YC Bio • Hacker News Board

Re: YC Bio

#131

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:05 AM UTC

beatpanda wrote: post #62

How is enabling people to live longer going to address a healthcare crisis that is primarily about the cost of care? If people live longer they are going to end up paying more for care, especially for whatever treatment any of these companies comes up with that enables them to live longer.

Life extension research does this by focusing on "healthspan" - that is, the amount of time you spend living in full health. The idea isn't to let you live 200+ years as 80-year-old person. The idea is to let you live up to 80 as if you're 30-40 - that is, to extend the time you're fully able to function and enjoy life - and push it out from there, keeping the tail-end small and extending the total lifespan. This happens to both offer huge potential healthcare savings, and meshes nicely with the idea that everything happening to your health past ~40 is part of the disease of aging.

Re: YC Bio

#132

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:10 AM UTC

hyperpallium wrote: post #82

dokein wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a physician, you're absolutely right. There is a HUGE range of problems that can be made better by proper diet and regular exercise. Although there are a few efforts here and there, nobody has figured out a reliable way of changing human behavior when the initial action is hard but the rewards are far away. We seem only to be good at short-circuiting dopamine reward pathways so people log in to Facebook more often…

How about: there's this wonderful new drug, but the only way to get to the dispensary is to walk 1km.

[deleted]

Re: YC Bio

#133

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:12 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant that in context of your entire comment tree; e.g. things like: > Things that are actually health promoting, like having a full-time parent to care for the kids and primary breadwinner, eating right, exercise etc are boring and don't make VCs rich. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you implying something like "why do medicine, if we could eat less 'junk food', work less and smile more instead". > curing Ricke…

That's indeed the domain of medicine. Which will tell you, "you need more nutrient $X in your diet" as a solution to the problem, instead of "eat healthier" (for values of 'healthier' determined by current fitness fashion). That sounds just really arbitrarily personally hostile towards me. I have gone through multiple blogs in which I have tried to lay out specific nutritional recommendations for people with CF. The…

> But this arbitrary validation of nutrition as medicine, unless I am doing it and then it is somehow hokum, is just one of the craziest things I have ever seen on HN.

Every nutrition as medicine claim on HN is highly controversial. Sure, there's some people that tend to vocally buy into even the most unscientific of them usually people that are personally invested in the claims made, which are often quite general in applicability. I suspect the reason you see less of that for yours isn't either a specific bias against you or anything about your particular claims except that the popular to whom they are applicable is fairly narrow. So you get the skeptics, but not the eager adopters.

Re: YC Bio

#134

Post by DoreenMichele » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:21 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #133

DoreenMichele wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's indeed the domain of medicine. Which will tell you, "you need more nutrient $X in your diet" as a solution to the problem, instead of "eat healthier" (for values of 'healthier' determined by current fitness fashion). That sounds just really arbitrarily personally hostile towards me. I have gone through multiple blogs in which I have tried to lay out specific nutritional recommendations for people with CF. The…

> But this arbitrary validation of nutrition as medicine, unless I am doing it and then it is somehow hokum, is just one of the craziest things I have ever seen on HN. Every nutrition as medicine claim on HN is highly controversial. Sure, there's some people that tend to vocally buy into even the most unscientific of them usually people that are personally invested in the claims made, which are often quite general in…

I am not looking for eager early adopters. I am fine with skepticism. That isn't what I am met with. I am met with ugly personal attacks. I am met with complete dismissal.

Anyway, it is probably pointless to engage here. I did not expect my initial comment to get any upvotes at all, much less engender discussion. I expected it to be downvoted to hell and end up at the bottom of the page.

I meant it when I said that speaking to these issues on HN is evidence that I have snapped. I am, in fact, having a huge personal crisis that seems unsolvable. Spouting off is just me falling apart in public, basically. I already am very well aware that I will never be taken seriously. That isn't news to me.

Re: YC Bio

#135

Post by d_burfoot » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:24 AM UTC

I am cheering for you guys, but.... I fear YC is moving way out of its center of competence. Startup mantras like "build something people want" and "move fast and break things" are probably wildly inappropriate for the biotech world. Even the setup of the the YC course, where you hack intensely for three months and then present something cool at Demo Day, seems totally misconfigured for doing bio research.

Re: YC Bio

#136

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:27 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #71

SRasch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I relate to your sentiment, but it seems to me that promoting healthy lifestyles and inventing new cures doesn't have to be in opposition. Like you, I spend a lot of time figuring out how to live better. But also grateful for the medicine I got for illnesses when they do arise. I use and apply free health advice. Then again, I also use gym and supplements, which may have made VCs rich. Likewise, in cures, I appreciat…

I am fine with all of the above. The problem is that our increasing focus on solutions someone can monetize and make a mint off of are steadily crowding out other options. YC has a lot of power. Adding their muscle to the goal of finding business solutions to health issues is very likely to deepen that problem. I quit taking the flu vax years ago and have done better since. In the eyes of some people, this makes me a…

Path dependence is a real phenomenon, yes, but then again, so is doing things that can be done, as opposed to those that can't.

