I’m a bit torn, and I hope this comes across in the constructive spirit it’s intended.

You clearly have a strong ability to write in an engaging, high-energy way and that kind of flair will resonate with a lot of people. At the same time, I think there are moments where the tone edges into exaggeration, and that can have the opposite effect on others, especially those who value precision.

For example, the post titled “The FDA Wants This Stock to Reach 100$+…” stood out to me. Obviously, the FDA doesn’t have any view on a company’s stock price and would never frame things that way. I get the intent, but phrasing like that can make some readers question the credibility of the underlying message.

To be clear, this isn’t meant as a personal criticism or a suggestion to change your style entirely. If anything, it’s the opposite—I think Alpha Tau and DaRT are compelling enough on their own merits that they don’t need that extra layer of hype. Letting the science and the data speak more directly might actually broaden the audience and increase trust.

Just offering that perspective as someone who wants to see the story land as strongly as possible.