You specifically used the term "Empirical evidence" which...

You specifically used the term "Empirical evidence" which suggests a supporting observation...a 9.3% move in 14 days on a speccy stock, is not material. You also try to imply price movements well outside that window as an effect of the OTC listing, while ignoring other significant factors. You will take no responsibility for the move back down soon after, how convenient that your testing window only goes that far. Let's not even get into the fact it's one observation, we all know how robust the explanatory powers of one observation is.

So no, I did not need lesson in linguistics or scientific process. But thanks anyway.

• "I formulated a theory based on facts. The remainder is a case of filling in the pieces

No that's not what you did, you had a theory or hypothesis - then tested against other observations, found one that you liked and provided it as "proof" of your claim. The only facts you present are dates and stock prices, everything else is conjecture and poor logical reasoning.

The rest of your post doesn't need a response.