* Disseminated on behalf of ARMR Sciences Inc.
* For Accredited Investors Only. Offered pursuant to Rule 506(c). Reasonable steps to verify accreditation will be taken before any sale.
PAID ADVERTISEMENT – SPONSORED CONTENT
Artificial intelligence (AI) is helping transform medicine, finance, and logistics. But experts warn it could also be turned against us. With advanced modeling, AI can now generate chemical blueprints at a substantially faster rate than previously available processes. As a result, National security leaders and AI thought leaders (including OpenAI’s Sam Altman), have voiced concerns that adversaries could weaponize AI to design new bioweapons.
The New Threat Landscape
Fentanyl already stands as the deadliest synthetic opioid in U.S. history, responsible for more than 220 deaths every day. But fentanyl itself is only the beginning.
Analogs like carfentanil (100x stronger), xylazine (non-opioid threat), and nitazenes (40x stronger) are beginning to spread, many of which are not reversible with Narcan.
The drug supply is becoming a testing ground for increasingly lethal compounds, some of which could be accelerated by AI-driven chemistry.
This dual challenge – lethal analogs on the street and the potential for AI-designed agents – has led federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and Homeland Security, to classify fentanyl and its cousins as chemical weapons of mass destruction.
The crisis is no longer just a health issue; it is a national security emergency.
ARMR’s Defense Labs Approach
ARMR Sciences is working to position itself to confront this next phase. Its Defense Labs initiative combines AI-powered drug discovery with seven years of Department of Defense–funded science with the goal of building a scalable biodefense platform.
The company’s lead candidate, ARMR-100, designed to train the immune system to block fentanyl before it reaches the brain. In preclinical (animal) studies, ARMR-100 blocked 92% of fentanyl’s entry into the brain and eliminated its addictive behavioral effects (at this stage ARMR-100 is not FDA-approved, human safety and efficacy have not been established, and preclinical results may not predict clinical outcomes).
Unlike reactive tools such as naloxone, ARMR-100 is designed to provide months of protection – a biochemical shield against fentanyl and, eventually, other engineered analogs.
Beyond fentanyl, ARMR plans to develop additional immunotherapies for xylazine, nitazenes, and other emerging threats, creating a portfolio that evolves alongside the risks.
By leveraging AI in its own labs, ARMR seeks to stay ahead of adversaries who might misuse the same technology. And in the battle between innovation and misuse, its proactive biodefense may prove to be America’s strongest shield.
The Scale and the Urgency
With more than 130 million people in the U.S. considered high-risk – from opioid use disorder patients to first responders and military personnel – the potential market is vast.
For policymakers, the message is clear: synthetic opioids are no longer only a health crisis, but a recognized national security threat. Classified alongside terrorism and cyberwarfare, fentanyl and its analogs demand rapid action.
This urgency is creating bipartisan momentum for federal funding, regulatory fast-tracking, and stockpiling of new countermeasures.
Why Investors Should Pay Attention
For investors, we believe that ARMR represents an opportunity to back a company that combines social impact with growth potential. Its model combines biotechnology, AI, and biodefense – a convergence few companies are addressing:
- Seven years of DoD-backed research formed the platform’s foundation
- Lead candidate ARMR-100 blocked 92% of fentanyl from entering the brain in preclinical studies
- A $30M private raise is now open
- A targeted exchange listing in the future
By investing in this round, investors have a chance to support ARMR as it works to build a category-defining role in AI-powered biodefense.
* For Accredited Investors Only. This offering is made pursuant to Rule 506(c) of Regulation D. All purchasers must be accredited investors, and the issuer will take reasonable steps to verify accredited status before any sale. Investing involves high risk, including the potential loss of your entire investment.
* This is a paid advertisement for ARMR’s private offering. Please read the details of the offering at InvestARMR.com for additional information on the company and the risk factors related to the offering.
* For investors from Canada: This advertisement forms part of the issuer’s marketing materials and is incorporated by reference into the issuer’s Offering Memorandum/Private Placement Memorandum under NI 45-106. Investors must receive and review the OM/PPM and execute the prescribed Form 45-106F4 Risk Acknowledgement before subscribing.
DISCLOSURES & DISCLAIMERS
CLIENT CONTENT: Carboncredits.com is not responsible for any content hosted on ARMR Sciences’ sites; it is ARMR Sciences’ responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE: Content is for educational, informational, and advertising purposes only and should NOT be construed as securities-related offers or solicitations. All content should be considered promotional and subject to disclosed conflicts of interest.
Do NOT rely on this as personalized investment advice. Do your own due diligence.
Carboncredits.com strongly recommends you consult a licensed or registered professional before making any investment decision.
REGULATORY STATUS: Neither Carboncredits.com nor any of its owners or employees is registered as a securities broker-dealer, broker, investment advisor, or IA representative with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, any state securities regulatory authority, or any self-regulatory organization.
