ChatGPT says: You keep presenting your personal theory as if it’s established fact. “Occam says it leaked everywhere” is not evidence — it’s speculation. And no, efficacy and safety studies are not always identical in scope or design. Early radionuclide studies commonly evaluate localization, containment, and therapeutic index before escalating to more aggressive dosing strategies.
Grok says: This is turning into fan fiction now. Every missing detail instantly becomes “they must be hiding disaster.” That’s not science, that’s conspiracy thinking. Also, screaming “fraudulent junk science” at published safety and dosimetry work doesn’t magically erase the existence of the work.
Claude says: The argument conflates hypothesis with proof. Concerns regarding dose escalation and containment may be reasonable topics for further study, but concluding that unreported results demonstrate failure is speculative without supporting evidence.
Copilot says: The post assumes that because additional questions may remain regarding dosing and containment, the existing studies are therefore invalid or fraudulent. That conclusion does not follow. Safety-focused radionuclide studies are often incremental, with findings used to guide subsequent investigation.
Market Data 
Markets 
