The articlle on GERN is very questionable based on facts or lack of accurate facts. It was a shorters hit piece. Worse posted as an ED Pick. NO BASIS for this being Ed Pick. Seems SA in bed with shorts SHAME!!

  • updated
Alex Babel

I agree completely. One user on the Yahoo Finances Message Board for GERN had a very good breakdown of what made the article subjectively bad - sdrawcabeman. 

The article itself wasn’t grounded in facts and a lot of the data and basic medical terminology were misinterpreted or misunderstood - including the understanding of what the medicine does and who the patients it would treat are, and so on.

In my opinion, the author looked to be after benefiting from a drop in GERN share price. And the disclaimer at the end was very contradictory. “I am not receiving compensation for this article” “I am a GERN short”.

Writing a hit piece on a forum that’s relatively popular to make money looks very bad on the community as a whole.


My law firm is requesting a phone number to Seeking Alpha's legal department regarding this article, and SA's culpability, in regards to violation of SEC Rule 10b. 

This website has no phone number listed for this company. Please advise.


What exactly is required for an article to be labeled as a "Pro Pick" by Seeking Alpha?  I feel that recent posting by Alpha Exposure was intentionally deceptive and nothing resembling "Pro" by anyone familiar with the stock.

Really puts a sour taste in my mouth for the credibility of this entire website.