Thanks, I thought they were good questions. I had hoped that I would be less confused after getting the answers but it's not working out that way. Please try answering them more directly.
1. I asked how you know that you are not being lied to now and that the original story about data falsification wasn't true. The same person that told you that the story was true then told you that the story was false. Your answer dealt with the legal ramifications of confessions, which had nothing to do with the question. Are you simply saying that you have no reliable information to indicate that any data was falsified in the DengueCide orphan drug application and that any previous comments such as "I have no basis to think that they have, but if it turns out that they have -- would it really be all that much of a shock?" should be ignored? Or do you still feel that way?
2. I asked for your basis for the phrase "communicated to who knows how many third parties then found its way public" given that the only information about the falsification that I'm aware of came from you. The question was not about legalities and didn't call for an answer that began with the words "When it comes to securiites law...". I'll repeat it so you don't need to check back: What makes you think that the false story was "communicated to who knows how many third parties then found its way public", especially given that, as far as I know, you were the first (and only) to report it and there's no evidence that anyone else actually heard about it?
3. "My chart only represents the fall from when I heard the rumor to its lowest point after the rumor." Your chart appears to begin on November 24, when the stock closed at $3.35....a drop to its lowest point since that date would have been a 23% drop. Is that when you heard the rumor? In order for "the fall from when I heard the rumor to its lowest point after the rumor" to be 31% you would have had to heard the rumor on November 5th or 6th when the share price was $3.71, which more closely approximate the date of the shelf registration and its questionable amendment, which is why I asked whether the 31% drop couldn't be more appropriately attributed to the shelf announcement and operational issues (I neglected to mention the CPA firm change and the bump to the share Authorization.) rather than some rumor that, to my knowledge, was known to you and you only and on a date that isn't clear. When were you first told of the rumor?
I don't care about the legal issues at this point, although I understand how they might concern you...whether on behalf of the emailer or yourself. I'm just trying to get the facts straight and they are all that I'm asking about.
"I ated the purple berries"
