Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:12, 16 August 2022

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Misplaced Pages's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Companies C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Pharmacology Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Misplaced Pages 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)

Cleanup

I have cleaned most of the advert-y and non-policy-based content. I've tried to fill in many of the citations, but have NOT verified that all sources are accurately represented (many were not); please do not assume that any citation I have cleaned up the formatting on is accurately represented in this (woeful) article.

The article over-relies on press releases and primary documents, when secondary sources covering most of the issues are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! ScienceFlyer (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Enrollment in Phase 3 studies

The last sentence of the Phase II section expressing the opinion that "enrollment has slowed" has been proven wrong by the recent disclosure that over 400 subjects have enrolled in Phase 3. Please remove the sentence and reference and update to cite current enrollment. Additionally, complaints about the small sample size of the first interim analysis of the 12-month open-label study should be tempered by the recent disclosure of similar results in double the sample size (63 of 100 subjects IMPROVED in cognition scores after one year; this is a population known to decline). 104.10.252.226 (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, in this Phase II section, the focus on Dr. Wang being an advisor to the company (and therefore conflicted) is misleading. It also This passage needs to note, as is disclosed in the same sources, that Dr. Wang was and still is blind to treatment group. Not knowing what samples correspond to simufilam versus placebo makes it impossible to manipulate data, as is the implication with this complaint about conflict of interest. 104.10.252.226 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable third-party independent sources for your assertions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is one source (besides company press release) for the above information: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4529663-cassava-sciences-some-learnings-from-q2-2022-earnings

Clinicaltrials.gov for NCT04079803 shows that the labs measuring biomarkers (both CSF and the plasma p-tau181) were blind to treatment, as indicated by the following: "Masking:

Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)"

Outcomes assessor means both cognitive testing and biomarker testing personnel. Here is the link to the trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04079803?term=simufilam&draw=2&rank=6 104.10.252.226 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You've provided one independent source, seekingalpha.com. Since I have never heard of it, and can't even get past all of its ridiculous popups, please visit WP:RS and WP:RSN to establish why you believe it meets Misplaced Pages guidelines for reliability. (Hint, I have a script installed that redflags non-reliable sources, so I can tell you not to waste your time on it. It's flaming.) Please also visit the policy page, WP:DUE. And then WP:OR; Misplaced Pages follows secondary sources--it doesn't analyze primary studies and sources. If real sources don't mention something, it's rarely due weight to include it. When you want to add something to a Misplaced Pages article, it is expedient to provide a WP:RS, or for biomedical content, a WP:MEDRS. Please also understand the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and how to use them; a solid read of the policy and guideline pages I've listed above will provide a guide to everything that was wrong in this article because of what looks like WP:COI and WP:POV editing. And what Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT. You haven't provided any useful information or sources upon which text can be based. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. We will all just have to wait until CUNY finally states their conclusion so that reliable sources can write a reliable article (in contrast to the hit pieces in WSJ and NYT that only sought sources that fit a preconceived negative narrative and who were directly involved in the failed citizen's petition to halt a Phase 3 program of a promising drug candidate for Alzheimer's disease). All reputable journalists are choosing to wait until CUNY speaks. At that time, this story will substantially change. And, as the company disclosed last fall, these government agency investigations were initiated at the same time as the petition -- likely by the very same people. 104.10.252.226 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Good reason to go ahead and remove all of the primary and non-reliable sourcing from this article; the editing that went on here was dreadful, and much of that poor editing is still in the article. I do hope you have read all of the policy and guideline pages I've linked above, because, if that editing continues, I'll be requesting administrative attention to this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

As of this August 6 version, Ì believe the article is now down to reliable sources or Cassava press releases only when they can be justified as having been mentioned by secondary sources. I could have missed some. If further adjustments are needed, please refer to reliable published independent sources. Also keep in mind that this is the company article, not the drug article. The article was previously going in to excess detail about specific drugs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you only include company press releases that have been mentioned by secondary sources, you are failing to report outcomes of all journal investigations and specifically omitting a journal who investigated an allegation and found no evidence of manipulation (Neuroscience). Unlike the other two journals that found no evidence of data manipulation, Neuroscience decided not to maintain an expression of concern on the article while CUNY completes their investigation. This Neuroscience article itself could be cited, even though there is no expression of concern: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084657/ This section should be balanced, and currently it is not (nor is the entire article). Furthermore, the planned enrollment in the Phase 3 trials is stuffed into "other concerns." Clearly it does not belong there but could be mentioned after the statement that the drug is in Phase 3 trials. The following sentence claiming that patient enrollment has slowed (by Stat) is from April, was wrong then and is very outdated now. It should be removed. SighSci (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• C-Class company articles
• Low-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Unassessed pharmacology articles
• Unknown-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles