I asked a bunch of LLM's if your message was actually truthful.
ChatGPT says: Most of it is inference dressed up as certainty. The core claim—“if it were revolutionary it would already be developed”—is not a reliable test of truth. Medical technologies often take decades, stall, restart, or fail to attract funding for reasons unrelated to efficacy. That timeline alone doesn’t prove anything.
Grok says: This is classic hindsight logic. Take a messy history, compress it into a neat story, and call it “reality.” The leap from “wasn’t picked up by big pharma” to “therefore it’s worthless” is just speculation, not evidence.
Claude says: The argument relies on assumptions about how innovation should progress. In practice, licensing decisions, funding constraints, and regulatory hurdles all influence development paths. These factors cannot be used on their own to determine the validity of a technology.
Copilot says: The message combines selected facts with broad conclusions. While some timeline elements may be accurate, the conclusions drawn from them—particularly about effectiveness or legitimacy—are not supported by evidence.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
