’s very well aligned with who we are because essentially a quality management system’s about quality and risk and care, essentially, for users — and we feel a lot of responsibility putting out a product that help people navigate really big, important things, like getting pregnant, not getting pregnant, so we feel good about making sure that our processes match that level of responsibility. So in that way it’s been easy to get the team along but I will say it’s been a huge amount of work.

“I don’t know how many thousands of pages of technical documentation that we have submitted etc. It’s really like a huge rehaul. So the fact that we can maintain still feeling like Clue while operating in a very new way I’m pretty happy about. Because we could also become very boring — big, corporate-ish — but that isn’t who we are and that’s important because of course we want to keep caring about users.”

For all the extra paperwork, Tsang says Clue’s mission as a company hasn’t — and isn’t — changing.

“It’s just very value-aligned. We’re here to put something out that’s high quality and where we have a clear procedure and clear processes for evaluating risk and mitigating risk. And that’s all completely values aligned with being a femtech company that empowers women to make healthy choices,” she says.

“Nobody is going to go out there and say well we play fast and loose with people’s health. Nobody wants to do that but it helps to have a third party watch you — and that’s what it means to be a regulated company. It means that there are democratically accountable government institutions looking over your shoulder and checking,” adds Walter.

“And I think if you’re looking at some of the criticism that femtech has come into recently — legitimately — because there are all kinds of apps out there that are completely unregulated, no one knows where they’re coming from, no one knows what their business models are, no one knows what they’re really doing. And this is a strong move in the opposite direction.

“We take the constraints that flow from that seriously… As Ida says we’re going to try not to lose our fun in the process.”

The team does also see wider opportunities flowing from being a regulated entity.

“I think this broadens our mission too,” says Brayboy. “Period tracking is really important in overall health but I think this allows individuals to use FABM in a modern way — and FABM itself can help individuals take in things in their cycles that might actually affect their fertility long term and also some diagnosis that might be important to speak with their physician about early, so they present to care early. So we hope to have that partnership with users and their healthcare providers.”

“We don’t have plans to do [comparative studies with other types of contraception] but what I’d like to say is that we have a post-market surveillance plan and we’ll be doing studies with collaborators — we’ve already started to collaborate with academia before Clue Birth Control came out so it’s something that we’ll continue to do,” she also says. “What we’ll be doing in future is we’ll be going to clinical meetings, and presenting and allowing people to collaborate with us. And I think that’s really important that our doors are open for physician scientists and scientists and contraceptive researchers to continue to look at us. And we want to do that because we’re all about science — we’re based on science. And I came to Clue because of that mission.”

“For us it’s also an ability to keep doing more and more advanced things with the data, if you like,” adds Tin. “Which of course is important because people have many needs that if you are to answer them it has to be regulated. It’s right that they’re regulated. Now we learn how to operate as a regulated company — we are operating as a regulated company — that gives us an ability to keep meeting these needs that are deeper.”

Walter also emphasizes the competitive advantage of being a consumer app that’s subject to regulatory surveillance as a medical device — in a sea of unregulated apps.

“A really important thing is that if you look at your average health and fitness app or whatever, their main KPI is let’s get a tonne of users through the door and make money off them. And I’m not going to say we don’t want a tonne of users through the door and to be profitable — we do want that. But because we are regulated we also have this post-market surveillance obligation that we will be audited on. That’s a KPI now. That’s not a nice to have. And I think that’s a big difference. And that’s something that consumers should think about when they’re using an app — like what KPIs are those people working to.

“And you might want to ask yourself what other apps is that developer putting out? Do they have 15 gaming apps and one period tracker? And what’s their business model?”

“And who’s leading the company,” Brayboy chips in. “Look around this Zoom room you can see that we have all potentially had periods and continue to have them and so have had to make these decisions and so I think it puts us in a very unique position because we have a level of empathy and understanding that really comes from a personal space.

