Haha ok and you choose to post on redddit with randoms and invest in micro cap companies that you clearly have insider info on from ppl who fund you to bash sava…whoops did I say that out loud…tell me how much volunteering have you done or any kind of Public service to “make the world better”

---

They're mad SAVA isn't pumping with the meme basket. Unlike some others, the SAVA regards are almost 100% bagholders who found it after the pump.

---

You guys coordinate all this on the discord I'm banned from? The towel stock people think they6're experts on dockets, SAVA people think they're medical doctors. You will lose all your money. Ask yourself why the company hasn't been acquired. Ask yourself why the foremost scientific publication in the entire world, Science, put a statement against Wang.

---

My DD says SAVA is likely a scam - it used to be called Pain Therapeutics until it was obvious they had nothing - nothings changed IMO

---

Can the mods ban Sava posts? This shit is just straight pump n dumps since Covid lockdowns. And it's always the same bullshit every time.

---

Why are you scared and have to clarify your comments are opinions..noticed you did that in other posts..come on it’s all friendly discussion here SAVA only went after the main defamation culprits…why are you so worried about it, you don’t have to make that disclaimer because I’m sure you have nothing to hide

---

When you don’t know what your talking about I suggest staying quiet..the world would be such a better place if people who were ignorant just didn’t speak on matters they have no clue about. Now warrants were awarded to ALL investors including retail, institutional, and insiders…the strike price for these warrants was $33 that awarded investors 1.5 shares per warrant during a early bonus period. When averaged out that means a SP of $22. In order for anyone to exercise warrants, investors and insiders have to pay $33 per warrant to exercise. Insiders exercised the warrants and had to pay along with all investors myself included. The SP was below $22 weeks before and after the warrant program ended. SAVA ended the program early and at a fraction of the max potential cash raise of the program..so in essence they’re saying ..nah we don’t need anymore money..now why would they do that? I mean if they are fraud wouldn’t they want to max out the warrants and let it ride to make all the money they can since, according to shorts, failure is imminent? Sorry for the harsh statement but now I’m going to prove your ignorance. Check the company’s website directly but I hope you can read and do simple math: https://www.cassavasciences.com/news-releases/news-release-details/cassava-sciences-announces-dividend-distribution-warrants

---

The point is why are you so religiously posting any time there are SAVA posts, even someone called it out we would be expecting you..and let’s be honest no one spends this much time on Reddit posts if they aren’t invested. As I’ve disclosed I am fully invested on the long side. So it really makes you think if you’re lying about that fact what else are you lying about? Imo just discredits you completely. Now onto the link. What in the title is incorrect? As a complete combined set of groups of Mild and Moderates the drug slowed decline in cognition which includes mild and MODERATES by 38%. Now tell me how the mild group performed. I’ll answer, not only slowed but IMPROVED cognition by 200% vs placebo. Why did you leave that part out? While your at it, tell me how lecanemab performed against placebo and how many moderates did they include in their study? It’s ok I’ll answer it. Lecanemab, a approved but underwhelming Alz drug, slowed cognition by 27…ah screw it let’s round up…30% in MILD patients ONLY…they don’t even include moderate patients in their study. So let’s compare apples to apples it’s clear that the bar is set so low for success..now about the stat sig….this was just an extension of the ph2 study with a extremely small number of participants as openly admitted by SAVA….not to mention if the variance of the 2 groups in CMS study was large then it would indicate it is not actually a disease modifying drug since the placebo arm was still receiving the drug for 12 months prior to withdrawal..so the narrow difference is more meaningful and “consistent with a disease modifying effect”- Hendrix….the level of distortion you push is deceitful as your claim that you have nothing invested. The defamation case has yet to conclude so really no point in arguing about it. It may get dismissed it may not…it just shows Cassava is serious about their work and has nothing to hide. On the contrary, the shorts want this dismissed at all costs to prevent discovery.

---

Why is there so much SAVA shilling all of a sudden??

