Investor — you didn’t rebut anything I wrote. You sidestepped the market-structure argument and went straight back to the same, tired LP/dilution/bag-holder narrative. That’s not a counterpoint, it’s a weak, multi-thronged pivot to baffle the unsuspecting with bullshit.
My point was simple: A squeeze only happens when dealers are forced to close. Nothing in 2021–2022 created a forced unwind. So, the absence of a squeeze tells you zero about synthetic exposure — it only tells you there was no trigger. That is simple mechanics and not about LP providing optimism to fleece her investors.
Regarding your statement, "count[ing] on LP to give them plenty of opportunities" [i.e., dilutions], does not address the issue as to whether NWBO's offered shares entered the lending pool. NWBO’s microstructure (thin books, low borrow, MM dominance) shows the borrowable float barely expanded. If dilution had fixed that, the tape would look very different.
And the “there will never be a catalyst” line isn’t a rebuttal — it’s just your prediction that the company fails before any forced-closure event (approval, partnerships, indication expansion, etc.) ever matters. That’s your thesis, not evidence against synthetic exposure or borrow scarcity. It’s also inconsistent with the regulatory reforms underway in both the UK and US (even before NWBO has PR’d a BLA). And your position implies something you know isn’t true — that Wall Street can pile up unlimited short or synthetic exposure forever with no risk, no margin pressure, and no eventual unwind. That’s not how the system works, and you know it.
If you want to challenge the argument, do it... without the misdirection/pivots. Or continue with your agenda.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
