SAVA

Icy-Ad6136

Flipping a coin to decide whether recent SAVA article is 🐻or🐂

IceBearLikesToCook

Crushing, well-written hit piece on $SAVA https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/24/jordan-thomas-army-of-whistle-blowers

BrainsNotBrawndo

On the inclusion front, I am not sure how many Alzheimer patients you have treated yourself, but if making years of known Alzheimer's an inclusion criteria, then going to start to not collect many of the target mild-to-moderate cases, they are going to be more moderate-to-severe. Alzheimer is not a MRI diagnosis--if it was that would be great. It is a clinical diagnosis, specifically a possible or probable AD consistent with criteria established by a workgroup of the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Disease Association. MRI could perhaps exclude other non-Alzheimer causes like microvascular or tumors maybe (including those would actually skew towards worse results since they wouldn't improve with simifulam), and can use a PET scan for higher performing candidates, but in the bread-and-butter age group of non-early onset Alzheimer, there is often going to be some senile brain shrinkage on MRI regardless. The reason why SavaDx is a thing in the first place, is there isn't that the ideal diagnostic yet like a Troponin test for myocardial infarction, and I have been around enough to remember when that came into common use. If folks are looking for the quantitative to match the clinical, that is why the Cassava biomarker data exists, and results are not one or two cherry picked biomarkers improving, they do pretty much across the board. The short thesis thus depends on everything being somehow made up in an ongoing, full-on, multisite, clinical result and biomarker conspiracy, that I personally just don't think matches the percentage risk in reality. I take shorts' comments with a grain of salt anyways, and welcome all opinions. I reckon that you already know that Dr. Jokasky is also a pharmacy industry executive and that Yale is (as they would in their financial interest duty), by my understanding, trying to lay as wide a claim as possible to simifulam and Filamin A after Yale's success with the tuberous sclerosis indication. So I personally would hesitate to make that a foundation for shorting SAVA. Tuberous sclerosis is uncommon--I have only seen one case in a lifetime and that wasn't even in a medical setting, though I hope the med works out well for them since it is a difficult disease too. The bulletproof SAVA composition of matter patent for simifulam for Alzheimer is some sole investment. My thesis is not assigning any value on SavaDx, nor on other indications, it's a single focused bet on one drug, one indication. The bull thesis remains: * Oral pill, patented, 100% ownership. * Open label phase 2 showing: \-Cognitive improvement that is way above anything else, ever. \-Psyche behaviour improvement, which is equally important in my opinion, especially for carers. \-Zero serious side effects. * Disease modifier. * Matching biomarkers. * NIH funding, universal analyst buy ratings. * $240M cash, no debt, announced non-dilutive infusion. * Cassava board has cumulative 14 FDA approvals under its belt. * Two FDA special protocol assessments, Phase 3 underway with plentiful sites across US/Canada and understandably strong patient demand. There is a reason why that has led to over a **40-fold increase** in share price, so far. I have placed my bet that the next 10-fold will continue on that journey as the milestones toward a BTD roll in.

BrainsNotBrawndo

I have reviewed the patient dropouts in detail, and selection criteria, and everything else, and all of it is already accounted for in my assessment. I am satisfied with the dropout rate, low since there is no side effects, and actual patient families who show improvement are going to stay. Reviewing the Ads-COG scores of SAVA plotted against all the AA/BTD monoclonal Abs recently, the gap is just so profound, my impression is that the amount of any adjustment to be made for that is still going to go to approval, on no side effects alone, even if could just match efficacy of existing candidates. Alzheimer is a clinical diagnosis, it's not feasible to do brain biopsies to prove diagnosis, but that is the same for all Alzheimer therapy candidates. If anything, I would reckon future patient outcomes would need to be adjusted a bit to the downside as people who would like to see SAVA fail storm a site, and try to poison results by signing up by faking clinical symptoms (my understanding is that some shorts posted pictures of patients in a waiting room that they tried to go snoop in on, which is of questionable ethics and may be illegal in some locations, alas). I would be cautious with 'shorts pointed it out' as a reason, when you earlier say you don't trust neither shorts nor longs. The concern would be reinforcing a cognitive bias. I do salute you for taking your reward/risk acumen of Alzheimer drugs in good fun with a '*Bullet to the CRTX'* flair as a mark of Cain reminder on how that one went, though the story is never over. For everyone betting on a red, there is someone on black, we are just on different sides of this trade, the drug will get approved or not, and I will salute the winners.

