Once again you’re conflating optics with substance — and that’s where your argument falls apart.
First, necrosis does not = unregulated ablation.
Yes, radiation causes necrosis — the entire scientific question is controlled localization, dose containment, and safety. That’s exactly why Radiogel exists as a device rather than free isotope injection. Dismissing that distinction ignores the core engineering problem regulators actually evaluate.
Second, that video is not a clinical trial artifact.
It is not FDA data, not a regulatory submission, and not presented as such. It’s a patient experience disclosure, which is common in early-stage, compassionate-use, and academic programs worldwide. Regulators don’t approve videos — they approve datasets.
Third, the fixation on job titles is misplaced.
A “client relations” or communications staffer conducting an interview is normal — especially when medical staff are not permitted to speak publicly outside protocol. This is standard compliance practice, not evidence of fraud.
Fourth, your photo argument is pure theater.
Regulatory programs are not validated by who stands in a picture. Serious medical teams intentionally avoid executive-centered optics in early work to prevent exactly the kind of accusation you’d otherwise make — promotion before approval.
Finally, if this were “fake,” there would be no institutional oversight, no regulators involved, and no ongoing review. What you’re pointing at are early-stage artifacts, not final-stage proof — and pretending those should look identical is either naïve or disingenuous.
You’re not identifying red flags —
you’re criticizing a first-in-class program for not pretending it’s already finished.
That’s not skepticism.
That’s a refusal to understand how real medical development actually works.
How many swings does a troll need? Geez!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
