Mithras Health

About Mithras Health

A covenant, not a company line.

Mithras Health is the patient-mediated research-data platform for chronic disease: patients own their records, choose the studies that may use them, and are paid when approved research does. This page is who we are, what we refuse, and where the machine stands.

Est. 2026Pre-launch buildPatent pendingFigs. A1–A3

Why this has to exist

A medical history is scattered by default. The hospital system holds one piece, the lab another, the wearable a third; move between providers or countries and the trail crosses borders the data may not. Institutions cannot simply pool those records — the laws that stop them exist for good reasons, and we would not repeal them if we could.

But there has always been one party with the right to assemble the whole picture: the patient. Access rights in the United States, portability rights in the EU and UK — modern privacy law broadly agrees that you may gather your own records even where no institution may. Patient-mediated access is not a loophole. It is the lawful path that was there all along, waiting for infrastructure.

Meanwhile chronic-disease research starves. Conditions that unfold over decades get studied in fragments, because no single silo holds a decade. The records exist; the willingness to consent exists; what is missing is the machinery in between. Building that machinery — to the standard described on this page — is the company.

The story

Mithras Health began with one hard disease and the community that refused to stop documenting it. People living with interstitial cystitis / bladder pain syndrome have organized, recorded symptoms, and waited for research attention for roughly thirty years. Their records were always valuable — what was missing was infrastructure that could carry consent, privacy, and fair payment at the same time.

So we built the spine first: a system of record on FHIR R4 / US Core, a consent engine that treats a revocation as seriously as a yes, a k ≥ 5 gate that cannot be configured away, research views in OMOP, and an append-only audit trail under all of it. IC/BPS is the flagship cohort; the same machinery, unchanged, carries all twenty-eight conditions — urology to oncology — across forty-seven connectors and five legal regimes.

The name is a promise. Mithra is the oldest recorded god of covenants — the witness who watched over kept agreements — and later the herald of dawn. We took the name because that is the model: explicit terms, a witness that never sleeps, and a sunrise owed to communities that have waited in the dark long enough.

The covenant

Everything on this page reduces to one diagram. The patient and the researcher never touch directly; every request passes through a platform whose checkpoints are machinery, not policy — consent verified in the query path, provenance written for every event, and a fee posted back to the patient on every approved use. Access, never ownership: a study is granted scope-limited use of consented records. There is no purchase, because there is nothing for sale.

FIG. A1 · THE COVENANTPATIENT ↔ PLATFORM ↔ RESEARCH

consent before access · provenance always · paid on approved use — pre-launch

Figure A1: the covenant as one diagram — the patient and research connected only through the platform, with three enforced checkpoints: consent before any access, provenance on every event, and a participation fee returning to the patient on approved use.

PATIENT

GivesConsented access to their own records — scoped, on their terms, revocable any time.

GetsControl, a full provenance trail, and a fee on every approved use.

PLATFORM

GivesThe machinery: consent engine, k ≥ 5 gate, append-only audit ledger.

GetsThe right to operate — re-earned on every single request.

RESEARCH

GivesIRB-approved protocols and participation fees.

GetsConsented, longitudinal evidence no single silo could lawfully assemble.

We call it a covenant because every party is bound — including us, especially us. When the terms end, the access ends.

What we hold ourselves to

Never bought, never sold

Revenue comes from research access on the patient’s terms. Data is never inventory.

Two documents, one decision

A plain-language summary and a formal authorization for every study. Revocable any time.

k ≥ 5, no exceptions

Below the privacy floor, the gate refuses — for every study, with the refusal logged.

Paid on use, not on signup

Participation fees post only when IRB-approved research actually uses a record.

Every event writes

Consents, queries, refusals, fees — one append-only, cryptographically anchored log.

AI assists, machinery decides

Locally hosted AI helps researchers search; deterministic engines make every release decision.

The long version is the whitepaper; the reasoning behind each rule lives in the journal.

What we refuse

Some product decisions are feature lists. Ours are refusals. Any platform that holds patient records is eventually offered the easy versions of itself — the data sale, the quiet default, the tracker in the footer. We wrote the refusals down first, as machinery where possible and as standing answers everywhere, so that none of them would be negotiable later.

FIG. A2 · THE STANDING REFUSALSREFUSED BY DESIGN

five permanent refusals · the last row is auditable from your browser — view source

Figure A2: a two-column refusal ledger. Five standing asks — sell the records, query without consent, re-identify a cohort, bury the terms in legalese, track the reader — each struck through, each answered: access never ownership, the gate refuses and logs it, k of at least five with no override, two plain-language documents, and zero trackers on this site.

The last row you can audit right now: view source on this page. No third-party trackers, no ad pixels, no fingerprinting — zero.

How we build

Every part of the machine is drawn before it ships. The consent engine, the gate, the ledger — each exists as a numbered, mono-labeled figure before it exists as running code, the way an instrument maker drafts the plate before cutting metal. If a component cannot be drawn plainly enough to label, we take that as proof we do not yet understand it well enough to build it.

This website is built under the same discipline. The figures on this page are numbered A1 through A3 and were drawn before they were styled. The interface speaks audit language because the product does. The cookie policy is one sentence, because the truthful answer fits in one. The platform underneath is patent-pending platform technology, described here in public — a covenant you cannot inspect is not a covenant.

Where we are

Four phases, in order, none of them dated — a covenant should not promise what it cannot schedule. The architecture is designed and built. The exhibits exist and run, and every demonstration to date runs on synthetic records, because real patient records do not enter the machine until the machine has earned them. The platform is pre-launch.

FIG. A3 · WHERE WE AREPHASES, NOT DATES

architecture and exhibits exist · demonstrations run on synthetic records · pre-launch

Figure A3: four phases on one rail — architecture (built), exhibits (the current station, marked with a sun, running on synthetic data), then pilot and launch ahead as open stations on a dashed line. Phases are named, never dated.

Pilot and launch follow when the covenant’s conditions are met — not when a calendar says so.

Two names, one covenant

Everything above is signed in everything we ship. Questions, challenges, and corrections are welcome: [email protected]

The sun is rising on chronic-disease research.

One email when we launch — and nothing else. Patients, researchers, sponsors, and programs all start here.