Born_History1568

They are barely holding on SAVA. They could easily rock the high shorted boat if we hop on in

BrainsNotBrawndo

Cannabinoids sit on the sidelines for some things if not a patentable molecule. While the recent CoVid finding was a surprise to me, though I haven't looked at the details, I would reckon there is not going to be any cannabinoid disease modifying for Alzheimer that makes it to market. Things like Metformin may end up having a role for many diseases of old age from a neuroinflammation, blood vessel protection, and 'Diabetes Type 3' neurological approach. That would be great since Metformin has a multi-year safety history, and cheap to make, but the challenge is getting someone to pony up the billions for the proof, though as I understand some poor countries are running some longitudinal trials. So it is what it is: patentable small molecules for now, that can then someday go generic. If one thinks that all the clinical sites are going to somehow collude and pull shenanigans with patients: dropouts, selection bias, faking results, putting patients in without Alzheimer, etc, there is not much I do to change that belief. Ditto on placebo at the 9 month mark: it's one thing to have placebo for pain or depression, but cognition is more like rabies: tougher to feel like you are better when the responses are just wrong. We already have good placebo data for other FDA candidates and just vastly outpacing. The thing is though, all of those those pitfalls are already in the calculus of my 40% risk of failure already, before any short petition existed. For following the Twitterati, like the poster you linked to, I would consider this: if the short petitioners really thought they were helping the world, why not pursue Aduhelm that was more likely to be harming patients? Why wait right to the Theranos trial start date to try to maximize fear, then comment that CEO and lead scientist are man and wife just like Theranos to try to cash in on people's cognitive bias of false equivalency? If thought that was all a fraud, why not let the SAVA price run, and then could short at $400 or $250 with very little short interest costs? For me, it just strains credulity to think that shorts are somehow out to help retail. The summation of all the data together is why I opt to be on the bull side of this trade. With regards to the strategy of waiting until the placebo trial is done, then investing in SAVA, some funds do exactly that, but with a recognition that at that point, that is more of an arbitrage type of play for a few percentage point gain with very little meat left on the bone. Moreover, because this is a disease modifier with a large unmet need, the timeline I reckon is not going to complete phase 3 before BTD. This is why the relatively small milestones along the point from here to a BTD cause such large gaps upward. I have reviewed CRTX in moderate detail as part of a standard competitive review of taking a relatively large (for me) position in SAVA. Although I won't invest in CRTX in the near term, I wish you good luck in the play there and hope that they can have a part to play in fixing Alzheimer.

Civil-Trifle7390

SAVA

Unlucky-Prize

Give me $5m and a lack of moral compass, and I can give you an OLE proving that smoking a bong cures Alzheimer’s using the same tactics as SAVA. Need placebo controlled study - way harder to game. Key strategies: 1) include a lot of people who lack Alzheimer’s. Their study parameters are among the loosest of any AD trial. 2) add really sick people 6 months in and cut fast decliners Good find on Apter. Guess he’s a research collaborator after all. Not a professor though! Would love him to answer this elementary small molecule chemistry problem: https://mobile.twitter.com/LetsHaveABall2/status/1481746175204093954?cxt=HHwWhMCrxfaSnJApAAAA I did it for fun and the answer is hilarious. Wang has a slightly radioactive swimming pool out back? SavaDX has no IP a protection, the shorts cracked the trade secret with publicly available data: https://www.cassavafraud.com/docs/SAVADx_Theranos2.0.pdf

