Yes, I doubt we will agree.
Due diligence presented as an "investigation", in my view, is not a legal term, no legal allegations of wrong-doing issued forth from the use of that terminology by that investor. There is a reason for that fact. It was due diligence. So using the term "investigation" to the casual reader of a post, would mean something entirely different than what occurred. It implies a legal proceeding or a prosecution. Neither happened and things that were happening in terms of civil suits, about other matters, have been dismissed or settled without wrong-doing.
When people put a company under false light, many people get upset, not just the persons putting the company under false light. This happens in our politics too. Spambots spread spam by taking over the computers of innocent persons whose computers get infected. Likewise, a false light campaign's purpose is to get ordinary investors using the same terms, same ideas to discuss the company, until those ideas and false notions become a part of that company's story.
As for the dilution that changes the quorum, there were a variety of investors who could invest and did invest, including current retail investors that could qualify under law. The resulting vote will be the resulting vote. I don't necessarily believe that is a conspiracy. But one of the things I do like about this company is that after the shorts ran it down and there was dilution, management can still forestall a cheap buyout potentially, and it's my view that that is their intention. It may mean a lower share price as there will be less speculation about a double or triple from here that could be the buyout price. But from experience, I don't wish a cheap buyout on any investors who have held in there on a microcap biotech with paradigm-shifting potential such as this one.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
