That’s what makes this moment in health research so exciting.
We’re finally starting to see experiments that don’t just chase validation — they redefine how evidence itself gets created.

But real progress comes from proving that your past failures were the aberration, not your successes.

Most people who’ve already “made it,” and already have the "credibility" spend their energy protecting or replicating what worked before — the brand and titles they stand behind, the education and infrastructure they've got, the trial that got published ...

So when people dismiss the wellness, longevity, and citizen-health movement as naive or fringe…
I can’t help but wonder:

In every one of those cases, incumbents warned that the new model was irresponsible, unsafe, or even dangerous.
And yet, ten years later, those same “reckless” models became the new normal — for better, for worse, but undeniably permanent.

Think about what’s happened elsewhere:
Blogger made anyone a journalist.
E*Trade let anyone trade stocks without a broker.
YouTube turned anyone with a camera into a potential media brand.
Uber and Lyft made anyone a taxi driver.

The healthcare industry has always been slow to adopt innovation — for reasons both understandable and frustrating.
But could this finally be healthcare’s democratization moment?

In a typical pharma trial, nobody gets fired for doing what kinda, sorta worked in the past — even if it’s slow, laborious, and absurdly expensive.
There's so much risk in the pharma compounds, trial managers try to derisk everything else. So “innovation” usually happens only around the edges.

I’ve seen it from both sides.
I built a company that ran studies with pharma sponsors in the U.S. and EU — and it did fine.
But I realized something uncomfortable: the system isn’t designed to evolve.

B