BrainsNotBrawndo

The [Princeton University website (click 'people' and search for Apter)](https://www.princeton.edu/search?search=apter#people) lists him as Molecular Biology, Visiting Research Collaborator with an office at the Green Hall. At the [Penn Medicine / Princeton Health](https://www.princetonhcs.org/find-a-doctor/jeffrey-apter?keyword=apter&distance=5) (formerly known as University Medical Center of Princeton) he is listed as a board-certified psychiatrist. This is fitting for someone who can speak about small molecules as well as the clinical setting. Personally, I value his expert opinion more than anonymous random shorts on Twitter. I agree with your there may be less value than cash, if phase 3 failure. May be some value remaining in SavaDx, but it's a trade secret not patent, there are Yale ties to a SavaDx stake, and without a SAVA cure, I find less useful diagnosing Alzheimer, since it becomes like Huntington's: why bother testing if nothing to treat it anyways? If SAVA candidate fails phase 3, I will just sell and take a loss, I won't be around to see how much is left on a cigarette butt on the ground. Humans have a tendency to overestimate risk of loss, since for most of human history misjudging a downside risk meant imminent starvation and death, with no chance to 'win it back'. Recognizing that cognitive bias, I am comfortable with a 40% chance of loss for a 60% chance of a ten-bagger (in addition to the 40-bagger that it has been so far), with the rising price as it hits the benchmarks along the way. SAVA for me is not an all-in YOLO and part of an overall fairly conservative portfolio, and the \~$500K stake is still only half of a proper Kelly criterion stake based on my assessed risk to reward ratio. The reason why I feel the anecdotes are important is to your point that you believe the phase 2 data is fake. This is not 'anecdata', these are the people who are in the phase 2 trials, a face to the dot on the graphs. Per phase 2, we already have their outcomes around 60% getting better cognitively, and around another 18% declining less than expected. Try to take those pills away from family members who are finding benefit, or force them to take placebo more than is needed for phase 3, and they are going to rightly speak out to protect their loved ones. And the recent Florida lawyer, the practicing physician in Ohio are in licensed professions with consequences of being untruthful versus random Twitterati with little to lose. Anyways, it should be some entertaining times ahead. I have a cupboard full of popcorn for the upcoming weeks.

stockchaser317

SAVA

BrainsNotBrawndo

Have a small stake in AVXL (\~1/30th of SAVA stake). I like that AVXL almost done a phase 3, have a big pharma partner already, decent results on cognition. Headwinds of I don't want to also pay for a long pipeline of other early stage stuff, has Australian base despite NY website address, and they didn't bother following Ads-COG scores nor really communicating with FDA for a proper FDA route for approval so while might get some international approvals, not likely going to USA for years yet. Never had a CRTX stake, though I wish them well as with all Alzheimer treatment hunters. For DeSPACs or other short targets (which I did play successfully albeit with small stakes), the major difference between them and SAVA is the value of an item on the end. Shorts can try to drive an Overstock toward zero so that confidence is impacted, and can't grow, then never deliver the shorted shares for a bankrupt company. But for SAVA, they don't need sentiment, nor momentum nor new investor cash to come in. If their drug works as in phase 2, shares are worth $500, period. I am not in the camp that thinks there will be a dramatic short squeeze, because I don't think the institutional shorts have conviction in the trade, and will have ponied up for calls to exit losses, since they know they can be in trouble quickly. The chart for the last few months for SAVA show how much things can spike up without warning, even on very small positive news items. So if there is a great news day, it's going to be a nuclear bomb on uncovered shorts. Which makes buying the calls expensive, which again makes it seem to me that there is less value for SAVA as a short target in and of itself, need to have a money maker elsewhere from the play. From a TA point of view, stock was at $140 or so in Aug prior to a short petition, and since then: FDA approved special protocol authorizations for phase 3 (notably, approving it *after* having received the short petition), the 9 month data came out as a home run, monoclonal antibody competitors got thumbs down from Medicare unless in a clinical trial, phase 3 trial sites are booming, and now some of the physicians/researchers/patients families are coming forward to speak about their experience with the patients of phase 2 trials directly. So for a derisked asset, it's roughly a third of the price, which to me as a value investor I am satisfied with. Though I agree not everyone wants to buy derisked, beaten-down value stocks, it matches my personality. Ask WFC shorts how their last 2 years went. I alas disagree with your statement that *"no one thinks their approval is imminent except the SAVAges"*. Check the [institutional ownership](https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=SAVA&subView=institutional): Blackrock, Morgan Stanley, Vanguard, Charles Schwab. Samford Robertson on the board is a Silicon Valley tech legend and on the Salesforce board. The New Jersey pension fund opened a new stake in $60s last quarter *after* short citizen petition. May get some color on SAVA next week from the principal investigator physician at Princeton Medical Institute, who: correctly called that will plaques seem to be result not cause of disease, ran 300 drug trials, and was part of the original Aricept approval trial.

