Talk:Cassava Sciences

Edits needed to keep this page neutral

Inaccuracies were corrected and detail were previously added to keep this page balanced and neutral. They were immediately reversed and called "suspect" and "problematic." The original page had a negative bias and was part of a negative media and social media campaign on this company. Please keep this page fair and neutral. The "experts" quoted are all negative (and tied to the failed Citizen's Petitions) and so should be called "skeptics" not "experts," as just one example. 2600:1700:5431:1280:C5A:D4CF:987B:A482 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

IP 2600, Please review WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:MEDRS and WP:COI and WP:NPOV for samples of some Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia follows secondary reliable sources; it doesn't decide what to write as original research. In this edit, I see multiple problems:

• Use of a primary source for overlabeling results
• Original research and editorializing in the second bit, about benefits not outweighing risks (stick to what sources say).
• Considerable insertion of results from primary studies.
• Marginal sources; plenty of mainstream sources have covered this.
• Text not verified by sources.
• POV editorialzing "suddenly subjected to intense scrutiny by actors paid by the short sellers"
• Original research and editorializing (one sample only, it's everywhere): Only two of these PLOS papers are Cassava papers, and none discuss simufilam or even Alzheimer's disease. An additional retraction was a collaboration with Servier published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, for which Dr. Wang was and is still blind to group, making it impossible to manipulate data for a certain outcome.

I'm stopping there, as it's abundantly clear that most of the content reverted was poorly sourced editorializing and original research, suggestive that conflict-of-interest editing is occurring here. I am not reverting, as I'm uninterested in getting involved in a DOJ legal matter but suggest that the bulk of the article should simply be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Biomarkers, outside lab

Not sure where to put this, but in the Research Candidates section, the second outside lab to analyze CSF samples for biomarkers did not report cognition data. Biomarkers are not cognition. Please change "improvements in cognition" to "improvements in CSF biomarkers." Also, this Alzheimer's section should be first or at least follow the FLNA hypothesis section. Being split by a discussion of decades old drug candidates does not make sense. PTI-901 is misspelled as PIT-901. SighSci (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged but iPad editing now ... will look later today when I am on "real" computer (unless someone else gets to it first ... have to study sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

PS, the order (flow) of the sections is because ... (Wang and Burns had earlier published together on FLNA's role in naloxone and opioid receptor signaling.) First explain what FLNA is, or the reader will be lost, then chrono order --> opiod receptor signaling --> Alzheimer's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

From Keefe2022:

But Barbier said that there must be some mistake, and subsequently announced that the company had commissioned a reanalysis, by an outside lab, and that the data showed a significant improvement in biomarkers for Alzheimer’s compared with a placebo. The stock began to climb. In February, 2021, Cassava touted a round of promising results from another trial—without a placebo—and claimed that, in an unprecedented breakthrough, Simufilam could actually renew cognitive function.

From Mandavilli2022:

The most striking evidence of simufilam’s effectiveness was said to be an improvement in cognition in two-thirds of patients after taking the drug for a year. Some of the 50 patients had no neurological or psychiatric symptoms at all by that time, the company reported.

From Cassava press release: Clearly refers to biomarkers, but then adds:

In addition, Alzheimer’s patients treated with sumifilam showed directional improvements in tests of remembering new information, versus patients on placebo. Improvements in cognition correlated most strongly with ...

In conclusion, I am open to your feedback and suggestions for how to address this, but it appears that Cassava wants to have it both ways-- that is, imply that in addition to the biomarker data analysis, there was an improvement in cognition. And that is what the secondary sources report. It looks to me like we have it right; I'm listening. Please frame responses relative to what sources say; both the secondary sources and the press release seem to be clearly saying that Cassava claimed improved cognition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Better now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It is perfect the way you have stated the finding of improved cognition, but obviously incorrect in the secondary sources phrasing that Cassava claimed that simufilam could renew cognition. Stating clinical trial results (X happened in Y subjects in this study) and making a claim that the drug improves cognition are two very different things; if Cassava had made such a claim, FDA would be reprimanding. Never does Cassava make such claims that will only come with an FDA approval following Phase 3 trials. Also, it is very confusing to just say "reanalysis" for biomarker data. It was a reanalysis of CSF samples (backup samples, completely new assays), not reanalysis of existing data. To be super clear, my suggestion is to add "of CSF samples" after reanalysis. Thanks. SighSci (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See your talk; I can't decipher what you want done. Cassava's press release does claim that "Alzheimer’s patients treated with sumifilam showed directional improvements in tests of remembering new information", as quoted above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Unwatch

Done, please don't ping me back to this article. COI noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)