Health technology built around the person.
Health systems were built for institutions, because institutions were paying for them. We are building the other side. A record the patient holds, an evidence engine that never stops reading, and a clinical platform where the two meet in the room.
Three products, one idea. Masters Media Ltd, New Zealand.
The person is the only constant in their own care.
Custody, not access.
Doctors change. Clinics close. People move cities, and countries. Every system holds a fragment of a person's history and none of them holds the whole thing, least of all the person. Meanwhile the research that should inform their care is published faster than anyone can read, and reaches the consulting room years later, if at all.
Both problems are the same problem. The information exists. It is just held in the wrong place, by the wrong party, in the wrong shape. Our three products put the history with the person, keep the evidence current, and bring both to the clinician at the moment a decision is actually being made.
Smith PC et al., JAMA 2005;293(5):565–571 · Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N, JAMA 2019;322(15):1501–1509 · OECD, Health at a Glance 2023, digital health chapter, 2021 survey, self-reported by countries.
Ovivo
One record. A whole life.
Health decisions are made on records that are incomplete and evidence that is years out of date. Ovivo gives every person a lifelong, self-owned record that keeps itself current, so their care reflects what medicine actually knows now. It gathers a whole life into one timeline, from birth onward, encrypted so that the person holds the keys. Ovivo cannot read the health data inside it. That is not a policy promise, it is how the system is built.
Self sovereign, in plain words
The record belongs to the patient, not to a hospital, not to an insurer, and not to us. Access is granted per person, per purpose and per period, expires on the date they chose, and can be withdrawn early without anyone else's cooperation. Every access is written to a log they can read.
One whole timeline
Conditions, medications, results, imaging, procedures, immunisations, allergies and letters, in one chronological history rather than a dozen partial ones.
Sharing the patient controls
A full history to a new specialist, or a single result to a pharmacist. Set it to expire, revoke it early, and see who looked at what.
Plain language, not jargon
Ovivo explains what is in the record in usable words, flags what has changed, and suggests what is worth raising with a doctor, grounded in current evidence.
It travels
Built on open health data standards, so the record stays portable by design. Between doctors, between hospitals, between countries.
A record that outlives you
Family and proxy access with proper permissions, and a history that can be inherited, because the patterns in it matter to the people who come after.
Masie
Evidence that keeps up.
As close to the truth as the evidence allows. No one can read all of the evidence, so Masie does. It continuously debates and scores the world's biomedical literature, so every conclusion shows how settled the science is, how certain it is, and where it came from. A systematic review is a photograph, accurate the day it is published and quietly out of date ever after. Masie updates its synthesis within minutes of a paper publishing.
Living, but never unsupervised
Masie proposes, people decide. It runs on aggregated, approved, de-identified data only, identifiable patient data is structurally walled off, every synthesis is traceable to source, and committees and clinicians stay the decision makers. Research use, not a medical device.
Certainty, graded
GRADE certainty, risk of bias, heterogeneity, publication-bias diagnostics and trial-registry linkage, attached to every conclusion rather than buried.
Disagreement, surfaced
The full distribution of findings where a field splits, instead of one smoothed answer, with explicit flags on who was studied and where the evidence may not transfer.
Integrity and retractions
When a paper is retracted or corrected, the change propagates backward through every conclusion that relied on it, and the people who relied on it are told.
Reproducible method
Search strategy, inclusion and exclusion with reasons, PRISMA flow and a full audit trail, exposed and exportable. Any living document can be frozen as a citable snapshot.
Watch, synthesise, patch, notify
Masie monitors journals, preprints and registries in real time, reconciles new signal against the existing body, rewrites the affected sections, and tells the right people when a conclusion moves.
Emme
Walk in ready. Walk out done.
Emme is an integrated health platform for the whole care team, every qualified professional who adds value to a patient's plan, medical doctors included. It gathers the history, surfaces the evidence and drafts the notes around the appointment, so the appointment is about the patient and not the keyboard. The decision stays with the clinician. Every output is a draft they review and sign.
Told once. Never again.
The patient gives their full health history one time. Every visit after that, and every clinician on the team, builds on it, confirming what changed instead of starting from a blank form. Most systems re-ask everything. Emme does not.
The history, before the visit
The patient tells their story to a warm AI that builds a full timeline, on the clinic's device or their own phone, in their own time.
Evidence with its tier attached
Tier-scored, provenance-linked research for this patient's questions, with dissent intact. Studied is not proven, and AI-synthesised is not governed evidence.
Safety screening on every plan
Every protocol is screened against the patient's own medications, conditions, allergies and pregnancy, with severity tiers that hold in any country.
One record, the whole care team
Every clinician adds to a lifelong, patient-held record. Referrals, follow-ups and a shared plan, so care is coordinated across a life rather than siloed per visit.
An audit trail that holds up
An immutable, signed record of the whole chain, from data to AI output to review to sign-off. Ready if anyone ever asks.
One spine, three products.
Each product stands on its own and is sold on its own. Together they close a loop that no single one of them can close alone. The patient's history goes in one place, the world's evidence goes in another, and the clinician gets both at the moment of the decision.
What is true of this person
A lifelong, patient-held, encrypted record. The history stops being re-collected and starts compounding.
Where the decision is made
The consult. Emme reads the record, asks the right questions, drafts the plan, screens it for safety, and hands it to the clinician to sign.
What is true of the field
Governed, scored, continuously updated evidence, with certainty, dissent and provenance attached to every conclusion.
The loop matters more than any leg of it. A richer record makes a better plan. A better plan makes a better outcome. As the evidence moves, the plans that relied on it are flagged for review, so a decision made last year does not quietly stay wrong. Nothing in the chain is automatic. A person signs at every point where it counts.
Masters Media Ltd.
A New Zealand company building health technology for the person rather than the institution. We hold the intellectual property behind all three products and licence it to them, with a structure built to let each one grow into its own entity.
What we hold
Core IP sits with Masters Media Ltd under exclusive licence to each product, including the security architecture work on zero-knowledge encryption and distributed key management.
The hard problem
Deriving clinical insight from data the platform itself cannot read. Encryption the patient holds the keys to, and reasoning that still works on top of it. That is the research question underneath everything we build.
How we think about trust
- Health data is the most personal data there is.
- Access is granted, timed and revocable, never assumed.
- AI proposes, people decide and sign.
- Every claim carries its source and its certainty.
If any of this is your problem too, we would like to hear from you.
We are talking to clinicians, universities, research hospitals, guideline bodies and investors. Tell us which of the three you came for and we will point you at the right person.