dimitriG4321

SAVA

Unlucky-Prize

I'm only long CRTX of those, but following AVXL. CRTX has the best evidence of efficacy of the three (Because the placebo controlled evidence is very good). For short interest - that is a key question. Part of why I'm drawing attention to this is the 20% borrow rate. Stocks do not stay there unless a lot of money expects an imminent collapse. Short squeeze enthusiasts see it as a pending short squeeze, and that's true to a degree, but most of these massive % borrow fees lead to massive price declines - commonly seen on DeSpacs due to PIPE holders pre-selling when they can, or on other non-standard mergers of that kind (like with [support.com](https://support.com) and greenidge). 20% isn't yet absurd, but it's accelerating. At 50%+, it's a very strong signal of imminent collapse. As to who would do that? Well, someone with a lot of conviction as to the direction and the timing. I don't think the FDA would leak a decision, but I do think CUNY academic affairs could, and I think a journal could, and either of those would give a hedge fund conviction to swing very hard if they knew the approximate date. Of course, this could just be people wrongly playing the petition timing. But it's a large borrow rate, and it appears institutional given the news flow. In the case SAVA get's their IND pulled, they are back to square zero, and are heavily discredited, and owe $225m in bonuses already to execs. Those will likely be clawed back in that situation, but technically the company is worth $25m net value in that case, and there will be a lot of legal claims. Even if those bonuses get evaporated, that's 240m cash being challenged by shareholder lawsuits and government fines - could easily burn through 100m of that. Then you are talking about $5 a share. That's a good short - cover at $10. I don't think the market sees LLY/BIIB related to SAVA. SAVA is it's own beast. No one thinks their approval is imminent except the SAVAges.

BrainsNotBrawndo

I agree with you on the value on original verifiable items, or the least steps between oneself and the data. I am not sure that the short interest motivation is to make money off shorting SAVA directly, since I assess the risk/return as so asymmetric to the upside. Some shorts have been apparently been short since single digit share price, so they may have a cognitive bias, but I don't think the cognitive bias is enough by itself to explain the short interest. My impression for the next two years for SAVA is a 60% chance of a ten-bagger (based on market cap change in BIIB and LLY on their antibody approval news release days) and a 40% chance of SAVA being cut to cash value (\~$7). While I appreciate that some of the possible shorts like Point72 perform poorly lately (pulling up last years graph of their performance), SAVA is a still a bizarre choice to short currently, considering there are many biotechs are going to face poor sentiment with a rising rate environment, debt, cranky VCs, and candidates 10 years down the road. This is in contrast to Cassava with $240M in the bank to finish a phase 3, no debt, and the CEO on ER reports a non-dilutive infusion is pending (which I reckon would be a big pharma partner, my odds-on favorite being Pfizer since cash-rich, PFE on their own ER that wanting to go shopping for juniors, and PFE's Aricept license runs out in 2022). So when risk/reward benefit is so tilted against shorts, I reckon the gain would need to be elsewhere. I do comment that BIIB wiped off around $27B from FDA approval through to the Medicare ruling, so perhaps one could gain from trying to temporarily protect a BIIB or LLY long position, or fundraising for a junior before the VC biotech market dries up markedly. I hear you on FDA caution to not have egg on their face, but I think the political push to have a functioning, relatively low cost, disease-modifying pill for fixing Alzheimer would be a giant win for everyone involved in the country. The most jingoistic could use a modified line from the announcer from Watchmen: "I repeat, the super pill exists, and it is American". Anyways, best of luck in the trade. The world needs more people that are at least putting a spotlight onto investing bets on Alzheimer meds (whether it be SAVA, AVXL, CRTX or others), not fewer.

