I posted this elsewhere earlier. I’m a little de

I posted this elsewhere earlier. I’m a little defensive about some of the FUD.

My epiphany :


I must not understand the whole stock shorting gig.

So a "short" borrows the stock, sells it, and then plans to buy it back at a lower price. Makes sense.

It would seem that, unless one is waiting for February 31 which will likely never get here, the best gambit is to borrow and sell high, and then repurchase said borrowed shares a lower price.

As we have been recurrently informed that leronlimab is worthless and that the CD12 results will demonstrate that unequivocally, it seems the LOGICAL approach would be to talk up the stock (pumping I have been told this is called) so as to elevate the price and then sell at a price even higher than the current ~$5.

As the exact opposite is happening, perhaps the claims here of the utter failure of the CD12 trial, the complete lack of Leronlimab efficacy and the impending demise of Cytodyn are untrue.

Perhaps the CD12 trial is about to be unblinded with overwhelming success, leronlimab is about to be unequivocally demonstrated as THE solution to severe covid and the accumulated debt of Cytodyn will be easily addressed by a flood of revenue.

I only have a Bachelors in Biology and I never made manager at McDonalds during my brief tenure there.

Nonetheless, these observations are IMO and accurate model of the observed behaviors.

I will continue to watch and record my observations to see if the empirical evidence fits.

What I do not need empirical evidence to demonstrate is that the possible losses for "shorting gone bad" are infinite.