Proving a negative is awfully hard - well studied doesn't quite cut it. RSA and NSA have a history that precedes the apparent invention, so it's interesting that the tech was allowed to proceed (patents can be seized and kept secret.) I've pointed to an assumption, you've assumed a belief on my part - that's something of a conspiracy theory on your part, it's nothing I've said. The history of cryptography is replete with examples of assumptions of safety that were spectacularly overturned, and that's all I'm pointing to.