“And I wanted to say on the global health [potential] — I’m really excited about that. And that’s another of the reasons why I joined the company because I started my career in the Republic of Mali in West Africa and I saw how difficult it was for individuals to get contraception and a lot of things that are culturally pushed to people in those areas. And so this to me really represents an exciting prospect… I think there’s just limitless possibilities in other countries — we haven’t really thought about the cultural practices and the tendencies that people want to use something that is hormone free.”

Asked about the new co-CEO structure, Tin says it’s a natural continuation of the collaborative leadership style she encouraged at Clue.

“The big two things that Clue is going to care about is being a regulated company and building a sustainable business and I could’t think of two better people than Carrie and Audrey to mind these two parts of the business… We have had a very collaborative leadership style at Clue, always, because that’s how I like doing things — and it feels again also like an upgrade. Now two people get to do this in a pair and I think that’s a really great reflection of what I think is the future of leadership. So on that level it’s also an expression of who we are to choose to have co-CEOs.”

“We’re new at this but it’s been really fun the last couple of weeks but at the heart of it are these values of being disciplined about being transparent,” adds Tsang. “Being collaborative and being equal. And it allows us to hold each other accountable for all of those things which are at at the heart of Clue’s values. So I completely agree with Ida — I’d love to see more leadership look like this moving forward and I personally have been enjoying it quite a bit.”

“Who needs another ‘hero CEO’,” adds Walter. “My starting point was that every conversation I have is actually better when Audrey’s in it — so let’s make my head conversations that way. Let’s upgrade the thinking process to a dialogue. And I think once you accept that most decisions are better made in some form of collaboration — let’s get real, right; we’re not that much of a genius that all of us don’t ever need to talk to other people — so once we accept that then the only question is how do you collaborate?

“As Ida said, we’ve always had a pretty collaborative management team but actually we found that — it’s like in the arts. Where are the most productive, most creative collaborations — they’re in really tight micro teams. And so let’s put that at the heart. And of course there’s a management team and of course there are other expertise and having Lynae in the company is wonderful and having the science component, and data science component, and all of this expertise, but I really like this generative heart of two. This dialogue as being the decision making process. There’s no reason to me why that wouldn’t make us more bold and more thoughtful.”

“I want to second this and maybe it’s also worth saying that I founded Clue together with a bunch of great guys — one of them my life partner, and in a way we have, for many years, also been a very closed pair,” adds Tin. “And working on understanding equality and living from that place and now it’s, in a way, just an even more clear part of the structure. It’s like a good next step on something we’ve been learning about — basically since the beginning of Clue.”

 

Health and life science specialist investment firm Foresite Capital has raised a new fund, its fifth to date, totally $969 million in commitments from LPs. This is the firm’s largest fund to date, and was oversubscribed relative to its original target according to fund CEO and founder Dr. Jim Tananbaum, who told me that while the fundraising process started out slow in the early months of the pandemic, it gained steam quickly starting around last fall and ultimately exceeded expectations.

This latest fund actually makes up two separate investment vehicles, Foresite Capital Fund V, and Foresite Capital Opportunity Fund V, but Tananbaum says that the money will be used to fuel investments in line with its existing approach, which includes companies ranging from early- to late-stage, and everything in between. Foresite’s approach is designed to help it be uniquely positioned to shepherd companies from founding (they also have a company-building incubator) all the way to public market exit – and even beyond. Tananbaum said that they’re also very interested in coming in later to startups they have have missed out on at earlier stages of their growth, however.

Image Credits: Foresite Capital

“We can also come into a later situation that’s competitive with a number of hedge funds, and bring something unique to the table, because we have all these value added resources that we used to start companies,” Tananbaum said. “So we have a competitive advantage for later stage deals, and we have a competitive advantage for early stage deals, by virtue of being able to function at a high level in the capital markets.”

Foresite’s other advantage, according to Tananbaum, is that it has long focused on the intersection of traditional tech business mechanics and biotech. That approach has especially paid off in recent years, he says, since the gap between the two continues to narrow.

