O-o-o-ops! Looks like I got misinformed . . . and then got RK mad at me. GEE . . . although I feel kinda stupid, I'm not real impressed with his IR skills! His response to my letter:

Please don’t insult me regarding naked shorting, I have been a committee hearings at the SEC with protest regarding naked shorting and the gov’t inabilities to enforce laws.

You really need to stop reading and posting nonsense on chatrooms.

This same email was sent yesterday, probably being posted on some chatroom. This is misinformation and changing the CUSIP isn’t the answer. The original email which was sent to me yesterday had a link to a pinksheet company who was having reporting issues with Pinksheets. SFMI is under the 1934 ACT. Believing information as such regarding naked short solution is once again false information on a chatroom of which you probably read.

This is joke right! Changing a cusip number takes only a few hours but then it takes up to a month to resolve the issues at FINRA. FINRA then changes the symbol for up to one month to reflect the change. And this issues is just a small part of the stuff outside of DTCC requirements.

So, in essence it is net -0- in terms of get rid of a naked short and a huge headache for the company and its lawyers. The best way for resolve naked shorting issues in the industry is if rules on the books are to be enforced and people put in jail. I have yet to see either of those done by our authorities. Until such actions occur, all of the steps otherwise are worthless.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hard-to-treat-diseases-htds---cusip-change-to-force-short-sellers-to-cover-62172142.html

Furthermore, this press release is really about the pinksheet issues dealing with promo stocks before pinksheet enforced disclosures on non-reporting entities. SFMI reports under the 1934 ACT, this pinksheet company out of Canada had no reporting status.