You keep throwing punches at MK like you’re exposing some grand failure, but all you’re really doing is making noise that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The problem with your narrative isn’t that it’s critical—it’s that it’s lazy.
You rant about Y-90 shelf life like Vivos is overnighting finished doses across oceans, when in reality you have no access to the protocols, the QA process, or how the components are handled before administration. But that’s the play, isn’t it? Toss out assumptions, wrap them in outrage, and hope no one notices the lack of substance.
Same with the rabbit study. You say it was botched, then backpedal into timing complaints and speculation about why the IDE was pulled—as if that somehow proves your case. You call it a failure, but the FDA hasn’t even ruled on the revised data yet. So either you're claiming to know more than the FDA, or you're just hoping your audience doesn’t.
And let’s talk about your constant fallback: “MK is a moron.” It’s tired. It’s weak. If he were half as incompetent as you claim, there wouldn’t be an India trial, there wouldn’t be FDA engagement, and there wouldn’t be a product that’s even remotely this close to an IDE refile. But here we are.
You’re not pointing out flaws—you’re building a narrative that serves your agenda. You want MK to fail so badly you’re willing to pretend every strategic delay is a collapse, and every adaptation is a blunder. But the market isn’t stupid forever. Eventually, people start looking past the smoke, and when they do, your story won’t hold.
$RDGL
Market Data 
Markets 
