Replies to post #196181 on Vivos Inc (RDGL)

[chereb19]

Incredibly dangerous to spread lies. You tried this with their clinical trials in India which nearly stopped a patient from taking part in the trial. By all accounts you're a scammer and thankfully the patient was treated successfully.


https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/09/08/3146095/0/en/Vivos-Inc-Demonstrates-Precision-in-Precision-Radionuclide-Therapy.html


***
Human Clinical Data:
In the international human trial, cancerous lymph nodes near critical structures, including the trachea and carotid artery, were treated effectively. At 90 days post-treatment, these tumors were undetectable by imaging. No measurable damage or reported adverse effects were observed. Analysis of CT/PET scans confirmed no radiation uptake by surrounding critical structures or adjacent areas of the neck.
***

[WALLnut]

The “Zr-90/Y-90 ratio” fear-mongering is a distraction

Y-90 always decays into stable Zr-90. That’s basic nuclear physics. The question for efficacy isn’t some spooky “ratio” — it’s delivered activity / absorbed dose at the target and whether the radioactivity stays where you injected it. Even FDA summaries for Y-90 devices plainly state Y-90 decays to Zr-90 with a ~64 hour half-life.

And “shipping changes the science” is not an argument.... radiopharmaceutical products are routinely handled with calibration times and decay accounted for in the administered activity. If you know the clock, you know the dose.


$RDGL

[WALLnut]

Higher activity to account for decay ? automatically “higher viscosity”

You’re asserting that boosting initial Y-90 to compensate for decay “certainly affects viscosity.” That’s not a given.

Viscosity is driven by the carrier matrix + particle loading/geometry, not the fact that those particles are radioactive. (A becquerel isn’t a chunk of gravel.) Also, Vivos describes RadioGel as a hydrogel containing yttrium-90 phosphate microparticles — the “apples-to-apples” comparison is the device formulation and performance at the injection site, not internet speculation.


$RDGL

[WALLnut]

Your “dead end / dangerous nonsense / stopped” narrative conflicts with reported clinical updates

Vivos publicly reported the India study treated 10 patients (as of April 15, 2025) with the primary safety endpoint met and PET imaging showing retention at the injection site, with no observed adverse events.

They also later reported tumors treated near critical structures (trachea/carotid region) were undetectable at 90 days, with no measurable damage or reported adverse effects, and explicitly described the international trial data as conducted under U.S. regulatory standards.

You can argue interpretation all day, but calling it “dangerous nonsense” while the company is reporting monitored outcomes and imaging confirmation doesn’t square with the public record.


$RDGL

[WALLnut]

The JHU rabbit study did not “disappear.”
Johns Hopkins completed the VX2 rabbit tumor study, generated retention and decay data, demonstrated safety, and the work is referenced in SEC filings with a report prepared for publication. That directly contradicts your insinuation that there is “no controlled animal data.”

Next?



$RDGL

[CatfishHunter]

You’re dressing speculation up as regulatory certainty — and it doesn’t hold.

FDA absolutely compares like to like — which is why administered dose, final viscosity, containment, and decay-corrected activity at time of injection are what matter. Not shipment geography, not your hypotheticals.

• Zr-90/Y-90 ratios are controlled specifications, not wild variables. FDA evaluates them at administration, not at some imagined worst-case shipping snapshot.
• Higher starting activity doesn’t = different product if final rheology and delivered dose are within validated bounds. That’s basic radiopharmaceutical practice.
• Viscosity arguments are a red herring. If viscosity were outside spec, FDA would terminate the pathway — not return applications with correctable deficiencies.
• Encapsulated Y-90 avoids viscosity effects because it creates a bolus, not because it’s “better science.” That’s a tradeoff, not an advantage — and physicists have been clear about the dose-uniformity consequences.

As for India:
You keep asserting a “stop” that regulators themselves have not declared. Silence doesn’t = rejection, and insinuations about motives don’t substitute for facts.

And the rabbit refrain?
Repeating “Occam says disaster” doesn’t make it evidence. If FDA believed the data demonstrated unsafe leakage or non-functionality, the program would be terminated — not iterated.

Bottom line:
You keep confusing regulatory iteration with scientific failure, and filling gaps with conjecture when you don’t have the record.

Same assumptions.
Same recycled claims.
Big swing — still a miss.