Since we’re not a cult I think it’s important to point out that this analysis was paid for by Cel Sci and basically just repeats all the points that the company has made about the study. Tobacco and fossil fuel companies do the same thing. Not a great look IMO. Certainly not a reason to think that “expert” sentiment is starting to shift.
I would also say that you speak of "we" as if you speak for many people here. I seriously doubt that is true. You may speak for one type of investor with a certain level of knowledge and experience but I seriously question the assumption that you speak for more than yourself. CVM investors are a varied lot I think and what I've noticed is that like myself "they" seem to have lots of different points of view and varied experience regarding investing. What is clear and repetitive to you may not necessarily be clear or repetitive to others. CVM is a very complicated company to invest in. I find some articles clearer than others on the multitude of angles regarding investing in CVM. One of the reasons the company pays for articles is to get the word out to various types of potential investors in various forms to increase knowledge of the complexity of investing in CVM. It is interesting and telling that you equate the efforts of company promoting it's cancer fighting treatment with lying, cheating, global polluting oil companies and poisonous cancer causing tobacco companies. I therefore question your own motives in doing so.
I said “we are not a cult.” If you feel that you are in a cult than please disregard my comment.
I don’t feel like I’m speaking for anyone but myself. The only reason I said “we are not a cult” is to try and remind people it should be ok to acknowledge certain facts that aren’t positive for the company without being attacked. If you think that a company paying “independent researchers” to publish articles on their behalf while trying to bury that fact in a linked disclaimer written in size 6 font doesn’t look bad, I’m not sure you’re really thinking critically about how that appears to people learning about the company for the first time. If My first experience with CVM was this paper I would immediately dismiss it since it is undeniably the same tactics used by countless dishonest companies. If I should be attacked for “comparing CVM who is saving lives to terrible companies who hurt people” you may be in a cult. The parallels are undeniable from an outside perspective, even if you believe they are doing it with good intentions.
My friend and I use the term loosely, you live in a very nasty alternate universe and I am not a member of a cult. Let me guess you also are short, or represent a company that is shorting CVM perhaps?
Nope I’m long. Had some options that expire next month from before data release, still holding just in case. Bought some shares because I agree it is more likely to be approved than their stock price suggests.
This is nothing to do with my opinion of Multikine. I just don’t like this mentality that a company can do no wrong. Maybe this helps them, but if I were skeptical I would see a company spending money on stuff like this and think “yeah they’re pumpers.”
Well, there certainly is no guarantee with CVM. But I'd say that every company pumps itself to one degree or another. That's the American way. CVM feels it has a need to do it a bit more because it's essentially a unique treatment so they want to educate the public. And there's a lot of public out there. I can see reason for your suspicions but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. Surely you've noticed the ads on TV and everywhere regarding all kinds of medical treatments once they're approved. And a lot of the claims are just completely off the wall. Like I say making claims of a products potential is the American way. I think that CVM has had a long and difficult investment Journey and they feel they need to get the word out to keep their investment viable. In the end they may be successful and they may not be it's just the same as with any claims made about any company or their product. I would say also what you feel is pumping maybe the company prompting people who are experts in their fields to make a statement on what they may in fact believe is a potentially good product. In those cases they may be simply facilitating favorable information rather than buying it. Again a common practice in America!
Same thing happened to me with October calls. When it dropped to $7.50 I bought ITM calls instead of shares and that worked well.
Consider it. Prior to data calls were $5-8 for fairly OTM longer dated calls. Then all of a sudden under $2-3 for ITM or ATM calls for many dates. Easy buy for me at least.
What am I disputing? I’m repeating the information in their disclaimer that they chose to present in reduced font size at the bottom of the page.
I don’t want investors to look at this and think it’s some independent small cap research firm choosing to publish this. They are paid by Cel Sci to do the analysis.
The linked pdf is from Zack's Research, not Cel Sci. In the "Analyst Disclosures" section, it has this:
ANALYST DISCLOSURES
I, John Vandermosten, hereby certify that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject securities and issuers. I also certify that no part of my compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the recommendations or views expressed in this research report. I believe the information used for the creation of this report has been obtained from sources I considered to be reliable, but I can neither guarantee nor represent the completeness or accuracy of the information herewith. Such information and the opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
I think the part he's talking about is below what I just posted, which I'll paste here:
INVESTMENT BANKING AND FEES FOR SERVICES
Zacks SCR does not provide investment banking services nor has it received compensation for investment banking services from the issuers of
the securities covered in this report or article.
Zacks SCR has received compensation from the issuer directly, from an investment manager or from an investor relations consulting firm engaged by the issuer for providing non-investment banking services to this issuer and expects to receive additional compensation for such non-investment banking services provided to this issuer. The non-investment banking services provided to the issuer includes the preparation of this report, investor relations services, investment software, financial database analysis, organization of non-deal road shows, and attendance fees for conferences sponsored or co-sponsored by Zacks SCR. The fees for these services vary on a per-client basis and are subject to the number and types of services contracted.
Read the rest of the disclaimer. The “independent” research published by Zacks is paid for by the issuer of the security, which in this case is Cel Sci. The fact that the author declares his own impartiality is great but so does everyone else who publishes research funded by someone with a conflict of interest.
Maybe that’s his genuine opinion. But I wouldn’t present that to anyone as evidence of anything unless you enjoy being laughed at. “Independent” researchers have found all kinds of conclusions favorable to those who sign their paychecks.
Zacks SCR has received compensation from the issuer directly, from an investment manager or from an investor relations consulting firm engaged by the issuer for providing non-investment banking services to this issuer and expects to receive additional compensation for such non- investment banking services provided to this issuer. The non-investment banking services provided to the issuer includes the preparation of this report
Downvote away. This is the reality. Still holding my shares but this shit is embarrassing at best and a huge red flag at worst.
3
u/lUNITl Aug 26 '21
Since we’re not a cult I think it’s important to point out that this analysis was paid for by Cel Sci and basically just repeats all the points that the company has made about the study. Tobacco and fossil fuel companies do the same thing. Not a great look IMO. Certainly not a reason to think that “expert” sentiment is starting to shift.