AutoCAD engineering
Concept geometry, stage views and engineering drawings — a question turned into something you can inspect and measure. Fabrication readiness still requires validation.
Leader · Issue One
Why This Model Beats the One You Were Taught
Ten agents with nothing in common converge on one cellular endpoint. Lock-and-key cannot explain that. We can — and unlike the standard account, our version makes a prediction that can embarrass us.
The fact the standard model cannot absorb
Avermectins for worms. Benzimidazoles for worms. A protease inhibitor built for an enzyme that exists only inside HIV. Plant endoperoxides for malaria. A gold salt approved in 1985 for arthritis. Baking soda. Broccoli. Hydrogen peroxide. A magnetic field. A fast. They share no pharmacophore, no receptor, no design lineage — and they converge on the same three effects in cancer cells: depolarised mitochondrial membrane, collapsed glucose handling, flooded reactive oxygen species. Under a receptor model that is ten coincidences. Ten coincidences is not an explanation; it is an admission.
The item that settles which lens is right
A magnetic field shifts radical-pair recombination, and therefore peroxide handling, with no molecule involved at any step. A fast administers nothing at all. If an effect is reproducible with no compound present, then the active variable cannot be molecular shape. It has to be the state being perturbed. That is not our opinion — it is what an intervention with no molecule forces you to conclude.
And the state has a name, with a Nobel attached
Peter Mitchell won in 1978 for showing the proton-motive force across a membrane resolves into an electrical term and a pH term, interconvertibly. Moving protons is moving charge. Voltage and acidity are one quantity wearing two coats. Seventy millivolts across five nanometres is about 140,000 volts per centimetre. The drugs are not keys. They are instruments for moving charge separation.
Our model is more parsimonious, and that is a scientific virtue
The conventional account needs a separate story for each agent — ten mechanisms, ten literatures, no connection. Ours needs one quantity and two access routes: the voltage door and the redox door. Every one of the ten sorts cleanly into one or both. A model that explains ten observations with one mechanism is not a weaker theory than one that needs ten. It is a better one, by the oldest standard in science.
It is also more falsifiable — which theirs is not
Here is the prediction the standard account cannot make. Sulfur-bearing benzimidazoles carry a redox couple the benzoyl members lack entirely. Our model says the two halves separate on a redox-sensitive readout. The conventional pharmacology gives no reason whatsoever to expect such a split. Tens of thousands of dollars, on compounds already sitting on shelves. If the split does not appear, our reading is wrong and we will print that. Ask the receptor model to name a result that would refute it and you will wait.
We published the condition that would sink us, before the data
The shielding experiment — culture a tumour line inside a radiofrequency enclosure and outside it, everything else identical, measure membrane potential — is published in full with sample sizes, blinding, controls, and the result that would make us withdraw the claim, committed to print before any data exists. Sixty-five to a hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars. A single Phase III costs twenty to fifty million.
And we gave the chemistry away so nobody can own it
Ninety-eight structures published complete with machine-readable formulas and synthetic routes, dedicated irrevocably to the public domain. No company can patent them, price them as a monopoly or fence off the mechanism. Neither can we. A theory whose authors have deliberately destroyed their own ability to profit from it is answering a different question than a theory defended by a patent estate.
The evidence they already have and have not acted on
Three independent groups published that moxidectin kills glioma cells — Song and colleagues in Oncology Reports 2018 (PMID 30015956), Liu and colleagues in the Journal of Cancer 2020 (PMID 32913473), and Kaushik and colleagues in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in August 2025 (PMID 40231611). Every one verified against NCBI, none retracted. The drug has been approved for human use since 2018, is WHO-listed, off patent and cheap. There is still no registered human cancer trial. We are not asking anyone to believe us. We are asking why that sentence is true.
How we handle our own errors, which is the actual difference
This project has published two corrections against itself in a single day: a claim that one laboratory had worked alone for eight years, withdrawn when a third group's paper turned up, and nineteen deposited structures that passed every automated check and were still the wrong molecules, caught by an independent reviewer and republished with the audit attached. Both corrections are printed on the original pages rather than quietly fixed. That is the standard we hold ourselves to, and it is the standard we are asking of the field.
✦ / The field we intend to own
From engineering drawings to molecular blueprints.
One discipline runs underneath all of it: computational engineering — designing the thing completely, and proving out what you can, before anyone cuts metal or runs a reaction. It is the same craft whether the object is a bracket or a molecule. Only the units change.
Computational engineering · one continuum
Structure and materials
The lattice between the two worlds: geometry that has to obey physics before it is worth costing, let alone building.
Biotechnology & molecular research
The same discipline applied to chemistry — scaffolds, conjugates and the design rationale for why a given structure should be made before anyone makes it.
Full RDKit molecular blueprints
Every structure parsed, sanitised and reported with its computed property set: isomeric SMILES, mass, lipophilicity, polar surface area, stereocentres. Computed, never quoted.
Our intention is plain: to own this field — computational engineering from the drawing to the molecule. Not by holding patents, but by being the group that does the work in the open, publishes its own corrections, and is the best in the world at deciding what is worth building next.
Computational designs only. Nothing described here has been synthesised, assayed or administered, and every property is a computed descriptor rather than a measurement. Fabrication and clinical readiness require validation that happens outside this factory.