---

> there was no statistical difference in those on and off Which could suggest the drug does nothing. Or could suggest the prior 12 month dose of the drug has disease-modifying effects that linger for at least 6 more months following the final dose. The placebo withdraw group had an ADAS-Cog decline of 1 point. The expected decline for a completely untreated placebo group (as per other studies, etc.) for 6 months would be (very very roughly) 4 points. Fundamentally this aspect of the study was too short and too small to statistically support ANY conclusion, for or against, the drug. > they had an opiate and went to war with the FDA I mean, they had an opiate drug that *worked*. They fought the FDA to get it approved and released. Ultimately, they lost. No one is surprised that the FDA didn't want another opiod pain killer coming to market in the midst of the very public opiod crisis, but it's weird to suggest SAVA did anything except work in the best interest of their shareholders to get Remoxy, a working drug, approved for use. Your argument is that they fought TOO hard? > Every time they start running out of money, they hype to retail investors and sell some shares to keep it going No insider has sold shares since the company became Cassava Sciences in 2018. Not once. In fact I don't think an insider has sold since the inception of the company in 2013. As for dilution, they've had share offerings to raise capital as needed. Literally the most common thing in the world for a fledging corp in every single market sector, ever. In no cases could you reasonably argue they had "hype cycles" prior; the offerings were generally attached to decent stock performance as a result of material findings in the form of trial data releases. You are trying to make the most boring and normal form of corporate fundraising in existence appear nefarious somehow. > Company was at some point under CRIMINAL investigation as well as some number of civil and regulatory 3 letter agency investigations for their alleged shenanigans. There's been no update on that Really? Please point to the official statement from any of these three letter agencies or organizations where the company has been under investigation for anything, criminal or otherwise? The SEC, DOJ, and FDA have never, not once, not ever, made any formal investigation known to the public, made any formal charge or allegation against Cassava Sciences of any form of wrong-doing, or even said anything in private to Cassava Science management to suggest this. It's also been almost 3 years since Cassava initially indicated they were cooperating with any and all agency requests, and we STILL have heard nothing from any of these agencies about Cassava or its potential wrong-doing. And do keep in mind, a few months after Cassava announced their cooperation with DOJ and SEC investigators, the DOJ and SEC DID happen to announce their wide spread, ongoing, many months old investigation into illegal short selling practices. We literally have no official confirmation of why the SEC and DOJ were talking to Cassava Sciences. > Lab of the main investigator was raided by the feds FDA inspections are not "raids". They are not even particularly uncommon. And the result of correcting the errors identified by the FDA inspection findings resulted in no material change to the data in the report in question. It's also irrelvant because this is talking about a single 13 year old study that has nothing to do with the promising phase 2 trial data or the ongoing phase 3 trial data collection. > Main investigator has seen numerous academic papers many of which were adjacent or involving this retracted The 13 year old paper everyone seems to care about was never retracted. Dr. Wang has had some other papers retracted, sure (and some of those retractions were since reversed). None of those papers have anything to do with this drug. > Main investigator was subject to a research misconduct investigation Key takeaways from the leaked, never finalized investigation are that there is not a single mention of fraud or data fabrication, nor a single instance where Dr. Wang violated data retention or handling procedures in place at CUNY. You also forgot to mention that the investigation wasn't just "not finalized", it was formally *halted* by CUNY and followed by a new investigation *into the original investigation process* because there was sufficient concern over the entire process around the original investigation. > Very few if any researchers outside the investor group and the company believe their theory of Alzheimer's For the longest time they didn't even HAVE a theory. Took a while to suggest how FLNA might affect this process at all. But your argument is "because they don't know how it works, evidence showing it works cannot be trusted". There are hundreds of drugs that have clear statisical efficacy even though we have no idea exactly how or why they work. > There are no other companies pursuing drug development towards this target either How could you possibly know this? We have no idea what internal candidate drugs are being scoured for early trials at pharma corps. Certainly the monoclonal treatments are dead-ending, with the latest FDA rejection. Cassava holds multiple patents on FLNA, the biopharms can't just manifest a new FLNA-affecting drug out of thin air. They could be chewing through potential patent-free candidates right now and we'd never know until they find something noteworthy and start announcing trials. > They constantly p value hack their press releases - lots of dropped patients, they pick cutoffs for things like mild and moderate to show efficacy The phase 2 trial data stands alone with no stratification. As a whole, the performance of the complete trial population (mild and moderate) in aggregate is already hugely promising and would blow any existing treatments out of the water if replicated in phase 3. The only reason anyone cares to dig further is because the improvement in mild cases specifically is even just so much better than that. Regardless, the phase 3 trials are stratified mild and moderate. There will be no statistical hangups in their ability to pull out data for the different groups. You'll have to provide specific examples about dropped patients. Never seen that for phase 2 stuff. There were some attempts to tease meaningful data out of the placebo/withdraw CMS, but it's pretty clear there simply wasn't enough time or numbers in that study to conclusively say anything. Or are you literally still harping about the way Dr. Wang excluded outliers in his original 13 year old study? Which, upon correction, made no material change to the data?

---