BrainsNotBrawndo

The short petitioners I feel are incorrect on many fronts, so I reckon the dateline is incorrect as well, though many don't do the careful review needed. By my understanding: * 505q: 150-day deadline for FDA response. * 505(2)b: 90-day deadline for FDA response. * New drug applications (NDAs) such as SAVA is neither of those two categories, so it defaults to 180 days which is Feb 21st, 2022. Holiday, so rolls to Feb 22, 2022. Note that law firm Labaton Sucharow isn't the loser if shorts aren't successful. I recall that they are the firm that represented Andrew Left and Citron against Tesla, where they actually had a somewhat meritorious case back in Oct 2018 after Musk tweeting about taking it private. The folks that followed them into a TSLA shorts still didn't make any money though, and if they held onto their short positions, have now eaten a 20-bagger loss on shares. For Cassava versus something like Applied Therapeutics, I feel there are two critical differences: 1. Small difference in the actions of board: No insider sales, with stalwarts like investing star Robert Stamford who [only buys and holds since SAVA was a buck](https://sec.report/CIK/0001250105/Insider-Trades), despite him selling his Salesforce on a regular and continuing basis. 2. The big difference though is political. 1 in 3 dollars future dollars is going to be spent on dementia unless can turn the ship around, whereas Applied Therapeutics addresses Galactosemia, which while tragic, doesn't have the urgency of bankrupting a healthcare system. Politicians know this. Aduhelm shows the low bar (mediocre efficacy, \~60% brain bleeds) for FDA approval. If only a small fraction of the SAVA phase 2 results carry through to the months ahead, I feel it will be a go, especially once AARP and Alzheimer group gets wind of things. Alzheimer magazine already listed SAVA's candidate as the [number one most important event](https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2022/01/03/top-10-alzheimers-disease-stories-of-2021/) for their year-end review. My opinion is that even the writers of the short petition don't have conviction in their trade--the goal is to just delay things while small pharma can capital raise, and large pharma can try to catch up with small molecule approaches now that [Medicare says not going to cover monoclonal Abs](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/health/aduhelm-medicare-alzheimers.html) unless in a trial. You may wish to research about whether one of the writers of the short petition was involved with MPM capital, which sponsored a Protego funding round, with Protego focusing on the same mechanism as Cassava. When one rereads the short petition with that information, it makes more sense why the short petition makes less swings at efficacy or mechanism, but instead focuses on old western blots, if they are trying to pursue the exact same approach with their own candidate. It takes years though to research, find something, and get to phase 3, and by that time the window is more closed to others due to higher bars for FDA approval. I give Cassava 60% chance of BTD (breakthrough therapy designation) in 2022, since it is not ethical to continue if the results are that strong, with no other disease modifying candidates. Anyways, I wish you well on your trade, I don't wish anyone to lose their cash.

BrainsNotBrawndo

This statement is inaccurate. For SAVA, Because the drug isn’t approved, the FDA deadline for response is 180 days, not 150 days, bringing it to Feb 22, 2022 (Feb 21 is holiday). The FDA can though respond any time between now and then (or just let deadline expire which equals a decline of petition). The person at the FDA who will decline the CP or not is a clinical psychiatrist physician with a background in drug development, and will make an accurate assessment on its merits. As a reminder the citizen petition to halt requires safety concerns, of which there are zero in phase 2. My impression, on careful study, is the likelihood of short’s citizen petition getting tossed out is 99%. I reckon people buying puts without proper DD first may watch the IV alone eat their money quickly. Disclosure: long SAVA, and have spent the time to know the stock in detail.

Unlucky-Prize

Citizen Petition result on SAVA is theoretically due this week. I think the FDA will punt and delay answering despite the deadline, because it's very complex. Buuuut.... the shorts are maxing out and pushing up borrow, so it's possible someone knows that CUNY or FDA are going to rule against SAVA imminently. I'm convinced it's either incompetence or fraud, at 1% vs 99% ratio, so I did buy some puts. If you are more bullish though, the play would be somewhat in the money short term calls - since a delay or a decline would push the stock up or sideways and up a bit. A halt will send this thing to $10 though. Of course, the stock holders are a cult, and might even bid it in a case where the execs are probably going to jail.

