Most clinical decision support tools are funded — directly or indirectly — by the companies that manufacture the treatments those tools recommend. Vertix is not.
This page explains why that distinction matters, what we have done structurally to keep it that way, and how you can verify the claim.
The structural problem
When a clinical tool ranks treatments, the ranking reflects the data sources it pulls from, the researchers it weights heaviest, and the priorities of the people who pay the bills.
If the tool is funded by a pharmaceutical manufacturer, an insurer, or a managed care organization, those priorities seep into the recommendation logic — even when no one consciously intends it. Funder influence is structural, not malicious.
The honest fix is not a disclosure statement. The honest fix is to not take the money in the first place.
What we have done
- Bootstrapped. THE HUB INITIATIVE SLU is incorporated in Andorra and funded by founder capital and customer subscription revenue. No VC, no PE, no strategic investors. No board observers from industry.
- Zero pharma funding. No pharmaceutical manufacturer holds equity, advisory compensation, contracted research support, or commercial influence over the product, the recommendation engine, or the editorial roadmap.
- Zero insurer funding. No health insurer, managed care organization, or pharmacy benefit manager has any financial relationship with Vertix.
- Zero advertiser funding. No advertising revenue. No sponsored content. No data brokering. Subscription fees are the only revenue source.
- Just evidence. The recommendation engine ranks evidence by replication score, source authority, and clinical match. Not by commercial relationship. The ranking algorithm is documented; the source corpus is auditable.
Why it matters for the recommendations you see
When Vertix surfaces a treatment recommendation, the following statements are all true at the same time:
- The recommendation is supported by peer-reviewed evidence with verifiable DOIs you can click.
- Papers that failed replication are buried, not amplified.
- The demographic footprint of the underlying evidence is calculated and shown — not invented.
- If the evidence base is thin or biased toward a population unlike your patient's, you will see that warning before you commit to a plan.
- Nobody paid us to recommend any specific treatment, drug, or modality. Nobody can.
How to verify
You should not take a no-conflict claim on faith. Here is what we make available:
- Public subprocessor list: every entity that touches your data, with what they do and the BAA signed. /security#subprocessors
- Source corpus documentation: every database we draw evidence from, with license terms. /disclosures
- Recommendation methodology: how evidence is ranked, including the replication-weighting algorithm. /methodology (in progress)
- Founder and team disclosures: ownership, equity holders, advisor compensation. Available under NDA on request.
- Financial structure: cap table, revenue sources, expense categories. Available under NDA to enterprise customers and to bona fide journalists.
What we ask in return
If you ever encounter a recommendation that looks influenced by something other than the underlying evidence — or if you find an undisclosed financial relationship — tell us. Email [email protected]. We acknowledge reports within 2 business days and investigate every one.
Trust is not earned by saying the right things. It is earned by being structurally incapable of doing the wrong ones.
— Emilio Lobo, Founder
THE HUB INITIATIVE SLU · Andorra