CV Sciences Inc (CVSI)

[Deetew]

Here, I point out bias in article called CV Sciences: Investors Should Watch These Risks below. This biased article was surely intended to drive down the price to most likely create an opening for the author to get in at a cheap price.

Here’s how it’s biased:

--Doesn’t mention that the new CEO is risking his reputation for this business. Doesn’t delve into the new CEO’s history. –The article only focuses on the founder’s actions which are ancient history, and current investors most likely already realize that risk. Why doesn’t the author mention this?

--Doesn’t mention the States Act which Trump already agreed to sign, which would change the Controlled Substances Act to allow states to make up their owns minds in regard to marijuana laws, and the federal government would respect the laws of states that have legalized. Two identical versions of the bill are currently circulating through both chambers of Congress. Why doesn’t the author mention this? Is his sole intention to scare investors to create an opportunity for himself?

--He also doesn't mention that Sen. Cory Gardner had a meeting with Trump about this States Act. Gardner was holding up Trump's justice picks until he had confidence that Trump would do something about the disconnect between the Fed and the states in regards to cannabis. After the meeting, Gardner came out smiling and stopped holding Trump's justice picks. I wonder why? Was it because Trump said he would sign the States Act if it reached his desk. --It was.

--Doesn’t mention Farm Bill of 2018 which just passed the Senate which would allow all 50 states to grow, sell, process, and distribute hemp with little restriction. CVSI makes their CBD product from hemp which is a low THC strain of Cannabis Sativa L. Why didn’t the author mention this?

--Since America likes to remain competitive globally considering our global business environment and all of the FDI, I would imagine that the United States would follow suit with Canada to buff up profit levels by bringing money back into the country that was extracted by foreign drug cartels. Much of the profit in this industry is most likely displacing unaccounted-for money in the black market. I expect legalization in the near future as well since a majority of the nation’s citizens would prefer legalization, and it’s on the Democrat’s party platform to legalize. This a democracy, right? Why didn’t the author mention any of this?

--“The DEA says you can’t get CBD in usable quantities out of those stalks and seeds;” the DEA has also taken bribes from drug lords in Columbia. The DEA has also lied about the effects of marijuana in the past, and the science has proven it. We may “need more research,” but cannabis has been used since the time of Emperor Shen Nung in China in 2800 BC. It was even in the pharmacopoeia –meaning the knowledge is there; you just have to look for it. Most importantly, cannabis sativa L (industrial hemp) stalks and seeds do contain CBD in trace amounts, and with large enough quantities, CBD can be extracted. “Unpractical” as the DEA says? –Yes, unpractical since ideally you would want to use the buds of the plant to extract CBD; that will be allowed if the Farm Bill of 2018 passes. –It just passed the Senate –headed by McConnell himself.

--Also, I want to point out that the author misstated what the DEA said. The DEA said it was not “practical” to make CBD from stalks and seeds, but they didn’t say that you “can’t” make CBD from the stalks and seeds. Is this a clever way to put words in the DEA’s mouth by the author and seem legit due to the oversized length of his boring article?

--The author claims “the DEA moved an FDA-approved THC drug (Marinol) from Schedule I to Schedule II while keeping THC on Schedule I,” and he uses this as a basis to assume that the FDA won’t recommend the rescheduling of cannabis. However, the FDA also claims that, “Schedule 1 (I) drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined by the federal government as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, and GW Pharmaceutical’s Epidiolex is sourced from cannabis, and since it was recently approved by the FDA, it creates a conflict of interest between the drug’s approval and the Schedule 1 classification. At this point in the article, it was apparent that the author’s general knowledge about the cannabis market is lacking. The FDA didn’t have to change cannabis’ scheduling by approving Marinol since the THC was synthetic and not considered “marihuana,” but they will have to change scheduling on the CSA after approval of Epidiolex due to the conflict of interest. I was thinking that the author should get another job at this point.

--The author claims that “the fact that CVSI has not publicly acknowledged the risk of DEA enforcement or the FDA's rejection of industry submissions on CBD is alarming.” However, per Cornell’s page on “(Item 305) Quantitative and qualitative disclosures about market risk,”it clearly states “(e)Smaller reporting companies. A smaller reporting company, as defined by § 229.10(f)(1), is not required to provide the information required by this Item.” So why should they disclose risks that most people already realize when they are not required to as a small reporting company? –To satisfy the biased author I guess.

The author (Wallace Lee) claims “Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.” But after 72 hours, I’m sure the author will be all over investing in it once his clearly biased article (as described above) has its negative affect on the novice, weak-handed CVSI investor’s ticker price.

This article was referenced to write the above:
CV Sciences: Investors Should Watch These Risks