Your original point was that NWBO may be holding back information until it can “add to the needle movement later in a much more meaningful and sustained way.”
But now you are arguing that almost all interim news may be non-material because the stock often fades after positive-sounding PRs. You also seem to be attributing those fades to the stock being targeted for attack.
I do not think you can draw either conclusion from stock reaction alone. Market reaction can be evidence, but it is not the materiality test. The test is whether there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider the information important, or whether it would alter the total mix of information available.
It is also a leap to go from “positive-sounding PR followed by a stock fade” to “bear attack.” There are other possible explanations. Maybe investors were reacting to 2.5 years without approval. Maybe they were discounting the lack of EDEN certification. Maybe they were concerned about dilution, manufacturing, reimbursement, or the absence of concrete regulatory news. I am just guessing, but those explanations are at least as plausible as a coordinated attack.
And does anyone really believe Investor082 can move the needle on NWBO? A poster saying “sell on approval” is not evidence of a preplanned bear raid. It is just a trading opinion. If anything, an investor reading this board is more likely to walk away not knowing what to do. One side treats every PR as an approval signal. The other side says approval may be a sell-the-news event. That is not a bear raid. That is a message board.
Take the recent leukapheresis PR. Was that material or immaterial?
If it was material, then what was the material fact? Did it mean MHRA approval was closer? Did it mean GMP manufacturing had been validated? Did it mean the commercial process had been accepted? Did it mean capacity, reimbursement, or launch readiness had been solved?
Or was it simply an operational piece of the puzzle that would be useful if approval eventually comes?
If it was material, then interim news clearly can matter, and the idea that almost all interim news is non-material starts to weaken.
If it was immaterial, then why did NWBO issue it under your own theory that they do not want to give out any more news than required? By definition, immaterial information is not required disclosure.
You ask how I would package the news. That is where I think the argument goes off track. A public company should not be treating disclosure as a stock-price packaging exercise.
If approval is granted, say approval was granted. If GMP manufacturing is validated, say that. If Flaskworks is part of the approved commercial process, say that accurately. If it is not, do not imply it is.
The issue is not how to get the best needle movement. The issue is whether investors are getting accurate, complete, and timely information.
Market Data 
Markets 
