The Latest

The PremiseScience was once governed by disciplined inquiry and collective verification. Its slow, cumulative rhythm ensured that discoveries matured through scrutiny. In the modern research economy, that rhythm has been replaced by velocity. Today, scientific progress is defined by publication count rather than intellectual contribution. Publishability — the capacity to generate a result fast enough, fashionable enough, and fundable enough — has become the operative currency of success.The Distortion Under this regime, novelty eclipses reliability. A finding that is intriguing but unstable will outcompete a replication that is dull but true. Incentives reward the easily cited over the carefully tested. Peer review, once a mechanism for quality control, functions largely as a formality — a procedural endorsement of productivity. Journals compete not for accuracy but for attention, chasing “impact factors” that often correlate with controversy, not validity. The entire system has inverted: signaling replaces substance. The Consequence The resulting distortion corrodes the epistemic fabric of science. Research becomes a form of theater — designed for visibility rather than veracity. Young scientists internalize a survival logic: select questions that yield publishable noise, not durable knowledge. Institutions respond with metrics and dashboards that quantify reputation without measuring truth. The consequence is a vast accumulation of papers that cannot replicate, policies that mislead, and technologies that rest on statistical mirages. The Way Forward Repair begins with incentive inversion. Journals must reward correction over discovery, transparency over novelty. Funders should prioritize reproducibility studies and open datasets as legitimate endpoints. Institutions must recalibrate tenure metrics to reflect truth maintenance rather than paper velocity. Above all, science must remember its moral identity: a covenant with uncertainty, not a contest of output. The tyranny of the publishable ends only when humility is restored as the highest form of rigor. References RegenMed (2025). Genuine Medical Research Has Lost Its Way. White Paper, November 2025. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8). Brembs, B. (2018). Prestige Journals and the Reproducibility Crisis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 37. Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The Natural Selection of Bad Science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9). Sarewitz, D. (2016). The Pressure to Publish Pushes Down Quality. Nature, 533(7602), 147. Horton, R. (2015). Offline: What Is Medicine’s 5 Sigma? The Lancet, 385(9976), 1380. ‍

On December 15 the FDA issued a news release highly supportive of the clinical, regulatory, and financial value of RegenMed Circle Datasets. Circle Datasets need no IRB or other outside validation beyond this clearly stated FDA policy. They deliver exactly what the FDA is looking for: fit-for-purpose structure, correlated outcomes, statistical significance, and data provenance in the context of practice-of-medicine hypotheses and corresponding data. To this are added clear ownership rights and compliant monetization opportunities for contributing physicians.

The Argument For Physician Data Ownership and MonetizationFor the last decade, the healthcare industry has been sold a promise: that "Big Data" would solve medicine's most complex problems. We were told that by aggregating millions of heterogeneous records — EMR entries, billing claims, and registry data — we could use algorithms to infer clinical reality.That promise has failed.Instead of clear, actionable intelligence, we have built "Data Swamps". These opaque repositories rely on "Schema-on-Read" methodologies, where data is mined retrospectively, stripping it of its original clinical context. The result is "Probabilistic Data" — best-guess estimates that fuel AI hallucinations and lead to higher drug development costs and less reliable outcomes.The era of the Data Swamp is ending. It is being replaced by a new standard: Schema-on-Capture.The Strategic Trinity: Veracity, Sovereignty, and EquityTo fix the broken data economy, we must move beyond simply building better tools. We must adopt a new philosophy anchored in three pillars: Veracity, Sovereignty, and Equity.Veracity: Minting "Ground Truth" The highest quality healthcare data is not found in billing codes; it is captured at the point of care. True "Ground Truth" exists only when a data point is linked to a verified Clinical Hypothesis at the exact moment of its creation.This is the distinction between inferring what happened and knowing what happened. By utilizing Observational Protocols that record the "Practice of Medicine" — the sovereign, independent decision-making of the treating physician — we generate Deterministic Evidence. This approach ensures that data is non-interventional and exempt from traditional IND/IRB mandates, while still providing the granular detail required for high-value research.Sovereignty: The End of the "Honey Pot" In the traditional model, data is extracted from hospitals and stored in centralized servers, creating massive security risks — or "Honey Pots" — for hackers.RegenMed flips this architecture. Through a Federated "Zero-Copy" approach, data can remain resident at the local data node (the clinic or hospital). When a pharmaceutical company or AI developer needs answers, we move the query to the data, not the data to the query. This ensures physician control is never compromised.Equity: Turning "Data Serfs" into Partners Perhaps the most broken aspect of the current data economy is the financial model. Physicians generate the raw material — the clinical data — yet they are treated as "Data Serfs," seeing little to no value from the multi-billion-dollar data lake industry.RegenMed’s "Circle Datasets" invert this model. We believe physicians should hold unambiguous ownership of their data. Under the Circle model, participating physicians are not merely contributors; they are partners who can receive up to 85% of net license fees.The Economics of Physician Data OwnershipThe financial implications of this shift are profound for medical practices. By structuring data based on practice-of-medicine clinical hypotheses and capturing correlated long-term outcomes, physicians create an asset that appreciates in value over time.Consider the economic model for a standard "Circle" implementation:‍The Investment: A physician participating in 4 Observational Protocols might incur a total cost of roughly $4,520 per year.The Return: With 10 collaborating physicians and just 5 licenses sold per Circles Dataset, the revenue per physician can be approximately $127,500. (These are illustrative numbers only, and depend on several key variables.)This transforms administrative burden — often derided as "Pajama Time" — into significant revenue streams.Bridging the Gap for Life Sciences and AIWho buys this data? The demand for "Ground Truth" is accelerating across the healthcare landscape.Pharma & Device Manufacturers: They require Synthetic Control Arms (SCA) to replace expensive placebo groups. They need "Deterministic" outcomes to avoid regulatory risks associated with inferred claims data.AI Developers: As Generative AI scales, it requires hallucination-free training data. RegenMed provides the verified "Ground Truth" necessary for Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG).Payers and Value-Based Care Organizations.Research Groups.Others throughout the Healthcare Ecosystem.Conclusion: The Power of Physician ControlThe failure of Big Data was not a failure of technology; it was a failure of incentives and structure. By returning ownership to the physician and prioritizing "Schema-on-Capture" data collection, we are not just cleaning up the swamp. We are building a high-quality data lake refreshed in real-time.This is a powerful clinical and financial combination: minimal clinical burden, superior patient engagement, and a path to financial independence for the private practice.The paradigm has shifted. Welcome to the era of Physician Data Ownership.Get involved or learn more — contact us today!If you are interested in contributing to this important initiative or learning more about how you can be involved, please contact us.

