Why are you arguing against a claim that isn’t in evidence? I never made it. You can’t cross examine a statement that was never entered. Lay your foundation first, then come back. That's how logical arguments work. You took me out of context and pasted a robot’s summary to cover yourself. Twitter's classic dick move. No one is saying to run out and get some Caber. The AI summary you pasted conflates two different populations into one scary list. The side effect percentages you got from the AI come from the hyperprolactinemia trials. The valve damage and fibrosis warnings come from Parkinson's patients taking 3 mg or more every day for years. 0.25 mg once a week is not that. The dose is the entire conversation, and you skipped it either out of laziness or just to be a contrarian about something of which you know nothing.