1) Yes, I specifically pointed out that these numbers are being circulated everywhere. They are baseless and intentionally misleading. It might even amount to a crime. It matters that you can't vouch for these numbers despite repeating them yourself.

2) You intentionally used language that casts doubt on the only well-sourced statement, that Melvin got rid of their short position. If you're going to be so skeptical then I want to know why. If you think that CNBC is colluding with hedgefunds and intentionally publishing misinformation then I want to know why you are suggesting that.