On the one hand we have an 80 something year old CEO who has zero experience in the medical field of this nature trying to get a device approved and on the other hand we have "shareholders" with their excuses and goalpost moving.
At the end of the day though, if this "revolutionary" gel was just that it would have been developed a long time ago. It's as simple as that.
It was created in 1998. Sat dormant for 13 years then "licensed" to a worthless OTC shell in 2012. That same year Fisher claimed they were testing rabbits. Yet, only publishes the paper on the study in 2021 when the FDA requested it. Then when they denied that research paper and asked for a SECOND study it wasn't completed in its entirety.
Are people saying Fisher couldn't "license" this medical device to no other large biotech or pharmaceutical with extensive funds and expertise if it was such a "promising" gel? It could only be licensed to an OTC ticker with no funds, expertise, or real management?
The first CEO knew it was junk, so he decided to scam people. The second CEO saw the first one and decided to join the party. I mean, Korenko sat on the board since 2009 and watched the whole scam but never did a single thing about it until apparently a "shareholder" said something.
Either way you slice the cake that it's just bad.
The gel doesn't work accordingly. It's why the second set of rabbits with Krimins were never documented. It's why Fisher wrote the research paper in 2021 yet created the gel in 1998 only to make RadioGel look believable to the FDA.
I'm just lost as to what exactly they are getting at here. The document has the exact same signature of Lawsons name just like every single other document on file.
My dude searching for the "source" when the "source" doesn't exist. Kind of like the "pilot" still waiting at the "airport."
If anyone actually cared to deep dive into the background of this "company" they would see a list of nonsense with people who have zero background in anything even remotely related to this medical area.
And yet, this is basically the formula for just about every OTC ticker.
One of their major competitors was founded by an actual surgeon oncologist. And yet, they are nowhere near the OTC trying to "raise funds."
It's not a coincidence that this ticker got pumped up right after Korenko said he was "selling shares." It certainly doesn't look good when your ticker is at 6 cents, and you are trying to scam investors for 8 cents a share. 🤣
This scam is pretty darn good as far as having a laugh. I'm glad I happen to stroll on by and stop to see what it was all about.
The people who still believe just add to the laughter.
There is so much nonsense with this ticker that it's just bonkers - the $50 million loan, the pilot "getting stuck at the airport," using "nanotechnology," being the "CEO" of FITY at one point who makes protein powder but somehow was going to also develop biohazard drones, using a single seamstress to "build" your airships, and so on.
I guess that is what Lawson means when he says, "paying off the senior debt." 🤣😂
$50 million dollars to a guy that keeps using someone else's built spherical airship from decades ago. And now claims that he is using "nanotechnology."
A comedy TV script couldn't be better written than this.
The FDA doesn't actually "approve" animal products. And the less stringent "evaluation" (if we can actually call it that) doesn't match on any level to FDA approval for human use.
The problem starts with the fact that IsoPet is seen on here as "a product that works." And that might be true. But it's a thinly veiled assertion.
IsoPet "works" because taking a radioactive element to tissue will, without a doubt, destroy it. So, in essence, it "works." But that's not real science. There are numerous problems with that assertion.
A. We know next to nothing about the actual genotoxicity or dosage reports of these animals. B. There underlining ailment is different than what is being treated for humans (soft tissue sarcomas vs papillary thyroid). C. The production, shipment, and storage of this medical device are unknown. And in the world of radioactive isotopes that's a big deal.
As for the India study, it's just another avenue to string "shareholders" along.
They claimed they went to India to get "more data." You don't need human data for pre-clinical studies. It's why it's called pre-clinical.
The submitted 12 rabbits were the focus of the research paper by Krimins. The second set of rabbit studies were never included, and no evidence of any further mentions have been made.
The publication from Physica Medica was only on the first set (12) of rabbits.
How come Krimins doesn't acknowledge the paper under her name on the JHU research output page? Where is the whole research paper and not just the "abstract?"
It's always laughable to see a Pink Sheet "CEO" claim in a filing that they "plan" on doing something. That seems to be the reality of many.
28 years since this device was patented. 8 years since the original patent expired. If this was world changing it wouldn't be here.
The science is junk. Boston Scientific knew it. PhaseBio knew it. And it's why the competitor uses two different patented and FDA approved components to make their device.
I see there is a little pump action at play here. It will surely return back down without another pump.
Even got a little help from a LinkedIn post. 😉
Gotta' laugh. Did anyone actually read it? Nah, probably not.
8 years since the patent expired in 2018. 28 years since it was first "patented." 13 years "trying" to get an IDE. 4 years being a complete OTC share selling scheme from 2012 - 2016.
Too many red flags and "coincidences." A string and a carrot work wonders.
I did. I don't deny that. Is that what you are looking for when you keep posting it?
I compared RadioGel to an asthma inhaler. Anyone can go back through my posts and see that. And they can read what I wrote in the context it was intended.
Again, when I showed up here you (among others) didn't know RadioGel was a drug-device combo. And you even went as far as to say "not every product that has a drug and a device is a drug-device combo." I gave an example to match. And then I pointed out in the SEC filing:
The FDA requested that the Company file a request for designation with the Office of Combination Products (RFD130051)
And then there is this below. Something that further explains the situation.
