Again, you’re actually helping make the real case here.
IsoPet “being a decade old” doesn’t hurt the story — it strengthens it.
Most OTC biotech concepts never survive a single product cycle. IsoPet has:
• a decade of real-world tumor treatments,
• multiple clinics performing procedures,
• ongoing demand,
• repeat cases,
• and continuous interest from veterinarians who actually use it.
A product that supposedly has “no market” doesn’t last 10 years and expand into new clinics. That alone shows you’re ignoring the obvious.
As for “sold below cost,” that’s literally how almost every medical technology enters the field.
Early-stage devices — yes, early stage — build adoption first, revenue later.
Pacemakers, dental implants, radiation delivery tools, all followed the same trajectory. It’s called market seeding, not failure.
And your argument that FDA “ignores IsoPet data” is also off-base.
They don’t use IsoPet outcomes as a substitute for controlled studies — of course not.
But real-world animal responses, safety outcomes, and absence of migration absolutely inform FDA expectations, manufacturing updates, dosimetry planning, and risk assessments.
That’s why the Sprint program exists: to guide companies in building the exact dataset FDA wants.
IsoPet isn’t a distraction —
it’s Radiogel’s longest-running proof of concept.
The only “distraction” is pretending that a decade of safe clinical use somehow counts as zero.
As for volume, stability, or calling the company a scam — you’ve been predicting the same doom for years while the company keeps:
• refining the chemistry,
• filing patents,
• expanding IsoPet,
• engaging FDA,
• treating real tumors internationally,
• and moving step-by-step toward IDE clearance.
That’s not what scams do.
That’s what determined regulatory biology companies do.
But hey.... thanks for lining up the talking points that show why the long game is still very much alive.
$RDGL
Market Data 
Markets 
