Core thesis. Across these papers, Infoton proposes that today’s computing model wastes vast amounts of energy because the byte/bit abstraction expends power on “empty” states (zeros) and on mathematically inefficient software stacks. The authors argue for a re-encoding of information—an “Infoton,” described as a wave-based, physics-grounded unit—plus firmware/OS/hardware changes that would radically reduce data-center energy, water use, and heat. They extend this “information physics” lens to biology: if information encodings can be made more energy-precise in machines, perhaps we can better model—and intervene in—cellular energy systems in cancer.
1) Energy: why data centers are “overheating” (and how to fix them)
Problem framing. The “Critical Update” memo claims that the 8-bit byte forces computation to pay an energy cost on all eight positions regardless of whether a bit is 0 or 1, filling storage and burning power “on nothing.” The proposed fix is to “break the byte,” alter BIOS/UEFI and OS kernels, and replace matrix-heavy ML practice with a “wave-based” language that purportedly eliminates squaring-error work and other inefficiencies. The memo cites Landauer’s principle (minimum energy to erase one bit) to argue that precision encoding will drop computing closer to physical limits and cool data centers, with knock-on reductions in water use for cooling. Claimed upside: up to 95% storage savings and ~99% energy savings when paired with future hardware updates. These are presented as internal calculations and proof-of-concept claims, not peer-reviewed measurements.
Contextualization. A companion paper expands the macro picture: AI, crypto, and large-scale data collection are pushing grid demand; testimony from tech leaders is invoked to illustrate multi-gigawatt data-center trajectories this decade. The paper ties this to environmental pressure (e.g., heat and water load), then leans again on Landauer and “information thermodynamics” to argue that deleting or re-writing data is a physical, heat-generating act—and thus that better encodings matter.
Novelty and caveats. The leap from today’s semiconductor/software stack to a wholly new data representation is profound. While Landauer’s bound is real physics, practically achieving order-of-magnitude operational reductions typically requires verified architectures and benchmarks (e.g., new compression, near-memory compute, photonics). The white papers present ambitious estimates and an advocacy roadmap—not audited performance data—so the claims should be treated as hypotheses requiring independent validation.
2) Cryptography as a bridge: from secure identity to biological codes
The “cryptography” metaphor. In “Cracking the Cryptography of Cancer,” the author narrates a personal path from cybersecurity/identity and blockchain cryptography toward biomedical curiosity, implying that biological systems can be understood—and perhaps influenced—through information-centric models analogous to cryptographic keys and encodings. While the document is autobiographical and exploratory rather than technical, it frames cancer as a problem of information processing and error correction inside cells. This sets up the later, more clinical-looking protocol paper.
Reading between the lines. The connective tissue is the idea that both servers and cells are energy-bounded information systems. If we can encode, store, and transform information more efficiently in machines (less waste heat, fewer “empty states”), perhaps we can also characterize the energetics of disease—how tumors hijack mitochondrial metabolism and information pathways—and then intervene with “precision energy” inputs. That is the conceptual bridge the authors try to build, even if the cryptography terms are metaphorical rather than rigorous in the biology sections.
3) Cancer: a mitochondrial, “precision energy” protocol
What the protocol proposes. The “Krystaleekrey Treatment” document outlines a 16-week “Integrated Mitochondrial Restoration” plan, specifically for pancreatic cancer, layered on top of chemotherapy cycles. It blends photobiomodulation (810/880 nm light), pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (10–50 Hz), hyperbaric oxygen (2.0 ATA), a strict ketogenic diet, and a supplement stack (e.g., NMN, CoQ10, ALA, PQQ), timed to chemo to mitigate mitochondrial collapse and stabilize “membrane potential.” The protocol is presented as personalized, timed to biweekly infusions, and aimed at restoring “mitochondrial coherence.”
What this means—and doesn’t. Many elements here (ketogenic support, PBM, HBOT) have mixed and indication-specific evidence in oncology literature; some show promise as supportive care or for symptom domains, but they are not established curative therapies for pancreatic cancer. The white paper positions the plan as adjunctive and “evidence-based,” yet it does not present clinical trial results, safety data, or peer-reviewed endpoints. Patients should not adopt such protocols without their oncology team; these are claims by the author, not a medical consensus. (That said, the energy/mitochondria framing is aligned with a growing research track in cancer metabolism.)
4) One “planetary” arc
A one-page “Planetary Project” sheet situates the work as a climate-health-technology initiative—tying data-center thermodynamics, grid load, and human health (e.g., water systems, ambient heat) into a single intervention philosophy: change how we encode and compute information to cut energy/heat, and apply an analogous energy-information lens to disease. It’s mission-level framing rather than technical detail, but it helps explain why the energy and cancer papers are presented together.
Bottom line & projections
- Energy side: The authors claim that replacing the byte/bit paradigm with “Infotons” plus firmware/OS/algorithm changes could deliver large energy and storage reductions and bring operations nearer to Landauer limits. This is intriguing but unproven; it would require independent replication, standardized benchmarks, and hardware/software ecosystem buy-in. If even fractional gains validated at scale, data-center heat and water footprints could fall materially.
- Cryptography bridge: Using cryptographic metaphors to study biological information flows is conceptually appealing; the real test is whether these mappings yield predictive models or actionable biomarkers beyond existing bioinformatics.
- Cancer protocol: The mitochondrial-centric regimen is adjunctive and experimental as presented; it should be evaluated in IRB-approved trials for safety, quality-of-life, and survival endpoints. Until then, it remains hypothesis-driven supportive care, not standard therapy. Patients should consult clinicians before considering any elements.
In short, Infoton’s correlated message is that information encodings govern energy—in racks and in cells. If we can encode smarter, we can spend energy smarter: cooling servers and, perhaps one day, stabilizing mitochondria. The ideas are bold; the necessary next step is evidence.
References (source PDFs)
- “The Cause and Critical Update Needed to Fix Data Center Storage, Water, and Energy Demands” (2 pp.). WSI Management+1
- “Infoton: The Fundamental Unit of Information & its Impact on Precision Energy & Storage in Data” (16 pp.). WSI Management+2WSI Management+2
- “Cracking the Cryptography of Cancer” (8 pp.). WSI Management+1
- “A 16-Week Integrated Mitochondrial Restoration Protocol for Pancreatic Cancer” (6 pp.). WSI Management+1
- “🔗 Planetary Project” (1 p.). WSI Management
