Cassava Biosciences has had the worst press imaginable with hit pieces in the Wall Street Journal, Science magazine, the New Yorker and the New York Times. Finally Nature News has a balanced article showing how the shorts have been attacking the company and its drug — https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00050-z.
I’d written about this before and that post can be found after the ***
The Nature article discusses concerns by Elizabeth McNally editor of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, that journals are being manipulated by short sellers claiming that an article is fraudulent.
“Typically, when a whistle-blower contacts a journal about concerns over manipulated images or otherwise questionable data, the allegations are taken on good faith, McNally told Nature. The idea that whistle-blowers could be doing this for their own financial gain “was very eye-opening to me”, she says.”
One particular criticism of Cassava found in the Nature article is rather amusing. “Amid the allegations about Cassava’s data, researchers have expressed concern over how Simufilam works. Aside from the preliminary studies by Cassava and its collaborators, the strategy of stablilizing filamin-A to tackle Alzheimer’s hasn’t been on anyone’s radar, says George Perry, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Texas at San Antonio. “The fact that it hasn’t been widely studied means that it hasn’t been confirmed.”
The fact that filamin-A hasn’t been on anyone’s radar is actually in its favor, since aBeta, the great white whale of Alzheimer’s research has been impaled with multiple expensive harpoons, with minimal benefit to patients.
The Nature article notes that some of the FDA petitioners wanted the Simulfilam studies stopped, something any drug company with a competing product for Alzheimer’s might wish, but should never ask for.
****
The copy of this post was changed to respond to the valid criticisms of Dr. Elizabeth Bik.
Cassava shorts should be worried
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.
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.
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.
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 — https://luysii.wordpress.com/2021/08/25/cassava-sciences-9-month-data-is-probably-better-than-they-realize/
Chemiotics II 