Robinw9787

While im long on sava at least the shorts show themselves or verify their identities and work. To my knowledge there has been no verified expert writing about SAVA as the other commentor stated on any of the newspapers even anonymously (but verified by the paper or program).

Comfortable_Crazy712

Who’s angry? Chillin like a villain here. I’ve looked at your other comments and I’m guessing you are bag holding sava from when it was 40-50% higher🤣. SAVA puts you say?

stockchaser317

I'm balls deep in SAVA. 98% of my portfolio

XchrisZ

See you're rambling on about the past while making bad decisions about the present and future. Go get checked out maybe you can get into a trial. Also if it works let me know I have about 5% of my portfolio in SAVA.

mcccliii

SAVA

neo2020p

SAVA and NRXP. High risk high reward plays. I'm invested in both and not gonna lie, the ups and downs are killing me lol

VisualMod

**Ban Bet Created:** **/u/UnBonCitoyen** bet **SAVA** goes from **45.5** to **90.0** before **2022-03-11 16:16:41.929908-05:00**

UnBonCitoyen

!banbet SAVA 90 8w

VisualMod

**Ban Bet Created:** **/u/AdAlternative3648** bet **SAVA** goes from **45.34** to **50.0** before **2022-01-21 14:58:06.840864-05:00** **or i’ll finally eat my girls ass like she wants me to**

AdAlternative3648

!banbet SAVA 50 1w or I’ll finally eat my girls ass like she wants me to

Rodrigo53

$SAVA

Rodrigo53

$SAVA 🚀🚀🚀🚀

Rodrigo53

$SAVA news release today

enceliacal

Calls on SAVA puts on NTP. End of February I shall be a millionaire

Born_History1568

we need to get some institutional support before we can rally. Just look at the GME liftoff. It took massive support to boost and this would purely be a growth stock paying forward for undeveloped public distribution without an established business. Paying this early for SAVA just because you believe it has immediate consequence to its share price relative to its short interest is dangerous.

retired_golfer

Big down day for SAVA today Jan 13, 2022. The entire biotech sector is in free fall, $XBI, taking SAVA along with it.

ApepeApepeApepe

$SAVA calls

Outof_ITM

Been playing SAVA monthlies for the last 3 months - sell the pump, buy back in at 43-45, and wait for another pump. Currently waiting with Feb 18 70C

WillNeighbor

don't know if i wanna load up on tech giants like nvda and msft, or play with LAC or SAVA

AdAlternative3648

SAVA down. Gotta go commit sudoku now

digi-transformation

LOL like you know how the FDA will respond. “Imminent danger” can be found at any point and needs to be confirmed appropriately because of the repercussions. They only immediately halt when it’s heart issues or correlated deaths. You also can have a phase that is going to be stopped and the FDA requires a second group of that phase to expand the data set. A second phase 3 trial, for example, could be coming from a requirement by the FDA that isn’t widely publicized. For Alzheimer’s patients, I really hope SAVA isn’t a scam.

Rodrigo53

$SAVA will run today

Rodrigo53

$SAVA

xSikes

Just sipping bean juice while waiting for that SAVA pop and rocket

Rodrigo53

$SAVA

Rodrigo53

$SAVA something is coming🤑🤑

Rodrigo53

$SAVA

Rodrigo53

Don’t miss out on $SAVA TODAY🔥🚀🚀

Rodrigo53

$SAVA

Dirty_Money_Jordan

SAVA is the way! I’m in!!!!

djbuttplay

Read the petition. Read the supplements. Read the guidelines on 505 CPs. Read some rejections that the FDA made in the past. The citizens petition has a lot of accusations of faked or manipulated data in it. It talks about their methods not being peer reviewed. Or repeated. It does not, however, talking about safety in a direct sense. So it says, "since the data is faked, it could be dangerous." The CP also has a lot of words that are synonymous with "possible." It is possible that SAVA ___. It is possible that this was made up. Nothing concrete. Also, they are supposed to present both sides of the issues. And present all data that is relevant. And they certainly did not mention anything about the trials themselves. The CP is deficient. Whether you want to wager on the drug or not, you can wager on whether the FDA rejects this thing. I think they will reject the CP.

