I’ve spent years building my professional network on LinkedIn, but I’m relatively new to X. So, a quick introduction: I’ve spent over a decade in pharmaceutical R&D, working across drug discovery and development, from early research through clinical-stage programs. Now I’m here to meet more founders, scientists, investors, and builders in life sciences. 1/4

Screened 25 healthcare companies today. 5 are worth a closer look: • 4 therapeutics • 1 medical device

Reviewed 12 pitch decks this morning. Many were AI-generated. They looked generic, dense, and difficult to understand. AI-generated decks may save founders time creating them. They also save investors time getting to a quick “no.”

Founders who can build a deck without looking like an AI slop has a competitive advantage.

A lot of people talk about the barbell strategy. One way to build it in early-stage life sciences investing: Therapeutics + Medical devices.

It’s interesting to see how investors in other sectors source deals and compete for access to founders. In biotech, you’re often looking for experienced founders who understand the science and development path, and have the ability to build the team.

Joined the @sydecario Summit today. Great event! Really enjoyed hearing different perspectives on investing through SPVs and building in venture. Also great to meet @Jason in person.

It’s sad to see founders lose control of their companies, or management teams brought in with very little equity. Investors are not the ones building and running the company. If the management team doesn’t have meaningful ownership, who are we really invested in?

Looking forward to the Sydecar SPV Summit in NYC this week. Excited to learn, exchange ideas, and meet others building through SPVs.

Great evening in NYC with VC Village, bringing GPs and LPs together around the same table. Always valuable to exchange perspectives and build new relationships.

One thing I’ve learned evaluating early-stage biotech: Having multiple promising programs isn’t always a strength. Oftentimes, the simpler strategy is the one that looks more attractive to investors. Pick the strongest program → fund the next major milestone → create value → raise again or exit.

What I love about venture investing is that you get to be among the first people to see the future coming. Most won’t work. But every once in a while, you see something and think: this could change everything.

As more biotechs look to Australia, China, and elsewhere for their first clinical trials, the FDA’s new expedited IND pilot is a welcome step toward making the U.S. more competitive for early clinical development. fda.gov/news-events/press-an…

Just reviewed a pitch deck and noticed the CEO is “Open to Work” on LinkedIn. I’ve seen the same pattern more often than one might expect. If a company is raising capital while members of the management team appear to be looking for their next gig, what message does that send to investors? Investors need to see a fully committed team.

Just wrapping up a 10-day trip visiting CDMOs across Europe. Choosing the right CDMOs can significantly accelerate a drug development program. For large pharma, strong CDMO partnerships are critical to execution. For an early-stage biotech, where capital and internal resources are limited, a major CMC misstep can delay the program, burn through the runway, and potentially doom the company. Choosing the right CDMO matters.

ChaosBio has closed an SPV investment in @SutureTech. We’re excited to support the team as they work to improve soft-tissue repair and advance better solutions for patients. Looking forward to following their progress and being part of the journey.

Starting a 10-day trip through Europe, visiting CDMOs. Looking forward to seeing different manufacturing capabilities firsthand, meeting the teams behind them, and learning how they’re approaching the evolving needs of pharma and biotech.

Just finished reading The New Rules of Biotech by David Craig. A valuable read for biotech founders navigating the realities of building a company in 2026. It covers today’s fundraising environment, regulatory and policy considerations, non-dilutive funding, different sources of private funding, term sheets, and much more. But one of the most important questions comes before all of that: Why do you want to build a biotech company in the first place? Founders need an honest answer to that question. The drug development journey is long, the probability of success is low, and the opportunity cost is high.

Angel investing is pattern recognition. After reviewing hundreds of pitch decks, patterns start to emerge. You begin to recognize what strong founders do differently, which traction actually matters, where risks tend to hide, and when projections aren’t supported by the evidence. There’s no substitute for seeing more deals.

Reviewed an interesting healthcare startup today with real commercial traction, credible strategic validation, and a strong team. But I still struggled with the valuation. A good company isn’t automatically a good investment at any price. At the early stage, the question isn’t just whether the company can succeed. It’s whether the potential return adequately compensates investors for the risk that still remains.

When I evaluate an early-stage company, one of the first things I do is look up the founders on LinkedIn. Sometimes I find a profile that’s incomplete or hasn’t been updated in years. That makes diligence harder than it needs to be. At the early stage, investors are evaluating the founders as much as the company. Your experience, track record, and network all help establish credibility. Founders: don’t overlook your LinkedIn profile. It’s part of your pitch.