“We’ve just had this enormous believe that technology, and tools and data science, machine learning, biotechnology, biology, and genetics – they are going to come together,” he told me. “There hasn’t been an organization out there that really speaks both languages well for entrepreneurs, and knows how to bring that diverse set of people together. So that’s what we specialized i,n and we have a lot of resources and a lot of cross-lingual resources, so that techies that can talk to biotechies, and biotechies can talk to techies.”

Foresite extended this approach to company formation with the creation of Foresite Labs, an incubation platform that it spun up in October 2019 to leverage this experience at the earliest possible stage of startup founding. It’s run by Dr. Vik Bajaj, who was previously co-founder and Chief Science Officer of Alphabet’s Verily health sciences enterprise.

“What’s going on, or last couple decades, is that the innovation cycles are getting faster and faster,” Tananbaum said. “So and then at some point, the people that are having the really big wins on the public side are saying, ‘Well, these really big wins are being driven by innovation, and by quality science, so let’s go a little bit more upstream on the quality science.'”

That has combined with shorter and shorter healthcare product development cycles, he added, aided by general improvements in technology. Tananbaum pointed out that when he began Foresite in 2011, even, the time horizons for returns on healthcare investments were significantly longer, and at the outside edge of the tolerances of venture economics. Now, however, they’re much closer to those found in the general tech startup ecosystem, even in the case of fundamental scientific breakthroughs.

CAMBRIDGE – DECEMBER 1: Stephanie Chandler, Relay Therapeutics Office Manager, demonstrates how she and her fellow co-workers at the company administer their own COVID tests inside the COVID testing room at Relay Therapeutics in Cambridge, MA on Dec. 1, 2021. The cancer treatment development company converted its coat room into a room where employees get tested once a week. All 100+employees have been back in the office as a result of regular testing. Relay is a Foresite portfolio company. (Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

“Basically, you’re seeing people now really look at biotech in general, in the same kind of way that you would look at a tech company,” he said. “There are these tech metrics that now also apply in biotech, about adoption velocity, other other things that may not exactly equate to immediate revenue, but give you all the core material that usually works over time.”

Overall, Foresite’s investment thesis focuses on funding companies in three areas – therapeutics at the clinical stage, infrastructure focused on automation and data generation, and what Tananbaum calls “individualized care.” All three are part of a continuum in the tech-enabled healthcare end state that he envisions, ultimately resulting “a world where we’re able to, at the individual level, help someone understand what their predispositions are to disease development.” That, Tananbaum suggests, will result in a transformation of this kind of targeted care into an everyday consumer experience – in the same way tech in general has taken previously specialist functions and abilities, and made them generally available to the public at large.

The COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech now has less stringent and extreme transportation requirements than it debuted with. Originally, the mRNA-based vaccine had to be maintained at ultra-low temperatures throughout the transportation chain in order to remain viable – between -76°F and -112°F. New stability data collected by Pfizer and BioNTech, which has been submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for review, allow it to be stored at temps between 5°F and -13°F – ranges available in standard medical freezers found in most clinics and care facilities.

The vaccine should remain stable for up to two weeks at that temperature, which vastly improves the flexibility of its options for transportation, and last-mile storage in preparation for administration to patients. To date, the vaccine has relied largely on existing “cold-chain” infrastructure to be in place in order for it to be able to reach the areas where it’s being used to inoculate patients. That limitation hasn’t been in place for Moderna’s vaccine, which is stable at even higher, standard refrigerator temperatures for up to a month.

This development is just one example of how work continues on the vaccines that are already being deployed under emergency approvals by health regulators across the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. Pfizer and BioNTech say they’re working on bringing those storage temp requirements down even further, so they could potentially approach the standard set by the Moderna jab.

Taken together with another fresh development, study results from Israeli researchers that found just one shot of the ordinarily two-shot Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine could be as high as 85 percent effective on its own, this is a major development for global inoculation programs. The new requirements open up participation to a whole host of potential new players in supporting delivery and distribution – including ride-hailing and on-demand delivery players with large networks like Amazon, which has offered the President Biden’s administration its support, and Uber, which is already teamed up with Moderna on vaccine education programs.

