This effect is, I'm afraid, largely independent of whether you're -actually- right or not - so assuming your goals include "maximise the number of readers of your comment who go on to do some research about the technique", adjusting the language you use to try and put across that they should go and research it is probably a good idea.

Disclaimer: The above in no way indicates a judgement as to whether the technique in question is sufficiently awesome to deserve the language you used.

I mean as a mechanism, "focused ultrasound" pretty much says it all. But how successful is it in trials? I think I took a quick look at some links (or googled) based on another one of your comments, but not being in the medical field, or currently needing any repairs that involve tissue ablation, I didn't spend too long investigating the state of the art.

FWIW, I didn't downvote you. I just want to encourage you to sound less crackpottish. Focus on peer-reviewed evidence for specific applications, don't allude to some miracle cure-all.

And waste time wading through a bunch of patent nonsense put up by scammers in the often-vain hope that there is something, just one real item of legitimate information, lost in all the dross.

You say 'closed-minded', I say 'wary of wasting time on yet another example of the alt-med scammer runaround'.

You made the claim; you are familiar with the subject. If you had made the search and presented links that would have been one person spending a few minutes doing a search.

By expecting everyone who reads your post to do the web searching your asking for many people to spend a few minutes each doing a search.

The inefficiency is sub-optimal, no?