Yesterday, 1 November ’22, a blockbuster article was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI) written by its editor Elizabeth McNally — https://www.jci.org/articles/view/166176.
It is just over a year ago since the first of the articles attacking Cassava Sciences appeared. The first was in the New Yorker which profiled Jordan Thomas as the second coming of Christ for exposing supposed fraudulent data published by Cassava principals —
Radden Keefe P. The Bounty Hunter. The New Yorker. Updated January 17, 2022. Accessed October 11, 2022. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/24/jordan-thomas-army-of-whistle-blowers.
Nowhere in the article was it mentioned that the ‘whistle-blowers’ stood to gain financially because they had shorted the stock.
Addendum 2 Nov— see comment by Elizabeth Bik at the end — this is incorrect. It was mentioned that the whistleblowers had short positions in the stock.
There were similar articles in Science — 2022;377(6604):358–363
and the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/18/health/alzheimers-cassava-simufilam.html.
They relied on the same assertions given to the FDA asking that the clinical trials be stopped because of ‘danger’ to the patients.
In none of these articles was it mentioned that those claiming fraud by the Cassava investigators were short the stock.
Addendum 2 Nov— see comment by Elizabeth Bik at the end — this is incorrect. It was mentioned that the whistleblowers had short positions in the stock.
It’s worth reading McNally’s article completely. It isn’t very long.
A few highlights (“the Journal” refers to the JCI)
“Throughout 2022, the Journal has been repeatedly contacted to comment on the 2012 JCI paper. Although we cannot be certain, there now appear to be new “short and distorters.” A recent round of emails was sent simultaneously to multiple journals and editors, identifying 25 articles with potential problems and providing recommendations on how the journals should respond. Importantly, these accusatory emails do not identify any financial conflicts of interest on the part of the whistleblowers. The emails insist that an investigation begin within 24 hours and request that the journals update them on investigative progress. As an editor, I am expressing concern because this represents a new means of manipulating the scientific publishing industry.”
So journal editors are like docs. They talk to each other to find out what’s really going on. It is likely that McNally called up other journal editors to find out if her experience was common.
Here is why those sending the eMails should not sleep well of a night.
“Last, if the Journal uncovers allegations made for the purposes of stock manipulation, with evidence of misinformation, the JCI may elect to express its concern to the US Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Justice.”
It’s about time.
Science, The New Yorker, and the New York Times are guilty of very sloppy reporting.
Whether the ‘whistle-blowers’ are guilty of anything will be determined by the suits (from investors losing money on Cassava, or perhaps Cassava itself) which are almost sure to follow.
As some of you know, I think Cassava’s data is even better than they realize. Be warned the following link is long, detailed and will require your concentration —
Cassava Sciences 9 month data is probably better than they realize
Chemiotics II 