Calling IsoPet “junk science” ignores how localized radiotherapy actually works.
Yes — radiation destroys tissue. That’s not a flaw in the thesis. That is the mechanism. Brachytherapy, Y-90 microspheres, iodine ablation — all rely on targeted radiation to damage tumor cells. The question isn’t whether radiation works. The question is delivery, localization, and safety profile.
Now to your specific points:
A. “We know next to nothing about genotoxicity or dosage.”
Veterinary use still requires radiation handling controls, isotope accounting, and safety protocols. It’s not backyard experimentation. Is it equivalent to human FDA approval? No. But it does provide real-world data on handling, preparation, localization behavior, and adverse event monitoring. That’s not meaningless.
B. “Different disease types.”
Correct — soft tissue sarcoma in animals is not papillary thyroid carcinoma in humans. But radiobiology is not disease-specific at the physics level. Beta emission from Y-90 behaves the same in tissue regardless of tumor origin. What differs is indication, dosing strategy, and regulatory pathway — not the fundamental mechanism of action.
C. “Production, shipment, storage unknown.”
Radioisotope logistics are heavily regulated — even in veterinary settings. Y-90 has a short half-life (~64 hours). That alone imposes strict production and distribution controls. You can’t casually mishandle a therapeutic isotope. If there were systemic compliance failures, regulators would intervene.
As for India:
“You don’t need human data for preclinical studies” is technically correct — but it misses context. The India work wasn’t positioned as a substitute for preclinical requirements. It was exploratory human experience under a different regulatory framework. Companies sometimes gather international clinical experience while navigating U.S. regulatory pathways. That’s not unheard of.
You can argue whether that strategy was optimal.
You can argue execution.
But reducing everything to “junk science” oversimplifies a localized radiotherapeutic platform that is built on well-established radiation oncology principles.
This is a high-risk, development-stage company. That’s fair to say.
But dismissing the entire scientific basis because radiation “obviously kills tissue” ignores that targeted radiotherapy has been a legitimate cancer treatment modality for decades.
Debate the data.
Debate the pathway.
But calling it junk without engaging the actual mechanism isn’t analysis — it’s rhetoric.
Big swing and a miss! Take a seat!
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