CONTENT & COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE: Carboncredits.com has received compensation of thirty thousand dollars from ARMR Sciences for this sponsored content. You should assume we receive compensation as indicated for any purchases through links in this email via affiliate relationships, direct/indirect payments from companies or third parties who may own stock in or have other interests in promoted companies. We may purchase, sell, or hold long or short positions without notice in securities mentioned in this communication.
RESULTS NOT TYPICAL: Past performance and results are unverified and NOT indicative of future results. Results presented are NOT guaranteed as TYPICAL. Market conditions and individual circumstances vary significantly. Actual results will vary widely. Investing in securities is speculative and carries high risk; you may lose some, all, or possibly more than your original investment.
HIGH-RISK: Securities discussed may be highly speculative investments subject to extreme volatility, limited liquidity, and potential total loss. The Securities are suitable only for persons who can afford to lose their entire investment. Furthermore, investors must understand that such investment could be illiquid for an indefinite period of time. No public market currently exists for the securities, and if a public market develops, it may not continue.
DISCLAIMERS & CAUTIONARY STATEMENT: Certain statements in this presentation (the “Presentation”) may be deemed to be “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the 1933 Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as ”should,” ”may,” ”intends,” ”anticipates,” ”believes,” ”estimates,” ”projects,” ”forecasts,” ”expects,” ”plans,” and ”proposes.” Forward-looking statements, which are based on the current plans, forecasts and expectations of management of ARMR Sciences Inc. (the “Company” or “ARMR Sciences”), are inherently less reliable than historical information. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including events and circumstances that may be outside our control.
Although management believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, there are a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially include, without limitation, those risks identified in the Private Placement Memorandum. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of the document in which they are contained, and ARMR Sciences Inc. does not undertake any duty to update any forward-looking statements except as may be required by law.
Any forward-looking financial forecasts contained in this Presentation are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forecasts. No assurances can be given that the future results indicated, whether expressed or implied, will be achieved. While sometimes presented with numerical specificity, all such forecasts are based upon a variety of assumptions that may not be realized, and which are highly variable. Because of the number and range of the assumptions underlying any such forecasts, many of which are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies that are beyond the reasonable control of the issuing company, many of the assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur subsequent to the date of any financial forecast.
ARMR Sciences Inc. takes no responsibility for any forecasts contained within the Presentation. None of the information contained in any offering materials should be regarded as a representation by ARMR Sciences Inc. The Company’s forecasts have not been prepared with a view toward public disclosure or compliance with the guidelines of the SEC, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Independent public accountants have not examined nor compiled any forecasts and have not expressed an opinion or assurance with respect to the figures.
This Presentation also contains estimates and other statistical data made by independent parties and by management relating to market size and other data about our industry. This data involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates.
ARMR Sciences Inc. is currently undertaking a private placement offering of Offered Shares pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the 1933 Act and/or Rule 506(c) of Regulation D promulgated thereunder. Investors should consider the investment objectives, risks, and investment time horizon of the Company carefully before investing. The private placement memorandum relating to the offering of Securities will contain this and other information concerning the Company, including risk factors, which should be read carefully before investing.
The Securities are being offered and sold in reliance on exemptions from registration under the 1933 Act. In accordance therewith, you should be aware that (i) the Securities may be sold only to “accredited investors,” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D; (ii) the Securities will only be offered in reliance on an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act and will not be required to comply with specific disclosure requirements that apply to registration under the Securities Act; (iii) the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) will not pass upon the merits of or give its approval to the terms of the Securities or the offering, or the accuracy or completeness of any offering materials; (iv) the Securities will be subject to legal restrictions on transfer and resale and investors should not assume they will be able to resell their securities; and (v) investing in these Securities involves a high degree of risk, and investors should be able to bear the loss of their entire investment. Furthermore, investors must understand that such investment could be illiquid for an indefinite period of time.
The Company is “Testing the Waters” under Regulation A under the Securities Act of 1933. The Company is not under any obligation to make an offering under Regulation A. No money or other consideration is being solicited in connection with the information provided, and if sent in response, will not be accepted. No offer to buy the securities can be accepted and no part of the purchase price can be received until an offering statement on Form 1-A has been filed and until the offering statement is qualified pursuant to Regulation A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any such offer may be withdrawn or revoked, without obligation or commitment of any kind, at any time before notice of its acceptance given after the qualification date.
The securities offered using Regulation A are highly speculative and involve significant risks. The investment is suitable only for persons who can afford to lose their entire investment. Furthermore, investors must understand that such investment could be illiquid for an indefinite period of time. No public market currently exists for the securities, and if a public market develops following the offering, it may not continue. The Company intends to list its securities on a national exchange and doing so entails significant ongoing corporate obligations including but not limited to disclosure, filing and notification requirements, as well compliance with applicable continued quantitative and qualitative listing standards.
The post AI and Biodefense – Working to Stay Ahead of Synthetic Drug Threats appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits