I'm confused.
You're contention, if I understand it correctly, is that:
1. Someone falsely accused the company of falsifying the data submitted in support of the DengueCide orphan drug application.
2. That accusation was then "communicated to who knows how many third parties then found its way public".
3. That resulted in a 30% drop in the share price as shown in your linked chart.
4. The person that made you aware of the original accusation has now told you that it was a "wholly fabricated story".
I hope I have that right.
On December 8 you told us that you had received an email indicating that some Doctor was aware of the fraud in the form of falsified data described above that also provided a means to contact that Doctor. At the time you indicated that the emailer himself was not responding to your emails.
Now, based on your serial killer analogy, I understand that you have been able to make contact with that emailer and he/she has admitted to having fabricated the story. (Again, I hope I have that right.) You don't clearly indicate whether you ever made contact with the Doctor (if there even is a Doctor).
Now it seems that you are accusing the emailer of committing some kind of illegal act. While I don't agree with that, that's not the source of my confusion. What I don't understand is:
1. How do you know, or what makes you think, that the emailer, who admitted lying to you about the false accusation, is not actually lying to you now and the accusation is, in fact, true?
2. 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 to report it and there's no evidence that anyone else actually heard about it? (Edit: As a reasonably conscious member of the public your 12/8 post was my first awareness of it).
3. The share price actually began its drop on 11/3 (your chart starts a couple of weeks later), coinciding with the Shelf Registration filing. Based on your post of 12/8 the emailer apparently notified you prior to that date of his tale. Still, that's quite a while after the share price topped out. What makes you think that the share price didn't start to drop based on the shelf, followed shortly thereafter by Boniuk's use of a piece of that shelf to register a significant number of shares for sale, and simply continued to drop based on the operational questions that you have taken regular note of....questions about adequate materials for Tox testing, progress questions about the building, ebolacide test timing questions, etc.?
Do you feel as if you have been used?
"I ated the purple berries"