This also opens the door for participation from a range of startups and smaller companies in both the logistics and the care delivery space that don’t have the scale or the specialized equipment to be able to offer extreme ‘cold-chain’ storage. Technical barriers have been a blocker for some who have been looking for ways to assist, but lacked the necessary hardware and expertise to do so effectively.

A new study underway at Toronto’s University Health Network (UHN), a group of working research hospitals in the city, could shift our approach to treatment in an area of growing concern in human health. The study, led by Dr. Heather Ross, will investigate whether the Apple Watch can provide early warnings about potentially worsening health for patients following incidents of heart failure.

The study, which is aiming to eventually span around 200 patients, and which already has a number of participants enrolled spanning ages from 25 to 90, and various demographics, will use the Apple Watch Series 6 and its onboard sensors to monitor signals including heart rate, blood oxygen, general activity levels, overall performance during a six minute walk test and more. Researchers led by Ross will compare this data to measurements taken from the more formal clinical tests currently used by physicians to monitor the recovery of heart failure patients during routine, periodic check-ups.

The hope is that Ross and her team will be able to identify correlations between signs they’re seeing from the Apple Watch data, and the information gathered from the proven medical diagnostic and monitoring equipment. If they can verify that the Apple Watch accurately reflects what’s happening with a heart failure patient’s health, it has tremendous potential for treatment and care.

“In the US, there are about six-and-a-half million adults with heart failure,” Ross told me in an interview. “About one in five people in North America over the age of 40 will develop heart failure. And the average life expectancy [following heart failure] is still measured at around 2.1 years, at a tremendous impact to quality of life.”

The stats point to heart failure as a “growing epidemic,” says Ross, at a cost of some “$30 billion a year at present in the U.S.” to the healthcare system. A significant portion of that cost can come from the care required when conditions worsen due to preventable causes – ones that can be avoided by changes in patient behavior, if only implemented at the right time. Ross told me that currently, the paradigm of care for heat failure patients is “episodic” – meaning it happens in three- or six-month intervals, when patients go into a physician’s office or clinic for a bevy of tests using expensive equipment that must be monitored by a trained professional, like a nurse practitioner.

“If you think about the paradigm to a certain degree, we’ve kind of got it backwards,” Ross said. “So in our thinking, the idea really is how do we provide a continuous style monitoring of patients in a relatively unobtrusive way that will allow us to detect a change in a patient status before they end up actually coming into hospital. So this is where the opportunity with Apple is tremendous.”

Ross said that current estimates suggest nearly 50% of hospitalizations could be avoided altogether through steps taken by patients including better self-care, like adhering to prescribed medicinal regimens, accurate symptom monitoring, monitoring dietary intake and more. Apple Vice President of Health Dr. Sumbul Desai echoed the sentiment that proactivity is one of the key ingredients to better standards of care, and better long-term outcomes.

“A lot of health, in the world of medicine, has been focused on reactive responses to situations,” she said in an interview. “The idea to get a little more proactive in the way we think about our own health is really empowering and we’re really excited about where that could take us. We think starting with these studies to really ground us in the science is critical but, really, the potential for it is something that we look forward to tackling.”

Desai, has led Apple’s Health initiatives for just under four years, and also spent much of her career prior to that at Stanford (where she remains an associate professor) working on both the academic and clinical side. She knows first-hand the value of continuous care, and said that this study is representative of the potential the company sees in Apple Watch’s role in the daily health of individuals.

“The ability to have that snapshot of an individual as they’re living their everyday life is extremely useful,” she said. “As a physician, part of your conversation is ‘tell me what’s going on when you’re not in the clinic.’ To be able to have some of that data at your fingertips and have that part of your conversation really enhances your engagement with your patients as well. We believe that can provide insight in ways that has not been done before and we’re really excited to see what more we’re learning in this specific realm but we already hearing from both users and physicians how valuable that is.”

Both Ross and Desai highlighted the value of Apple Watch as a consumer-friendly device that’s easy to set up and learn, and that serves a number of different purposes beyond health and fitness, as being key ingredients to its potential in a continuous care paradigm.

