1. Clinical studies move slowly. For example, it's taken years to get approval for psychedelic research, but if there was a crowd-sourced database, people could have submitted their own experiences far quicker.
2. Clinical studies don't touch everything. There might be many people that have tried treatments that have very little data surrounding them (for example, probiotic treatments).
3. Clinical studies have small sample sizes for different trials (aka 100 people here, 100 people there). A crowd-sourced platform could have way more data points.
4. You can't create "mix and match" tests. A trial is very specific to one thing, but what if someone has mixed three different modalities and found that to be helpful?
This wasn't clear in my post, but I want to start with a survey and then move into a crowd-sourced model.
Lol this is a hilarious way of defining success. This data proves that if you want to have an "ongoing company" a few years after starting, you're better off going solo. But how many people, when starting a company, dream of reaching "ongoing" status? Why are they ignoring the data from the most valuable, most impactful, and most innovative startups?
The idea here is very cool, but was disappointed by the execution. A lot of the advice given is really simplistic. I'd like to see (1) more deep, meaningful advice (2) from smart, successful people (ex: Warren Buffet).