You are taking disclosure data that is not adequately specific and then trying to suggest you know things that you could not possibly know and that are not necessarily true. You have to stick to facts and details that are both known and specific enough to make your various allegations. Otherwise it’s not factual information at all, but pure speculation.
Speculation of course is fine, if you don’t state speculation as fact and without qualification. But when you state your speculation as fact you mislead people. When you link to any SEC doc and make broad generalizations and refer to specific numbers that do not necessarily mean what you are saying, then you’re engaged, willfully or otherwise, in mistaking and distorting reality. And I am sure no one wants to be seen as completely inaccurate and blowing things hysterically out of proportion just to make their investment case. Most people want to be taken seriously and I am sure that is the case with you. So I would suggest clarifying that you are speculating and then pointing specifically to what detail you mean, as you did after I questioned you, and recognizing the limitation of that one specific data point.
You can say that the Form 4’s you believe have not been filed yet for your speculative case, but that does not mean that the lack of them PROVES your point because you assert that NWBO must be late, regardless of what possible previous incident to which you might or might not factually be pointing. Again, speculation on top of speculation, on top of speculation, is NOT FACTUAL. It’s not credible, honestly, not to stick with and explain the factual basis of such speculation. And while you think you did it merely by pointing a link to the various financial reports or quoting a line, absent qualifying language addressed to that line, the reality is, it’s not a fact based discussion, no matter how much you want to suggest that it is because you SOUND specific enough to you.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
