We disagree. In my opinion the regulators are cho

We disagree. In my opinion the regulators are choosing to enforce and punish naked shorting only when it serves their purpose to do so. Many of the companies whose stock is under attack are not savvy and are not fighting back the way IPIX has on behalf of its shareholders and some of them may well be scams and cannot afford to fight back unlike IPIX. I suspect that Goldman Sachs made many more millions naked shorting a multitude of stocks than the paltry few million they were fined for it in the link I posted. Now if a company like GS were barred from trading for 30 days 1st offense, 90 days second offense and 1 year for 3rd offense I think that might give them reason not to naked short. IPIX has not sued nor do I expect them to but they have fought back and they have been in contact with regulators..
In my opinion the shorts are struggling with IPIX. Longs continue to accumulate and they are not selling. The results of trials to date have all been successful and management has announced its intention to partner up with its drugs. This makes for a huge huge upside potential with very little downside risk. The shorts went to far with IPIX and did not expect the shareholder base to be as strong willed as they are. They will not be happy buying back shares they sold for .70 for $7.00 plus but if they get away with this criminal behavior 90% of the time and their worst case punishment is a slap on the wrist fine if caught, they find it hard to resist the easy money they are able to steal from investors. I am looking forward to the investors winning and the criminals losing their shirts as they buy back their shorts in the very near future. Go IPIX!!!
P.S. I again ask all to call or write to their Congresscritters to ask them to demand regulators put an end to abusive naked shorting which is criminal.