The verdict is too quick to dismiss the *possibility* of a mechanism, not just the evidence for it. The claim isn’t about stretching as a treatment, but about a potential biological pathway—mechanical forces influencing immune response. That’s not a stretch in the literal sense, but in the conceptual one. If we rule out all hypotheses that lack direct proof, we risk stifling inquiry. The AI’s certainty ignores the iterative nature of science, where even unproven ideas can guide future research. Saying it’s false without acknowledging the broader field of mechanobiology is like dismissing gravity because you’ve never seen it in action.