Consider a drug formulated with a polymer that modifies release. The drug product is packaged and shipped as a solid powder. When water is added, the polymer forms a gel that allows for direction application to the affected area. The release rate is controlled through physical means and is not impacted by physiological conditions. Is this a drug product or drug-device combination product?
The above-referenced FDA guidance offers insight. Sections B(ii-iii) in the drug vs. device product classification section state that for a medical product to be a device, it must not achieve its intended purpose through chemical action within or on the body and must not depend upon metabolization.
In the case above, the polymer is used to control release through physical deposition and does not interact with the patient directly. Excipients that modify the release of an API are not typically considered devices. However, because it forms a polymeric gel that physically controls release, the component would meet the definition of a device, and the described product would be classified as a combination product.
You know, I should have figured what you were talking about was conjecture. But it was cloaked in the ambience of the OTC.
I forget sometimes that it's easier to label board members as "paid" and "former employees" rather than say the science is junk and the "company" is a joke.
I am neither a "basher," "paid" or an "alias" of these other fine observers who speak negatively of this detritus.
I generally don't respond to you because your ai garbage posts that you think are accurate aren't even worth it. You using ai because you think it's "super advanced" reminds me of the school superintendent in Kentucky who tried to use ai to route the school buses for districts. It was a total disaster and hilarious. But this one single snippet is too good:
What I wrote:
I also find it rather odd that the FDA is requesting for whole-body treatment of cancerous lymph nodes where the indication was only for papillary thyroid cancer. Something seems off here.
What you wrote:
Fourth, whole-body PET and lymph nodes Nothing is “off” here. FDA often asks for broader imaging to: • rule out migration • confirm off-target safety • characterize systemic exposure
What the PR stated:
This next stage would incorporate an enhanced protocol that includes elements suggested during prior FDA interactions, such as whole-body PET examinations, and would focus on treatment of cancerous lymph nodes throughout the body.
The ai chatbot you have just takes words and randomly makes up "answers."
Again, the treatment of other lymph nodes should have nothing to do with the indication that RadioGel is seeking. It seems completely off. And the FDA asking for this just makes it look even more like RadioGel is junk.
I always get a smile when I know I write something and the "company" who is obviously reading the board decides to write a PR explaining exactly what I brought up 2 days ago.
Of course, it's just a "coincidence" that after a year that they would mention their "clinical patients" TWO days after I kept pressing about it, right?
As usual, the "shareholder" base is congratulating the company for putting out a generic, worthless PR.
And as usual, nobody actually reads what is being wrote. If there was ever a post about "giving information without telling the whole story" this would be it!
Several patients have now completed their one-year follow-up examinations and continue to show no reported adverse effects at these timepoints.
What's "several?" Two? Three? Four? What happened to the others? They show no signs of adverse effects but what about complete tumor ablation? Gotta' love the way it's phrased!
Preliminary observations from the treated patients have included instances of tumor size reduction observed over short intervals, with no recurrence noted in those specific cases during the available follow-up period.
Have included instances? Specific cases? How long is available follow-up period? Sounds like only a few really were "successful."
We continue to work toward anticipated DCGI regulatory clearance later this quarter to proceed with an expanded phase of therapy. This next stage would incorporate an enhanced protocol that includes elements suggested during prior FDA interactions, such as whole-body PET examinations, and would focus on treatment of cancerous lymph nodes throughout the body. We will provide an update to our IDE submission soon, incorporating relevant data from these ongoing demonstrations to further support our U.S. regulatory pathway.
They have been talking about another phase since February of 2025. Even so, this phase will take a while if it actually happens. I also find it rather odd that the FDA is requesting for whole-body treatment of cancerous lymph nodes where the indication was only for papillary thyroid cancer. Something seems off here.
It's probably why the FDA rejected it with all the data.
No, it's not really a hole-in-the-wall. Only because of its size.
Hole-in-the-wall: A small place that is not fancy or expensive.
But, being on the OTC, I figured it was appropriate to fling that word around. For a little flavor. For a little fun. 😉
There are many tickers that you can visit. Means nothing.
You are correct, it is always strange for a single retail establishment to be an OTC ticker. No other reason than to be a "scam."
And, of course, if they use the line "we need funds" then they already lost. No successful retail establishment needs to get their funds from selling shares on the OTC. Because the only ones who are going to offer are toxic lenders.
I haven't gone through anything here yet. So, let's have some fun.
I say what in tarnation kind of ticker did I just stumble upon?
Looks like we got the former owner of this scam ticker here, the current owner of this scam ticker here, and the best part of all...... Pumper Stumper.
This should be interesting. A lot of characters.
So, this was some type of power company turned car cloning company turned hole in the wall bar?
"Rotation." A mighty fine way to put it. It's exactly how it works in the OTC.
(a). If we don't get approval or there is no substantial news.... "FDA is corrupt." (b). If the stock price goes down and won't move up on any PR....... "market makers are keeping this down." (c). If the "CEO" doesn't bring something up...... "he can't talk about it right now."
Only in the OTC do we have this kind of circus.
