You’re intentionally misrepresenting what that video is — and why it exists.
That India video is not clinical trial data, not a regulatory submission, and not being offered as “proof” of efficacy. It’s a patient experience disclosure, which is routine in early-stage, compassionate-use, or academic settings worldwide. It supplements — it does not replace — controlled studies.
A few corrections:
• 80% reduction is not a failure.
In oncology, an 80% reduction is clinically meaningful tumor response. Chemo, radiation, and immunotherapy routinely require multiple cycles to address residual disease. Expecting 100% ablation from a first-in-human dose is not how real cancer medicine works.
• Residual tumor doesn’t = treatment failure.
Residual disease is precisely why trials exist — to optimize dose, volume, and repeat treatment protocols. That’s standard science, not an OTC invention.
• Patient-facing media is not evidence of fraud.
Major hospitals and biotech companies publish patient stories all the time. The idea that “real companies don’t do this” is simply false. Regulators evaluate data, not marketing videos — and no one is claiming otherwise.
• India pausing doesn’t = India rejecting.
A pause pending additional review or alignment is common, especially in first-in-class therapies. Silence is not a verdict, and pretending it is doesn’t make it so.
Bottom line:
You’re criticizing an informational patient video as if it were meant to be a Phase 3 data package — that’s a category error.
Trials exist to answer the very questions you’re asking. Pretending early observations must already look like final outcomes isn’t skepticism — it’s bad faith.
Another troll swing and a miss.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
