Patient Stories, With Receipts
Three anonymised patient journeys reconstructed entirely from signed session telemetry — no testimonials, no editing, just the data and what it shows.
We have a policy against testimonials. Patient stories are too easy to curate, and the ones that survive selection bias are almost always the ones with the cleanest narrative arc — which is, statistically, exactly the kind of story you should not be using to evaluate a clinical protocol. Instead, three real patient journeys reconstructed from their signed session telemetry. The patients consented to anonymised publication and reviewed the final text.
1. Patient A — chronic plaque psoriasis, 14 years
Entered protocol with PASI score of 18.4. Completed full Geneva initiation plus 90 days of maintenance. Day-120 PASI of 4.1. One Grade 0 erythema event at session 6, no other deviations. The patient still has psoriasis. The patient also has 78% less of it, by the metric the field has agreed to measure with.
2. Patient B — refractory occipital neuralgia
Three years on a rotating regimen of gabapentinoids, tricyclics, and occipital nerve blocks. Entered the analgesic arm of the protocol with a baseline NRS of 7.4 over a 30-day diary. Day-30 NRS of 2.8, day-60 of 2.1. Discontinued gabapentin at day 45 under their primary neurologist's supervision. We did not publish a press release.
3. Patient C — the one we declined
We include this story because it matters. A patient with elevated baseline tryptase and a documented prior Hymenoptera anaphylaxis applied for the protocol. Our pre-screen flagged both signals immediately, our medical director declined enrolment, and we referred the patient to an allergology specialist for venom immunotherapy assessment. Six months later that patient cleared desensitisation and returned. We re-evaluated, accepted them into a modified protocol, and they are now in maintenance with zero events.
"The patients we say no to are part of the safety record. We just rarely get to talk about them."