Cassava Sciences Inc (SAVA)

[runncoach]

And of course that is not the peer reviewed AD article on the 2a non controlled study that Ananvex has put out. Their current trial does NOT use MMSE as an endpoint. One of the two primary endpoints used is what Anavex published last spring in their AD peer reviewed article, the ADCS-ADL so lets try to use relevant comparable info.

Let's also make sure folks understand that the anavex AD study started with 32 patients and somewhere along the way, the peer review is now down to 21 patient's data. Are we to believe the 11 dropouts were better or worse responding patients? I can't think of a reason why they would be the better dropping out. In other words the overall data is skewed to look better than than it really was IMO. The fact is only 2 patients of those 32 improved in their trial. The rest got worse or dropped out.

Also lets point out that no patients scoring worse than 20 in the anavex peer reviewed article showed improvement. Why is this important? Because the SAVA trial went down to MMSE of 16.

Now if one looks at the data groups in the peer reviewed anavex article fig 3.2.2 (https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/trc2.12013), its easy to see of the likely better responding 21 patients, only 2 improved scores. A second group did hang around baseline for over a year but once again that 6 person group included the 2 "super responders". In other words, the 6 person group wouldn't have held up so long without those 2 patients...and those 2 patients were apoe3 alleles, those who would most likely to be misdiagnosed in the first place (did I mention that the 2a trial apparently did not require PET scans originally?).

So what are we left with? A chart skewed due to dropouts most likely. Skewed due to 2 super responders, and a chart that shows 5 of 6 group scores falling off a cliff at certain points in time. Would an MOA that stimulated something supposedly creating homeostasis result in all groups (minus the 2 patient group) showing decline over time instead of increases? With small blips the direction of those groups is down from long before 6 months.

Now that's my crude comprehension of the Anavex data that keeps being brought up here. Data shown (and likely skewed positively and a much smaller N) IMO doesn't stack up. Folks can judge for themselves. I'll admit IF you use much higher MMSE numbers than SAVA, only APOE3 patients, can somehow give enough drug to get a high concentration in all, weed out the 20% that respond less to Sigma-1, and then cross your fingers that 273 is a "sure thing". That is not to say their stock won't move or that Rett won't show a positive trend or anything like that. I'm talking about AD comparison. JMHO. Folks can invest as they wish. None of these things are full proof, including SAVA.