Why truth, not scarcity, defines value in medicine. The Myth of Scarcity In classical economics, value begins with scarcity: what is rare commands price. But in medicine, abundance — not scarcity — is the crisis. Hospitals, registries, and AI systems produce torrents of data, yet none of it carries stable worth. Raw medical information, stripped of provenance, is weightless. It cannot be owned, priced, or trusted because it cannot prove itself. Every dataset becomes a rumor — believed only until contradicted. Circle Coin begins where conventional economics fails: by defining worth not through limitation, but through verifiable truth. Value as Verification For a datum to possess economic reality, it must satisfy three moral tests: Truth — Was it measured accurately and preserved without distortion? Consent — Was its use authorized by the person from whom it came? Continuity — Can its lineage be traced across time and context? Only when these conditions are met does data become evidence. And when evidence is recorded within a transparent, auditable system, it becomes asset. Circle’s token model encodes these tests directly into issuance logic: each Circle Health Coin (CHC) represents a verified act of ethical truth. From Information to Moral CapitalTraditional markets reward possession; federated markets reward integrity. In Circle’s ecosystem, every verified contribution — whether a laboratory result, imaging dataset, or longitudinal follow-up — accrues moral capital that is convertible into measurable value.This is not philanthropy. It is a redefinition of productivity: honesty itself becomes an economic input. Whereas older systems priced data by its novelty, Circle prices it by its trust density — the cumulative weight of proof supporting it. The Ethics of Scarcity ReversedWhen truth becomes currency, scarcity reverses its moral meaning. False or unverifiable data lose all value, no matter how rare. Verified continuity, by contrast, compounds in worth the longer it endures. The ethical inversion is complete: value now flows toward transparency, not secrecy. Federation makes moral behavior profitable — a self-reinforcing equilibrium between virtue and yield. Continuity as InheritanceEach patient record verified within Circle becomes part of a living moral ledger. Over time, that ledger accrues the equivalent of interest — reputation dividends — because its credibility attracts further use and validation. Thus, truth generates legacy. Medicine gains what it has long lacked: an inheritance mechanism for integrity. Every verified act contributes to the next generation of knowledge with measurable equity attached. The Moral OutcomeCircle Coin’s genesis principle is simple: truth = value. It restores to medicine an ancient moral symmetry—those who create honest knowledge share in its benefit. In this economy, worth is not mined, printed, or claimed. It is earned through verification. The first currency of the new age is not gold, code, or data. It is trust made durable. Selected ReferencesRegenMed (2024). Circle Datasets: The Foundation For Circle Health Coins.OECD (2024). Ethical Economies of Data. World Bank (2024). Trust as Infrastructure. European Commission (2025). Tokenized Integrity in Health Data Markets. ‍

Type image caption here (optional)Dr. PagdinDear Colleagues,Innovation in peptide research is driven by collaboration. At CPRS, we believe that sharing knowledge and data accelerates discovery and ensures safe, effective therapies for patients across North America and Canada.Highlights from the AMMG Conference: Building Bridges for Peptide ResearchAt the recent AMMG conference, Dr. Pagdin had an inspiring experience connecting with industry leaders and discussing the exciting prospect of establishing a North American Research Society. The goal is to foster greater collaboration across the continent — linking efforts in the U.S. and Canada to advance peptide science. A key focus is securing IRB approval that covers both countries, with options like Advarra offering streamlined pathways.Robust data collection remains vital to accelerating discoveries in peptide research. We look forward to continuing these conversations and exploring new partnerships that will drive innovation and improve patient outcomes throughout North America!CPRS Focus Areas Include:Clinical data collection on peptide useStandardizing treatment protocolsExploring new peptide applications in autoimmunity, orthopedics, dermatology, and moreSupporting hypothesis-driven research initiativesHow Can You Contribute?CPRS offers a platform for clinicians and researchers to collaborate on pilot studies, share case reports, and participate in consensus-building efforts. Our partnerships with organizations like RegenMed enable us to gather real-world evidence that informs best practices.Become a MemberMembership with CPRS provides access to exclusive resources, networking opportunities, and the chance to influence the future of peptide medicine. Visit our website to learn more and get involved.Special Membership Offer!We’re excited to share some great news! Enjoy $100 off your CPRS membership with the code COAM2025 through the end of December. Regularly priced at $500/year,our membership provides access to a wealth of valuable content on peptides, as well as our innovative PROM tools. Plus, you have the opportunity to share in licensing fees for any data you contribute.Check it out at www.cpr-society.com and please forward this to any colleagues who may be interested.Let’s work together to redefine what's possible with peptide science.Best regards,Dr. Grant PagdinCanadian Peptide Research Society