It's truly something to behold when someone claims to be "protecting new investors" by casting doubt on a company like RDGL especially at this precise juncture. While I appreciate anyone looking out for others in the often-turbulent OTC market, the timing of these "concerns" about Vivos Inc.'s potential couldn't be more ironic, or frankly, misplaced.
Let's break down the core of the argument I'm seeing:
* "I have been duped in the OTC many times by the same cult pump crowds... so when I see others talking the way some do here I feel obligated to protect new investors..."
This is a classic "I've been burned, so everyone else must be a scammer" fallacy. While personal experience with poor due diligence is regrettable, it doesn't automatically translate to every promising venture being a "pump." The OTC market does have its share of speculative plays, but it also hosts innovative companies, like Vivos Inc., that are working through legitimate regulatory processes and milestones.
The suggestion that enthusiasm for RDGL's potential stems from a "cult pump crowd" is dismissive and ignores the tangible progress the company has made. Am I to believe that every investor who has done their own research and sees the value in a potentially life-saving medical device is simply part of a "cult"? This narrative is often used to discredit legitimate belief in a company's future.
* "...my patience is slowly running thin as I've been here for years hearing the same stuff."
This is perhaps the most telling statement. "Patience running thin" after "years of hearing the same stuff" completely misses the critical development that has just occurred: Vivos Inc. just submitted its Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) to the FDA!
Let's be clear: Submitting an IDE is not "the same stuff." It's a monumental step for any medical device company. It signifies the culmination of years of research, preclinical studies, and rigorous data collection. It's the gateway to human clinical trials, the absolute make-or-break phase for bringing a new medical technology to market.
To suggest that now, after reaching this significant regulatory milestone, is the time to warn investors away, is precisely when the company is better positioned than ever to succeed. They're not just "talking about it" anymore; they've put in the work to advance to the next critical phase.
The irony here is palpable. For someone claiming to protect investors, suggesting they shy away at the very moment a company demonstrates significant, tangible progress towards commercialization, feels less like protection and more like an attempt to discourage belief when it's arguably most warranted.
To equate legitimate excitement and informed optimism about an IDE submission with mere "pumping" is a disservice to the company's efforts and to investors who understand the significance of this achievement.
I wish everyone well in their investment journeys, and it's commendable to encourage sound due diligence. However, true due diligence means recognizing when a company moves from speculative potential to concrete regulatory action. Vivos has done just that. Doubting their potential now isn't "protecting" investors; it's potentially causing them to miss out on what could be a truly transformative journey.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