FutureMassive69

SAVA calls baby!!!!! 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

imunfair

>Sorry champ, can you hold on a second? I'm on hold with FDA and asking about SAVA's Alzheimer's drug and that you are the perfect candidate for testing. It's never clever when you attempt to insult someone because you can't understand what they're trying to explain to you. But it's even worse when they outright tell you that your response was stupid and you repeat it because you weren't even clever enough to come up with a fresh irrelevant insult.

Im_Indian_American

Sorry champ, can you hold on a second? I'm on hold with FDA and asking about SAVA's Alzheimer's drug and that you are the perfect candidate for testing.

Im_Indian_American

Cant help it, when I'm reading utter garbage from an Alzheimer patient and I'm the nurse. Hopefully SAVA's drug can help once approved.

putssy

Really backing up your claims of altruism over having a financial interest in the failure of SAVA :)

BrainsNotBrawndo

I agree with OP that the stock is undervalued and mispriced, with an asymmetric risk to upside. There is a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that science doesn't care whether you believe it or not. SAVA doesn't require retails or anyone else to purchase the stock to set the share price. The stock is set by the value of a functioning Alzheimer treatment. I look at the 2021-2022 $BIIB chart and see an extra $27B in Biogen market cap for their FDA-approved Alzheimer drug that was then taken away after it fizzled with Europe declining approval, low sales, its brain bleed side effects, and then the extra whammy last night of Medicare draft yesterday declining covering unless in a trial. So I rate that the value of a suboptimal Alzheimer drug from Biogen was $27B. SAVA is around $2B now, and the initial data from phase 2 is their candidate drug has more impressive benefits than Biogen's, with no serious side effects. My SAVA target is thus conservative at $500, but I respect OP and others who have their own higher targets. SAVA is my favorite stock for this year, my largest individual stock holding, and I backed up the truck even more today. The next few weeks I feel are going to be popcorn-worthy. Good luck to anyone in the play.

cloudfj

Yea but that doesnt make you know all…I meet a bunch of dumb internists everyday that they think they know it all… data is strong…we have a lot of people from the medical community long and support SAVA…we have testimonials from patients in the trials…we have done our DD and you stand with corrupt entities and in the way of a potential medical breakthrough for patients with severe disease which IMO is criminal…if u don’t think SAVA has it then let p3 determine it…why do you care about other peoples investments…let the data speak…no one here is expecting gains tomorrow…we are in it for the long run

scraw027

$SAVA calls

SAVA_the_Hedgefucker

I would do a long term play on $SAVA and invest 5 years.

KAM_520

Am I a retard for wanting to YOLO into $SAVA The citizen petition is going to get denied…

cloudfj

I’ll help … SAVA 🚀🚀🚀 PLUTO. 🌈🐻 r fuk

CWay76

SAVA represents a new kind of stock showing sciences will really triumph FUD. Shoots for the stars.

Citizen_of_Danksburg

Honest question: aside from GME and AMC, what were the successes? The only ones I see being actually legitimate picks are CRSP and SAVA — though that one is definitely a maybe. I can’t lie, anytime a ticker shows up on this sub I get curious but CRSP and SAVA were some of my coveted picks that I think are overall pretty solid. Seeing them show up here definitely made me sweat haha. The rest though? Yeah, especially after the GME and AMC craze, this sub became a soup of just random tickers that were all peddled to gamma squeeze lol. Sure, **maybe**, in the short term some people made money, but look at them now (like this post) and they’re all shit haha. I’m mainly thinking of WISH lmao.

2kungfu4u

I think your methodology is very flawed. SAVA was a squeeze candidate back in october as noted in your date noticed column, it was posted every where, in november it spiked from 48 to 90. How is that not exactly what people were looking for in a squeeze? You literally took todays closing price instead of the high it hit after the date it was noticed. ATER was first noticed on the short squeeze forum in august, if you bought in then it went from 6 to 18 at it's peak. Also ignoring PROGs peak at almost $5 from .8 when it was noticed and first discussed. CLOV was discussed WAY before october on WSB I personally made bank on that spike in June. This post doesn't prove or disprove anything other than a terrible methodology and a poor researcher.

dimitriG4321

SAVA. 10 bagger or zero

DetectiveDamien

Buying more SAVA. Yes, it may go to zero but the risk is highly worth it.

