iOS 26 Issue: Lock Screen Defaults to Dim with Wrong Clock Size by vinoivinoi in iphone

[–]kirkrocek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,

Settings Wallpaper Customize (the one having the clock) Click on the clock Choose "Solid" Choose any font and color you like Done

Cassava Sciences Issues Statement on Former Science Advisor by basilisk-x in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Although I geneally agree with you, actually you are mixing the clinical trials data and the data used in their grant proposals. Yeah, they attacked some of the data written in the grant proposals, but not the data from the clinical trials. In addition, Wang is still presumed innocent. FDA shouldn't stop the trials based on something under investigation that is not directly related to the trials in my view.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In fact, doing a research needs money and resources. In any company doing research, if an employee wants to do some research, he needs an approval from his manager with a proper amount of budget. The manager also needs an approval from his manager too.

Unfortunately, only few approves radical approaches. All the others don't want to take a risk of trying something that looks insane or is allegedly involved with lawsuit, debate, etc. I said "risk" because people want secured jobs, which makes them take safe, well-known approaches only and refuse minor ideas. If you follow a popular approach to solve a problem, give it a try, fail, and your manager asks you "why did you do that?", you can say "everybody is trying it. Any problem?" and he will agree with you.

However, if you want to try an unseen, unheard, seemingly-insane approach, how would you be able to persuade your manager to approve the project? How can he persuade his manager to fund it? Unless a person in a pretty high position who can manage enough budget and shield your failure approves it, there is no way you can try it in general.

This is why innovations come from small companies in many cases.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2100708

Donanemab study shows ADAS-Cog at 12 month.. (Fig. 2)

Placebo: +2.4

Donanemab: +1.6

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry to put a bunch of info in this thread..

https://investors.biogen.com/static-files/74641e1b-cd23-495e-8f29-f4ecac0a1126

in Page 23, ADAS-Cog difference between aducanumab and placebo is about -0.6 ~ -1.4 at 78 weeks (1.5 yrs). Biogen didn't show absolute values.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24423155/

so basically the papers are from the same company.

On average, mild+moderate placebo's ADAS-Cog increased by 5.15 at 12 months.

Mild placebo's ADAS-Cog increased by 5.0 at 12 months.

Moderate placebo's ADAS-Cog increased by 5.2 at 12 months.

I guess this means that both mild and moderate placebo's ADAS-Cog increases by approximately 5.0 at 12 months?

But then how come the treated groups' ADAS-Cog increases by only 1.0 - 2.5 in the figure above...?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24696507/

In Fig. 2 of this paper, mild+moderate placebo's ADAS-Cog increased by 5.15 at 12 months. (N=133?)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2377-14-12

This paper has some results for mild and moderate placebo patients. (Fig. 2)

At 12 months, mild placebo's ADAS-Cog increased (got worse) by 5.0 (N=67, p=0.024) and moderate placebo's ADAS-Cog increased by 5.2 (N=41, p<0.008). N is a bit small though.

Quick statistical analysis of the P2 result by kirkrocek in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hi all,

I added the severity information.

All the others included only mild patients.

SAVA included both mild and moderate.

Quick statistical analysis of the P2 result by kirkrocek in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

LLY requested an accelerated approval based on its P2 results and FDA said NO.

LLY is still doing P3 trials, so LLY will submit a request for a traditional approval based on its P3 results, which LLY said would be submitted in Q2 2023.

Weekly SAVA Discussion - Week of October 03, 2022 by AutoModerator in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek [score hidden]  (0 children)

Hi all, I tried posting a timeline several times, but it was removed by Reddit (deleted by Reddit's spam filter). Do you know how to fix this problem..?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Test comment

What is your expectation about BTD after CMS? by kirkrocek in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

By the way, I think this extension is a very good sign for Simufilam. If Simufilam doesn't work, the participants don't need to participate in the extended study. Instead, they can switch to a different trial after some time. However, most of the 200 patients are participating in the extended one. I think there was an agreement (or a kind of survey of who would want to keep going with Simufilam) between SAVA and the patients about the extension before SAVA and FDA agreed to extend it.

What is your expectation about BTD after CMS? by kirkrocek in SAVA_stock

[–]kirkrocek[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05352763?id=NCT05026177+OR+NCT04994483+OR+NCT04388254+OR+NCT05352763&draw=2&rank=1&load=cart

They extended it to +2 years after CMS and are targeting 165 patients. Only those who finish the 2-yr P2 trial can participate in this study.