The fact is there is no full research paper from Krimins. A very peculiar situation. But not one that is totally surprising. I want to see exactly the mathematical equation(s) they used and all their procedural data. Yet, it is conveniently missing.
What we have instead is an abstract that highlights what appears at first glance to be "a medical device that does its intended purpose."
And that's just it; in the realm of science research this is perfectly acceptable. That's what research can do - take a single variable experiment and result it as a "positive" outcome. No matter how "junk" science it really is.
However, in the real world, we know this isn't applicable. And so doesn't the FDA.
It's another one of those "we will give you information but not the whole story." And like usual the "shareholder" base believes whatever they write.
You gotta' love the OTC. The typical "because the 'CEO' put out a statement claiming this then it must be great!"
Of course, the "CEO" of a company worth a couple of pennies would never talk badly about their ongoings! They always tell the whole story!
It's exactly what Korenko wants. Claiming the tumor is "undetectable" automatically makes the procedure look "successful." Always give them enough information that makes them look good and keep stringing them along.
Seems like the CDSCO thought otherwise as they paused anything further. And the FDA saw all the data and still rejected it.
I once again ask, what is the remission rate 180 days? Now? Where is proof of the other 20%?
The procedure happened in December 2024. The video was done in March 2025. That is roughly 90 days post-treatment.
The first thing I wouldn't do is believe someone who has hyped up or lied in PRs and social media posts. Like I always say, there is a way of giving information without giving information.
Papillary thyroid cancer is usually slow growing. A 90-day post-treatment announcement is hardly the justification of "undetectable." If the procedure began in December 2024 and the "results" were shared March 2025, what is her remission rate right now in February 2026?
That information doesn't relieve the fact that the other 20% was ever destroyed either because:
Imaging techniques also face limitations; some tumors can be too small, diffuse, or located in areas difficult to visualize clearly. Big factors that certainly go with this type of medical indication.
Either way, India has paused it. And the FDA saw all the data from that trial to still reject it.
I didn't make anything up. All of that is verifiable.
R711 said they thought it was odd that the doctor running the trial in India used the phrase "it is useful." I would concur. Especially since this has been repeatably said it is a "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" device.
You think you would write something a little more than that considering it was the first time it was implanted into a human being.
However, I know on the flip side according to the emails date of July 2025 it was only 8 months after that initial patient's implant.
Could be that 8 months wasn't a long time to probably call this anything more than "useful." Or he saw the real results of that patient and realized it was truly nothing more than "useful." A more polite way of speaking about the medical device rather than saying "junk."
Like I said, it's odd that they claimed it worked up to 80%. Where's the other 20%? What is the remission rate of the patient? There has been no update.
Either way, India has paused it. And the FDA saw all the data from that trial to still reject it.
Injecting a radioactive element into tissue will absolutely create necrosis of the abnormal cells. Nobody can argue that. By any doctor's lowest level standard that is useful.
But, of course, not practical on a scientific, FDA approved medical level.
That video just made no sense.
I have said this here before but who sends their "social media manager" (now "client relations manager") to interview clinical trial patients? Especially in a whole other country? It's just another thing that screams fake. Social media managers shouldn't have anything to do with this.
But even more so is that the first picture they posted was with a patient and her. If this was truly "revolutionary" and "groundbreaking" why would the CEO, executives, and/or medical team that brought this to life not be in that photo or video? You are making history!
From the conversation they have to the fact they have their "social media manager" asking the questions of the patient.
But what is, perhaps, even more telling is that the nodes only went down 80% according to them. What happened to the other 20%? And what is her remission rate over a year later?
Only in the OTC would a "company" post something like this. Real companies don't have to do this kind of thing.
It's probably why India has paused anything further.
If someone has been here for 6 years saying this is junk and it has indeed been such by two rejections, wouldn't that validate them?
Sure, the stock price got pumped here but look where it's at.
Where is the full research paper on the second rabbit study? Why isn't the paper published under Krimins name on the JHU research output page? Where is the second set of rabbit studies?
You gotta' wonder why both of those situations happened.
Almost all patents are based off of prior art. It's why in a patent document you see the section called "background of the invention" where it discusses prior art.
original patent expired years ago and that any weak "improvements" will not stop someone from creating their own that is newer, different, and/or better.
Trying to "extend" an original patent with weak "improvements" will not hold up.
It also doesn't help when it says, "status expired - lifetime." That was 2018.
It's not a coincidence that his name is here. He's been associated with this ticker since inception.
The real question is, how did Lawson connect to this ticker? And the bigger question than that is, how is Lawson connected to so many other OTC tickers either directly or indirectly?
There is one, single connection. I could only get so far with verifiable proof.
That's not what I asked for. I already know she presented. And we already know she did this prior.
It doesn't change the fact that the science behind the paper doesn't hold weight in the real world.
It's evidenced by the fact that the information presented makes RadioGel look good under certain (and limited) conditions. Further, the second set of rabbits were never done, and no reports have ever been written.
Where is the full research publication? And why is it not under her name on the JHU research output page?
Although, I do like that they couldn't even spell her last name correctly! A perfect fit to this whole ticker!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