“We really believe that people should be able to play a more active role in managing their well-being and Apple Watch in particular, we find to be — and are really proud of — a powerful health and wellness tool because the same device that you can connect with loved ones and check messages also supports safety, motivates you to stay healthy by moving more and provides important information on your overall wellness,” Desai said.

“This is a powerful health care tool bundled into a device that people just love for all the reasons Sumbul has said,” Ross added. “But this is a powerful diagnostic tool, too. So it is that consumer platform that I think will make this potentially an unstoppable tool, if we can evaluate it properly, which we’re doing in this partnership.”

The study, which is targeting 200 participants as mentioned, and enrolling more every day, will span three months of active monitoring, followed by a two-year follow up to investigate the data collected relative to patient outcomes. All data collected is stored in a fully encrypted form (Ross pointed to Apple’s privacy track record as another benefit of having it as a partner) and anyone taking part can opt-out at any point during the course of the research.

Even once the results are in, it’ll just be the first step in a larger process of validation, but Ross said that the hope is to ultimately “to improve access and equitable care,” by changing the fundamental approach to how we think about heart failure and treatment.

Just three years after its founding, biotech startup Immunai has raised $60 million in Series A funding, bringing its total raised to over $80 million. Despite its youth, Immunai has already established the largest database in the world for single cell immunity characteristics, and it has already used its machine learning-powered immunity analysts platform to enhance the performance of existing immunotherapies, but aided by this new funding, it’s now ready to expand into the development of entirely new therapies based on the strength and breadth of its data and ML.

Immunai’s approach to developing new insights around the human immune system uses a ‘multi-omic’ approach – essentially layering analysis of different types of biological data, including a cell’s genome, microbiome, epigenome (a genome’s chemical instruction set) and more. The startup’s unique edge is in combining the largest and richest data set of its type available, formed in partnership with world-leading immunological research organizations, with its own machine learning technology to deliver analytics at unprecedented scale.

“I hope it doesn’t sound corny, but we don’t have the luxury to move more slowly,” explained Immunai co-founder and CEO Noam Solomon in an interview. “Because I think that we are in kind of a perfect storm, where a lot of advances in machine learning and compute computations have led us to the point where we can actually leverage those methods to mine important insights. You have a limit or ceiling to how fast you can go by the number of people that you have – so I think with the vision that we have, and thanks to our very think large network between MIT, and Cambridge to Stanford in the Bay Area, and Tel Aviv, we just moved very quickly to harness people to say, let’s solve this problem together.”

Solomon and his co-founder and CTO Luis Voloch both have extensive computer science and machine learning backgrounds, and they initially connected and identified a need for the application of this kind of technology in immunology. Scientific co-founder and SVP of Strategic Research Danny Wells then helped them refine their approach to focus on improving efficacy of immunotherapies designed to treat cancerous tumors.

Immunai has already demonstrated that its platform can help identify optimal targets for existing therapies, including in a partnership with the Baylor College of Medicine where it assisted with a cell therapy product for use in treating neuroblastoma (a type of cancer that develops from immune cells, often in the adrenal glands). The company is now also moving into new territory with therapies, using its machine learning platform and industry-leading cell database to new therapy discovery – not only identifying and validating targets for existing therapies, but helping to create entirely new ones.

“We’re moving from just observing cells, but actually to going and perturbing them, and seeing what the outcome is,” explained Voloch. This, from the computational side, later allows us to move from correlative assessments to actually causal assessments, which makes our models a lot more powerful. Both on the computational side and on the on the lab side, this is really bleeding edge technologies that I think we will be the first to really put together at any kind of real scale.”

“The next step is to say ‘Okay, now that we understand the human immune profile, can we develop new drugs?’,” said Solomon. “You can think about it like we’ve been building a Google Maps for the immune system of a few years – so we are mapping different roads and paths in the in the immune system. But at some point, we figured out that there are certain roads or bridges that haven’t been built yet. And we will be able to support building new roads and new and new bridges, and hopefully leading from current states of disease or cities of disease, to building cities of health.”