Trying to follow the logic here....
So an allegation has been made that the SEC is investigating PCTL, and somehow the burden of proof lies with those who question the allegation?
And somehow it's considered "made up BS" to say there is no investigation? But the allegation itself is to be considered reliable?
Who's making up what? Where does the burden of proof lie in this scenario? With the one saying there is a "secret investigation"? Or with the one saying "there is no investigation"?
Although I suppose one could go into any stock forum and say the company is "under investigation", since the SEC is technically always watching. Kind of silly though to suggest that one can blindly throw out such claims with no burden of proof on what would be considered a serious claim.
In fact... I do believe the SEC is interested in and possibly might investigate characters who make serious unfounded claims with intent to provoke fear and spread misinformation. I am pretty sure actions have been taken to address such activity. So maybe SEC enforcement should be contacted after all?
What a tangled web of what if's, maybes, "prove it's", etc.
So back to the original question... is there any basis/merit/proof for the allegation being made that the SEC is investigating PCT? Seems to me like a claim being made with no basis or merit other than nebulous "could be true".
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
