I couldn’t understand what you were saying so I asked a few LLMs.
ChatGPT says: The post tries to sound authoritative but it’s mostly sarcasm and selective framing. Listing job titles and then claiming “no innovations tied to him” isn’t evidence of anything—it’s just an opinion presented as a résumé review. Turning that into proof that a technology is invalid is a logical leap.
Grok says:This is basically character attack dressed up as analysis. Showing a timeline and adding negative commentary next to each role doesn’t magically make it factual. It’s editorializing, not evidence.
Claude says: The argument relies on ridicule rather than substance. Mocking someone’s age or implying they’ve done nothing notable does not demonstrate anything about the underlying technology or company performance.
Copilot says: The graphic mixes verifiable items (job titles and dates) with subjective claims like “no innovations” or “limited traction.” Those judgments aren’t objective facts, yet they’re presented as if they are. That weakens the credibility of the entire argument.
If anyone actually cared to deep dive into the background of this "company" they would see a list of nonsense with people who have zero background in anything even remotely related to this medical area.
And yet, this is basically the formula for just about every OTC ticker.
One of their major competitors was founded by an actual surgeon oncologist. And yet, they are nowhere near the OTC trying to "raise funds."
It's not a coincidence that this ticker got pumped up right after Korenko said he was "selling shares." It certainly doesn't look good when your ticker is at 6 cents, and you are trying to scam investors for 8 cents a share. 🤣