←back to thread

I wasted $40k on a fantastic startup idea

(tjcx.me)
851 points swyx | 1 comments | 18 Jan 21 20:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.3s | source
Show context
nickjj ◴[18 Jan 21 21:26 UTC] No.25826835[source]▶
That was a fun read. I wish the author mentioned how much he was trying to sell the service for. It could have been $59 a month or $599 a month and with doctors you could potentially expect the same answer.

I'm not a psychologist but some of the author's quoted text came off extremely demeaning in written form. If the author happens to read this, did you really say those things directly to them?

For example, Susan (psychologist) was quoted as saying:

> "Oh sure! I mean, I think in many cases I'll just prescribe what I normally do, since I'm comfortable with it. But you know it's possible that sometimes I'll prescribe something different, based on your metastudies."

To which you replied:

> "And that isn't worth something? Prescribing better treatments?"

Imagine walking into the office of someone who spent the last ~10 years at school and then potentially 20 years practicing their craft as a successful psychologist and then you waltz in and tell them what they prescribe is wrong and your automated treatment plan is better.

replies(15): >>25826991 #>>25827042 #>>25827090 #>>25827136 #>>25827163 #>>25827304 #>>25827783 #>>25827796 #>>25828236 #>>25828791 #>>25829250 #>>25829290 #>>25830742 #>>25830838 #>>25832379 #
GordonS ◴[19 Jan 21 11:29 UTC] No.25832379[source]▶
> I'll just prescribe what I normally do, since I'm comfortable with it

This is actually something that drives me absolutely nuts about doctors in the UK (I presume they are the same elsewhere) - inertia.

It's like doctors leave medical school with "best practices" about what they should prescribe - like they are glorified, human decision trees - and then across their 40-year career, they never read a paper, never read any new guidance, and general never change.

Inertia seems to be a particular problem in the NHS, where doctors have a set list they are willing to prescribe. Why? Because it's what they've prescribed previously, so they are "comfortable" with it. You can see there is a bit of a "chicken and egg problem" with other medications.

replies(3): >>25832584 #>>25832651 #>>25834155 #
1. quintushoratius ◴[19 Jan 21 15:14 UTC] No.25834155[source]▶
At it's core "modern medicine" is not actually a science. We've added a veneer of science, there's science at the edges, but at it's most basic form it remains an art from inception in the 19th century to today.

* Pharmaceuticals: science, mostly, but beware of "pseucutcals" like supplements and herbal remedies. Also beware of new ideas that cut into profits.

* Cutting-edge surgery: science

* Mental health: art, with a dose of science from big pharma

* General practice: mostly the art of laying on hands, distilled experience, a bit of research with your sales rep and whatever you took with you from medical school.

If this feels harsh, remember that, despite solid scientific evidence, it took over two decades for the conventional medical wisdom to move stomach ulcers from "caused by stress you need to relax" to "caused by helicobacter pylori we can treat it with a convenient antibiotic." Inertia is a helluva drug.