NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[CherryTree1]

I read it several times, but I am having trouble understanding this:

PS although "having no foundation or basis in fact" is the definition, the synonyms include unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unverified, unattested. This would suggest they aren't baseless, but need to substantiated or unsubstantiated.

How can something can be "unfounded" which by definition means:

unfounded - (adjective) without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like

and yet not be "baseless" which by definition means:

baseless - (adjective) having no base; without foundation; groundless: a baseless claim.

and how something can be "unfounded" if it still may be "unsubstantiated" which by definition means:

unsubstantiated - (adjective) not substantiated; unproved or unverified

as I read this, it seems like something "unfounded" has to have been first proven to be "unsubstantiated" and thus must also be "baseless".
So taking the original statement literally would suggest the claim is "unfounded" it thus must be "baseless" and thus must have already been "substantiated".
so going back to the original statement from Woodford support:

You have obviously seen our recent filing to the SEC and we are unable to comment further at this stage. Suffice to say that we believe in robust and transparent corporate governance and the filing has been made to protect the interests of shareholders by investigating and reporting on serious, but unfounded, allegations that suggest otherwise."

it sounds like they are saying this has already been substantiated and is unfounded and baseless, but needs to be investigate to ensure this truth is self-evident to everyone.

That's my 2 cents.