YC Bio

But unless you post data or link to a study things just devolve into anecdotal arguments and there doesn't seem to be any way to move forward (and no point in commenting).

I can't see any logical reason to agree with your standpoint based on what you've said...

as a former biologist:

please, please, please, please, please, please, please ensure that at YC the people with money do not try to interpret laboratory data and stay far away from making any kind of project-level decisions.

it's something they (VCs) love to do, in my experience. incorrectly. and it's a massive waste of scientists' time, to have to correct the moneymen's misunderstandings of rudimentary things. then it's a cringe session when you hear them trying to explain it to other moneymen. then it's a big tearjerker when the moneymen's childlike expectations aren't met, and the company suffers.

something about biotech VCs and business types makes them think that they understand their products and products-in-development even if they're unqualified. the reality is that the depths of their ignorance are very embarrassing.

but i digress. i hate to rain on the parade here, but my bet is that most of the early stage biopharmas at YC will fail due to one of two reasons:

1. nature isn't working in the way they need it to.

2. the people with money don't stay out of the way enough and make stupid decisions that they don't understand.

i've seen a few biotechs fail to reason 1-- always tragic, but nature always has another trick that mankind will figure out some other day.

i've also seen a few fail to reason 2. it's very predictable, and saddening every time. non-technical types in leadership positions need to stay far away from biotech, especially at an early stage... they ruin things by cutting funding at the wrong time; they ruin things by forcing idiotic focuses; and they ruin things by believing that manipulating nature is similar to making a faster horse.

i have plenty of ideas on how to make biotech startups work better when they receive funding, however. they are, shall we say, politically incorrect-- both to the society of the scientists as well as the society of the VCs. perhaps i will share them on some other evening.

Parental leave suggests leave for more than just the mother and is in fact what you explicitly said "provided parental leave for both parents when a child is born".

Which seems valuable for many reasons. But I would be interested in seeing data which supports that this results in better health outcomes for mother and child. However, I'm not sure this specific case tells us much about the general case of patients (you cited CF) being cared for by friends or family members...

You're not backing up your statements with data, and not making a reasoned objective [1] logical argument... people do that all the time of course. But it doesn't really help advance a discussion or change anything. It's probably why you've ran into issues getting your point across in general.

[1] You might feel you have sufficient subjective reasons to believe what you state. But it doesn't help convince others, for that objective proof is required.

> If I were being taken at all seriously then people would be asking me how on earth I am doing this

https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/narcissistic-personalit...

From my perspective it’s somewhat the opposite. I’ve tried to be calm and measured and friendly while you (a) assumed I was trying to attack you (I have no idea why), (b) assumed I have a strongly held opposition to the general idea of kids staying at home (I am not planning to keep my kids at home – I would rather have them out exploring the city – but am not going to judge other parents for whatever beliefs/practices they might have; there are many worse things parents could do to their children than stay home with them for the first 8 years or whatever), (c) assumed I am advocating for public daycare as the best place for very small children, (d) put various hyperbolic words in my mouth.

“Hermetically sealed bubble” was a bit of an extreme description of your (largely unspecified) alternative to sending kids out into public, but personally I feel there are many good reasons to send kids out to e.g. the park, the grocery store, the street, the bus, the library, later to occasional organized classes, etc. (e.g. so they can learn many skills including socializing with peers and the community at large) without all that much evidence of significant risks. Small children living among communities of humans pretty much inevitably get sick at least several times per year, even in relatively small and isolated agrarian societies. By most objective measures (and especially if we disregard effects from terrible diet and sitting staring at screens a whole lot) children today are incredibly safe and healthy compared to past children.

I agree it hasn’t been especially constructive, but I’m not quite sure why you were and are so wound up and negative about the conversation here.