Well, I said you review it in the totality of the circumstances, but a r/s is not a cause of the problems that may be the cause of the r/s. I don't know how that suggests you should ignore the "history" of a company.
One might see the cause here, as an attack by the shorts, a strategy to keep shares off the market, that was strategically attacked, caused those transactions from past years to be unwound and refinanced, dilluting the shares beyond the amount allowed in a short time on the NASDAQ, and then the stock was delisted, causing more loss of investor confidence. I personally think that most of this is the result of an ongoing short attack that has been extremely successful rather than a real issue of governance. But, there are clearly going to be differences of opinion. I think the attacks have mostly been successful by means of creating doubt, using innuendo, and destroying confidence in a company that can't possibly have success until its Phase III is completed, which means that it's very, very vulnerable and it's easy to destroy the stock price with some resources and non-stop bashing, combined with some useful law firms making attacks seem potentially valid. We know the outcome of those suits already.
So I'm not ahistoric. I'm explaining the general idea of a r/s. That's the reason they exist. They often result form dilution, and dilution that can result from a variety of circumstances. Unssuccessful trials... but that's not yet the case here, longer delays than expected in getting results (that may be the case here or not, I don't think that is the fundamental reason for the share price collapsing and the lengthy trial time actually is a good sign for many who understand the trials), or bad behavior by management. Lawsuits brought by some, have not proven that bad behavior was the cause. The NASDAQ issue, the result of the MFN and some other challenges, was not ideal, but I expect it was not due to bad behavior, but more likely not anticipating that a short attack might make the close financing arrangement seem problematic, when, in my view, it probably was intended to benefit long-term shareholders, and did, until the company was attacked by shorts.
But everyone is going to come out on the issues differently. You can look at all the history you want.
The fundamental issue is this. There are billions, probably trillions of dollars available to companies on a major exchange. Those dollars shrink to a very small, discrete amount, comparatively, when you're a penny stock on the OTC. If you had the chance to fish in massive seas, or a tiny pond, where do you think you'd catch the most fish? My analogy is in reference to investor dollars. Anyone posting here, whether pro or anti the company, is on this obscure board, giving it their life's energy because something brought them to this opportunity, whether they like it or not. Being on a major exchange, and this company was for a long time, so it has that residual bulletin board audience, will enable the company, if it is successful, to attract much larger influxes of capital and investment dollars, than if it were on the OTC. So it's just prudent management to make that decision at some point.
As for your point here: "NWBO needs to increase its share price legitimately (as Les Goldman once suppposedly said they would do) and not via cheap and unsustainable mathematical tricks."
1. No one is currently talking about reverse splits except some very odd posters who keep bringing it up. Not sure why, but as I said, usually when a company is not talking about one, it's often the shorts trying to keep the price down when circumstances might allow the price to rise. It's in the realm of possibility, and shorts usually like to sow doubt. Many investors use r/s as a short-hand, without fully understanding the math.
2. Uplisting is a legitimate way to improve the prospects for the appreciation of its market cap and stock price, when the company's other circumstances are perceived as improving, because it makes it possible for a much larger amount of investor dollars to flow into the company. R/S are not good if you think a company is a total sham, or if you don't have trust in a company. But why would anyone spend precious years and days of their lives posting on an obscure bulletin board about a company that they don't believe in? If one is hanging onto shares, then surely one actually does believe, and why would one then try to undermine confidence while holding on and hoping to regain possible depreciation? If one is a swing trader I get it. And if one is a short, I get it. But otherwise, most investors either invest or divest, or a stock has no interest to them if they are interested in doing neither.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
