This site carries writing for two very different readers. One of them pays me. The other one does not. That is worth saying plainly rather than leaving it to be worked out.
I advise life sciences manufacturers for a living. Nothing written for patients on this site is sponsored, no company pays to appear in it, and it names no product by brand. If that arrangement bothers you, the right response is to read the patient material skeptically. I would rather you did that than not know.
What I do for a living
I am the founder of Novus Proximus, a healthcare commercialization advisory firm. My clients are pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and the partners who serve them. The work is about patient access, Gross-to-Net, launch readiness and commercial finance. Before that I spent eighteen years inside pharmaceutical companies in finance leadership, including as a chief financial officer.
That is the source of the material on the manufacturer side of this site, and it is the reason it is specific. It is also, straightforwardly, the reason I can afford to write the patient side.
Who pays for what you are reading
The patient pages. Nobody pays for these. No manufacturer, no pharmacy, no insurer, no patient group commissions them, reviews them before publication, or sees them early. No company pays to be mentioned, and none is mentioned by brand name.
The manufacturer pages. These are written to demonstrate how I think, which is a commercial act. I am hoping the right reader hires me. That is the whole business model and there is nothing hidden in it.
The newsletter and the podcast. Not sponsored. Guests appear because the conversation is worth having, and guests do not pay.
Where I have a stake
Some of what I write about is mine. The 10 Exits of Therapy™, the 5 Layers of GTN™ and the NextGen GTN™ curriculum are frameworks I built and use in paid work. NaviCuris™ is a platform my firm licenses. When a piece of writing rests on one of those, I have an obvious interest in you finding it useful.
I do not think that makes the frameworks wrong. I do think you should know, which is why the names are on them.
Products named in my work history
Some of the writing here, and some of the archived posts and social material linked from this site, name pharmaceutical products by brand. Those are products I supported during my years inside pharmaceutical companies. They appear as a record of where I worked and what I worked on. They are not promotion, and they are not there because anyone asked for them to be.
Nothing on this site is a claim about any product. I make no representation about the safety, efficacy, quality or appropriateness of any medicine named here, for any patient or any condition. Nothing here is a recommendation to use, request or switch to a particular product. Those judgments belong with a licensed clinician and with the approved labeling, and nowhere else.
The views are mine alone. They are not made on behalf of, and do not represent the position of, any current or former employer, any client, or the manufacturer of any product named.
Nobody reviews this site before it publishes. No employer, client or manufacturer sees it early or approves it.
Where I am teaching rather than recounting history, the brand name comes out. The generic or molecule name is used instead. That is deliberate, and it is why the patient-facing pages name no product at all.
What I will not do here
I will not tell you which medicine to take, and I will not tell you that a particular product is the one to ask for. Those are decisions for you and your licensed clinician, and a person who is paid by manufacturers has no business putting a thumb on that scale.
I will not name a pharmaceutical product by brand in anything written for patients. The generic name, the drug class or a neutral description is always enough to make the point, and anything more starts to look like promotion.
I will not collect your medical situation. The assessment on this site runs entirely in your browser. Your answers are not sent anywhere, not stored, and not visible to me.
Why write for patients at all
Because it is the same system. The places where a treatment stalls between a prescription and a first dose are the same places a manufacturer quietly loses revenue. A patient calls it a wait with no explanation. A commercial team calls it leakage. The friction is identical. Only the vocabulary changes.
That symmetry is the whole argument behind Patients + Profitability™. Writing only to the side that pays would mean making the argument with half of it missing.
If something here looks wrong
Tell me. If a piece reads like it is selling something, if a framework looks like it exists to make my work sound necessary, or if a patient-facing page drifts toward advice it has no right to give, I want to know and I will fix it. The contact page reaches me directly.
The patient-side writing starts at Where did your treatment stop? The philosophy behind both sides is at Patients + Profitability™.
Last updated September 2026. This page is a statement of commercial interest, not medical or legal advice.