How much effort do you think it would take to force the adult population into "healthy lifestyle" (as defined by the usual good diet and lots of exercise, etc.)? How would one even do that? I can't imagine anything over a) upending the industrial revolution and getting us all back to the farmer's life, b) just forcing everyone by arbitrary government restrictions on everything, or c) doing massive brainwashing of everyone. All of those strategies are infeasible, and could have bad side effects.

OTOH money spent on biomedical research can lead to figuring out one cause of one disease, and a subsequent cure. Then another. Then another. A lot of those could allow us to sidestep the lifestyle requirements, which I believe to be a good outcome. It expands options. (This - using medicine to not change lifestyle being good - is where I think our beliefs strongly differ.)

--

> I am some nutter who "lives in a bubble" for preferring to limit my exposure to germs as effective prevention rather than live on prophylactic antibiotics all the time,

What? Who on Earth does "prophylactic antibiotics"? I thought this was restricted to surgery and some other very special cases...

> Limiting my exposure to other people and their germs is not viewed as a reasonable choice for avoiding that outcome.

This is a very reasonable strategy and is often used, but has lifestyle costs, so people avoid doing it anyway... No blame to be put on doctors for that one.

> When I was growing up, anyone getting vaccinated was a success. People who didn't weren't all that uncommon. Now we are shooting for 100% of the population being vaccinated and you need to justify not getting it.

When you were growing up, polio was a thing. Now, it isn't. There's not just a correlation there, there's actual causation. We're shooting for 100% vaccination for some of the things, because vaccines work, and happen to work superlinearly - the more people are vaccinated, the more likely it is those who are not vaccinated will not get infected either. And some people can't be vaccinated for health reasons, so they rely on that so-called "herd immunity".

Re: YC Bio

#137

Post by poppingtonic » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:32 AM UTC

Is this going to expand the funding that goes to the SENS program? There's a lot of basic Science that is yet to be done, and it appears (from Aubrey de Grey's talks) that a lot of it is still rather underfunded. See this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ARUQ5LoUo

Re: YC Bio

#138

Post by comstock » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:35 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #121

comstock wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here’s my take on how this will play out... Tech investors are almost totally unequiped to do the necessary DD. They either therefore go for plays that are easy to understand, largely computational exercises or in the rare cases they do go for something higher risk, they back something crazy (e.g. Theranos) because they don’t do good DD. Getting an “expert” to vet the play rarely works. Because tech VCs don’t kno…

So, I came of age right in the middle of the first dot-com boom. My observation is that back then, no one with money knew what they hell they were doing. My observation during this dot-com boom is that a lot of the people who did well last round are now part of the VC infrastructure, like our own Paul Graham. My impression is that this time around, money is a lot more competent because of this. Because this made such…

True, but their competence isn’t is science based startups. In all honesty I think that makes them in general gravitate to Bio tech plays which involve a lot of traditional Tech. The thesis is easier, but much less likely to result in high reward.

Re: YC Bio

#139

Post by DoreenMichele » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:37 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #136

DoreenMichele wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fine with all of the above. The problem is that our increasing focus on solutions someone can monetize and make a mint off of are steadily crowding out other options. YC has a lot of power. Adding their muscle to the goal of finding business solutions to health issues is very likely to deepen that problem. I quit taking the flu vax years ago and have done better since. In the eyes of some people, this makes me a…

Path dependence is a real phenomenon, yes, but then again, so is doing things that can be done, as opposed to those that can't. How much effort do you think it would take to force the adult population into "healthy lifestyle" (as defined by the usual good diet and lots of exercise, etc.)? How would one even do that? I can't imagine anything over a) upending the industrial revolution and getting us all back to the far…

My dream job was to become an urban planner. Historically, city planners considered health effects of the design decisions that were made. This is basically no longer done.

Yet one thing harming health in the US is that most people find that long commutes are not an option. They are a necessity. The time spent behind the wheel is not only bad for your health, it robs you of time to do things like go to the gym or cook from scratch.

Most Americans don't want to spend that time behind the wheel. But there are huge obstacles to arranging to avoid it. Many Americans wish they had other options. If those options were made available, you would not need to force people to take them.

Though I wish you had just dropped it and walked away like you indicated you would do.

Re: YC Bio

#140

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Jan 12, 2018, 6:44 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #139

TeMPOraL wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Path dependence is a real phenomenon, yes, but then again, so is doing things that can be done, as opposed to those that can't. How much effort do you think it would take to force the adult population into "healthy lifestyle" (as defined by the usual good diet and lots of exercise, etc.)? How would one even do that? I can't imagine anything over a) upending the industrial revolution and getting us all back to the far…

My dream job was to become an urban planner. Historically, city planners considered health effects of the design decisions that were made. This is basically no longer done. Yet one thing harming health in the US is that most people find that long commutes are not an option. They are a necessity. The time spent behind the wheel is not only bad for your health, it robs you of time to do things like go to the gym or coo…

FWIW, I'm totally with you on what you just wrote about commute and urban planning. Seeing my city (in Europe) destroyed by developers is deeply saddening. We've opened up cities to the free market, and now everyone treats building as investments, putting residential and commercial structures where it makes zero sense, only further congesting the city. TBH, I don't feel like anyone is doing any actual urban planning anymore.

> Though I wish you had just dropped it and walked away like you indicated you would do.

Yeah, I should have. Couldn't stop myself. But I'm going to now. No more comments on the health stuff.