NEWSMAX

We're happy that you're here and we can chat about this. And, I mean, I'd love to just give you the floor. I'm sure you saw, you know, some of the early segments. Where do you think it's important to start? Where do you think it's most important to set the record straight as a first point, and then I'm sure we'll have a bunch of questions. Well, I didn't see what Cremu said. I was busy helping a patient. But I think the key thing to remember is that Cremu and I, we are definitely aligned on doing great science. At the end of the day, that's what we want to do. We want to serve the patient, we want to do amazing science. I think what we're not aligned on is Cremu, basically, for several months, has not disclosed that he's been affiliated with a competitor. And, you know, that wouldn't be so much a problem unless they're basically concerting together. And so that's on the Cremu side of things. But honestly, that's like the less important thing to me. The more important. Yes, I agree. I think that's less important. So I've seen him. Him post positively about your competitors. I've not seen any proof that he's actually being paid or has equity in that competitor. But to me, it almost doesn't matter. It could, like every single post from him. And Sichuan Mala could literally be from Nor at Orchid or someone, one of your competitors. You still need to address it, right? 100%. Okay, cool. And so, first and foremost, I'm going to say that our science is completely public, and it's been completely public. So one thing that it's really important to say is that anyone. And by the way, we've at this point have shared our models with over 15 different entities, which includes, by the way, people affiliate with our competitors, several of them. That means, just to be clear, I mean, Curmu said that a number of people that he's aware of have requested access to the models and not been given access and been told to stop reaching out. And so I do think. I don't know. Utterly inaccurate and false. There is not one person who has filled in the Nucleus origin type form, which is a type form, to fill in a type form that has not gotten access to our model weights. Okay. And by the way, that includes people affiliated with the competitor. Okay. And so I think what's really important here is the science is public. The message to the community is go and test it. In fact, our science is public. The competitors is not. So what I would propose is they should make their science public and let's have a third party independently evaluate the rigor, the quality of the science, and let's do it for everyone to see instead of he said, she said. They tit for the tat. You know, put the science out there, have a third party independently evaluate them. That is my message to our competitor. We are happy to stand behind our science and we know that it's the highest quality science that can exist today. But by the way, John, that's not even the point either. Please. You know what the point actually is? The point is about the patient. It's about having the empathy with the patient so they can know when they do embryonic selection, they can feel comfortable and confident in the results. And this Twitter back and forth, this tit for tat, this, oh, this person's race changed on the Nucleus landing page. It's ridiculous. Yeah, it's really ridiculous. And so that's my message. Speaking of the patients on the landing pages, what about the.

Go in and try and ask for access and they've not received it at all. And one person who asked for more information was told, stop contacting us. So no, they are not open at all. They're open in the sense that OpenAI is open. They're not very open. Okay, got it. Shifting gears to the marketing claims, what stuck out to you there is particularly in need of addressing. They very much need to address the fact that they seem to have fake reviews. So when they started Nucleus Embryo, they launched it in June, they weren't offering any sort of embryo screening services beforehand. And if they were, then it would have been how they have to specify what lab they use for all this stuff. There's a lot of details that should go into this that they can't actually specify because they didn't do that. So they claim to have had customers that have already been served by this. Well, as everybody knows, it takes about nine months to serve a customer in this. At minimum. Yes. And it is not limited a baby. In one month, you know, it takes. So I'd love to see these three month old babies that came out perfectly and were, you know, made their customers so happy. But I don't think they exist. I think they're not real. So why do they have these reviews? I don't know. And the reviews are also. They have a lot of fake elements. There are some that are clearly fake. So they use stock images in these reviews to show which to be clear. You can imagine a scenario where they use stock imagery and fake names and they put an asterisk and say, due to HIPAA compliance reasons, we're not just publicly displaying the names of any of our clients. But there's no issue revealing this stuff. And other companies do actually reveal their real customers. So Orchid has revealed real customers. I've been introduced. I've met her side customers. Oh yeah. Didn't Jason Carmen do a who whole video with Nor and the first and the first Orchid baby. And this has been like basically making a documentary about that person's journey. Like, there's no like. Yeah. And. And I feel like I see in drug commercials all the time. It'll be like, this is a real customer who loves this hair loss meds. And they're like, yeah, it looks great. Yeah. But. And like there's regulations are much harder to get. It's probably much harder to get somebody to opt into that than just opt in to generally providing. Sure. I guess. Is that legit, you think? No, they still could not have had the babies in time. It doesn't fit with the time. The chronology doesn't work here. These customer reviews are not really physically possible, and I'd like to see an explanation from them because it doesn't make any real sense to me. They could be, I don't know, making some sort of representative review that they've maybe hedged in some fine print on some page somewhere, but I haven't seen it, and their entire site has been archived now, so if that page exists, they'll have to show it to us on the archive. One thing Jordi and I were debating was this big question of, like.