FTRFNK

For a moonshot with decent odds? SAVA

DetectiveDamien

Really hoping that SAVA takes off this month or next. There seems to be a lot more FUD going around lately and I honestly don't know which side to believe with all of the allegations. Regardless though I am holding a long position. The upside seems way too good to pass up. If I end up losing, oh well, wouldn't be the first time

Sf-esquire

Ticker symbol SAVA. Worth the Yolo for potential 10x in 1 year!!!

luckymaniac123

Jesus SAVA what are you doing! You're going the wrong way.

xSikes

Just waiting for SAVA to pop

Fuzzy_Chipmunk_6615

I'm asking you again not to invest in fraud. This is the clearest fraudulent company in the market. I'm not gonna argue with you guys. Just look up SAVA fraud and read for 15 minutes and its overwhelmingly clear. Downvote me all you want.

DalTexas

I don’t think this is correct. Though they’re not super clear in their reporting, it appears as if SAVA is using a “rate of decline” (calculated from meta-analysis) as their baseline. So basically, subjects are getting worse at a slower rate. This is a good thing, but obviously not the same thing as saying subjects are becoming healed from their AD. Honestly, the lack of clarity in the way they reported, combined with some of the other shenanigans the company has pulled over the years, is enough to keep me from investing. For reference, I’m in management at a large biopharma running and monitoring clinical trials.

Southern-Hat383

SA blowing my phone up about how shitty SAVA is since yesterday. Bunch of 🌈🐻 on that site bitter it went up 1 day.

Original_House_4842

SAVA

Financial_Napalm

If GME doesn't turn you on, check out SAVA and help spit roast those cucks.

BrainsNotBrawndo

I'll offer some color. The dollar amount to the right is the price paid for each contract. So reading the top line says: He has 2 call options for the $65 strike price, expiring Feb 11, 2022, and paid $5.53 per share in the contract. Since options are transacted in a batch of 100 underlying shares, he paid $553.00 x 2 call options = $1106.00. If the stock goes to $70.53 or higher sometime before Feb 11, 2022, he makes some money on the call if he exercises. Or, the contract may just become more valuable as things heat up for Cassava in the coming weeks on the various demands for other purchasers of that call, and he can sell it before expiry. The countervailing force is the theta decay of the value of the call over time. Hope that helps you be interested to learn more. Though I don't know if SAVA is the best stock for learning options, it is like learning to ski on a double black diamond.

cloudfj

SAVA to Pluto! 🚀

craze9original

Your strikes are way too high. (I’ve been reading SAVA for a year.)

Extreme_Cloud

in for 100 shares. gonna sell my bb holdings to go all in on SAVA and yolo my HSA account into it. its either i have enough money in healthcare fund to pay for my grandchildrens AD or i forget that im poor and drool. either way i like the stonk

pmslady

There's no in between for SAVA right now. There's a Citizen's Petition submitted to the FDA requesting the halt of the p3 trial. The FDA should be coming out with their decision by mid Feb.

norebly

Reading that chart, it really looks like they didn't give much thought to what baseline is. It looks like baseline is 0 or no change so the total improvement is an absolute change of -3.2? They never try to attribute + 5.5 as baseline in any of their literature, the red line representing 0 looks like their established baseline. What I got out of this series of conversations is that SAVA is safe. So why the CP? Do you see any market forces that would tank the stock after efficacy is proved by phase 3? I can see the market overreacting and providing a low valuation after what happened with BIIB (Insurance won't cover, expensive, less demand than market thought). Do we know how much this drug will cost? Any indication from the company at all on this? If they don't price it right, the market could end up ignoring good results.

Prestigious_Yogurt88

I feel like the outcome probability on this investment is very disproportionally skewed to the upside... long SAVA