June 8, 2026

Why our research is open

Every binding we show links to the assay that recorded it. A claim that cannot be traced never enters our work. Here is why that matters.

An apothecary is, in the end, a claim factory. Every product on every shelf is a small assertion about the world: that this plant, prepared this way, meets the body usefully. The question that separates an institution from a marketplace is what stands behind those assertions — and whether anyone is allowed to check.

Our standard is simple, and it is absolute: a claim that cannot be traced to a measured result or a named, dated source never enters our work, and never reaches the shelf. When we tell you a compound engages a protein, that statement carries a link to the assay that recorded the binding — its strength, its units, the public database that holds it. When we show you a molecule, it is the actual three-dimensional structure, drawn from public chemistry. When we compute how a compound fits its target, we tell you exactly how we computed it and report the result as our own prediction, never disguised as a measurement.

We publish this openly, in our research library, because openness is the discipline. It is easy to make a confident claim in a place no one can examine. It is much harder — and far more honest — to publish the trail and invite the examination. The sources we build on are themselves open: PubChem from the U.S. National Library of Medicine, ChEMBL and AlphaFold from the European Bioinformatics Institute, BindingDB, AutoDock Vina. We stand on public science and we keep our own work in public view.

This costs us the easy sentence — the sweeping, unverifiable promise that sells so well. We think that is the right trade. The whole value of bringing modern measurement to ancient practice is the rigor; the moment we loosen it for a better headline, we have thrown away the only thing that made the project worth doing. So we hold the line, in public, one cited claim at a time.