Excerpts from a lengthy report and recommendations released Wednesday by Judge Ona Wang (SDNY). Cassava Sciences, Inc. v. Bred; Read the entire opinion for more information.
At various times in 2021, the neuroscientist defendants filed civil petitions and wrote open letters expressing “serious concerns about the quality and integrity of laboratory-based research surrounding simufilam {a]” Submitted to the FDA (“FDA”). [Cassava-developed] Drugs intended to treat Alzheimer’s disease} and claims about their effectiveness. Neuroscientist defendants accuse Drs. Burns {Vice President of Neuroscience at Cassava Inc.} and Wang {Associate Professor of Medicine at the City University of New York…and Cassava’s “academic collaborators”} (and others) for intentional data manipulation in preclinical and clinical studies of Cassava. and misstatements, the FDA has halted an ongoing clinical trial of simfilam pending an audit of these issues…
of inference After reviewing the data and empirical research, the neuroscientist defendants concluded that: do not have Statements such as “Cassava is a scam” or “Simfilam is ineffective” would be similar to statements such as: [given as examples in a past Second Circuit precedent -EV]. Rather, the neuroscientist defendants draw a more thorough and nuanced set of inferences from cassava’s own underlying research, on which cassava supports human clinical trials of simufilam. This means that the study may be unreliable based on certain irregularities in reporting. Research data.
Attached are numerous press releases and basic science papers. [Complaint], as if all these statements taken together were enough to “prove” that the cassava scientific conclusion is true (or not). This is part of the “ongoing discussion” referenced below. [the precedent] Courts should be avoided. Indeed, the parties’ repeated submissions regarding CUNY’s subsequent investigation (and its results) are irrelevant to this analysis. Rather, the fact that the research was conducted long after the neuroscientist defendants raised their concerns indicates that these statements are also not yet verifiable.
Defendants’ statements, which are neuroscientists, are derived from and refer to research published by Cassava itself, draw inferences about Dr. Wang and Dr. Burns’ research and reported results, and invite further investigation. I’m looking for. The resulting research and discussions among scientists are aimed first at validating the results of cassava scientists, after which different inferences may be drawn. The general and broader context also supports the finding that these defendants’ statements are protected by the First Amendment as nonlitigious opinions.
Scientific debate takes place between the scientists best suited to evaluate the underlying research and the inferences drawn from it, even when it challenges the integrity of another scientist’s work. See Underwager v. Salter (Seventh Circuit 1994) (“Scientific disputes must be resolved by the method of science, not by the method of litigation. More papers, more arguments, better data, more satisfying… (Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are terrifying diseases, and if effective treatments and cures are available, It will greatly benefit the lives of millions of people. But it’s also important to ensure that funding goes to research that is reliable and reproducible.
[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 8(a) requires a short and plain statement sufficient to give the defendant “notice of the claim against him.” The plaintiffs argue that the neuroscientist defendants’ dismissal claims are “premised on alleged misrepresentations of fact.”almost everything Mr Breed and Mr Pitt stated in their petition: all What they republished was factually inaccurate,” the statement concluded, based on one document. [Complaint] Attached and incorporated with more than 100 exhibits (many of which contain multiple links), the nearly 1,600-page law covers all of the scientific debates spanning years of research, without question. It’s like dropping it into the lap of a randomly selected federal judge. The parties were introduced to a randomly selected federal judge with a Ph.D., he said. In science, this review of the move has only become slightly more efficient. In any event, I have reviewed all of the neuroscientist defendants’ statements and believe that their factual statements accurately reproduce the representations and data that cassava or its scientists have made in press releases and peer-reviewed scientific papers. Although the statements were found to have been made, the inferences and opinions drawn therefrom are hotly contested and therefore not subject to litigation. Furthermore, the level of debate and scrutiny among scientists suggests that scientific debate is ongoing and unwarranted. for example,, Georgia High School Assen vs. Waddell (Ga. 1981) (“We go further and hold that courts of equity in this state have no authority to review the decisions of soccer referees because those decisions do not give rise to judicial controversy.” ).
To elaborate on the last line in the last paragraph, Judge Ona Wang has a Ph.D. degree in Zoology (and his AB in Biology).