Kbas,
I don't believe they've done anything that is worthy of an SEC complaint. The law does not require them to use the clinical trials database, and as I indicated if they did use it, they wouldn't announce it, investor's would need to find the trials using their search engine.
I believe they're compliant with the SEC, they might fear being accused of hype, or perhaps even may have been accused of it, I really don't know. Zev certainly was someone who may have said, or done something that may have violated SEC guidance, he certainly had everyone thinking things would happen far faster than they did.
Decades ago the CEO of IMGN routinely posted on a website, he also took calls from investor's. The SEC read him the riot act, I believe it cost him some money, and everything changed. Investor's generally weren't told of this, but he was a friend of my broker and that's how I know it happened. On more than one occasion when the stock made a substantial move up or down, my broker who wasn't permitted access to the internet called to see if I knew what was going on, the company didn't. At times I knew of some website that said something good, or bad about the company, at times I knew nothing.
We live in a world where certain people have developed huge followings, in some cases you must pay to get their advice. The advice they give may move a stock dramatically short term, but over time it has no influence on the fundamentals that will move the stock in a more permanent way. A so called expert who thinks a drug trial will succeed, or fail, may get a substantial move, but if the drug does the opposite of what the expert said, the stock will clearly react to what's happened.
I'm always bothered by Analyst's who rate a stock buy with a target of say $10, but when it hits $10 quickly, rather than analyze why, they move it to hold. When the stock hit's $20, they take credit for making a great investment, knowing full well that many who follow them don't hold, they move the money to their next buy recommendation. I frankly have stopped watching financial networks as the Analyst's generally push whatever their brokerage tells them to much more than truly analyzing the companies they discuss. I know they can make, or break you short term, but in the long run they have little influence. Perhaps the biggest thing that turns me off with Analysts are those who use earnings as a key when they're discussing a biotech with no products for sale. I'm fine with them estimating, and missing, but they cannot know precisely what quarter some bill must be paid, or some milestone received, so to make a big deal of meeting or missing the estimate isn't nearly as important as understanding why, and if the reason sounds good, not being concerned about it at all. Of course, in spite of my feelings, I know that if a company misses earnings, the headlines will trash the share price, often in spite of positive news presented in the quarterly. I've been particularly critical of Reuter's who I believe now have hired English speaking people in India, etc to be their biotech analysts, their only requirement is writing clearly in English. If a company misses on earnings, but cured cancer, the headline would real, XXXX Misses on Earnings, nothing might even be said about the cancer trial that went very well.
Sorry to vent,
Gary
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
