Talk:Lindsay Burns

Request edit on 29 June 2022
No one has corrected "Atlanta, Canada" which obviously was included by some foreign paid basher in the original page. We can leave it as evidence, but it has been cleaned up a lot since then. 216.220.11.121 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Chhandama (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Biomarker section
The below is inconsistent with a similar section in the simufilam wiki page. Right now, it appears that tau was measured first and failed, and a second analysis measured HMGB1 and BBB markers. According to the press release and the simufilam page, high variability in placebo was the red flag for a failed analysis (not a failed drug effect) in the first analysis. The backup CSF samples were used for a second analysis that measured the same set of biomarkers plus the new ones: HMGB1 and the BBB markers. Those new ones were not measured in the Phase 2a, so they could not replicate those Phase 2a results, which were generally the same set of biomarkers in the first analysis and the analysis on backup CSF samples. Here's the section I'm referring to that is misleading:

In May 2020, the company announced that a phase 2b study of simufilam had failed to reach its primary endpoint of a statistically significant reduction in tau protein secondary to the drug. However in November 2020, Cassava Sciences announced additional new data from the study that showed simufilam was associated with a reduction in HMGB1 protein and increased integrity of the blood–brain barrier. This supported the data of a previous phase 2a study of the drug published in February 2020. The Phase III trials started in February 2021. 216.220.11.121 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Discovery of simufilam section
The last paragraph of this section is one-sided and inconsistent with the simufilam page regarding reactions from journals. It fails to note that the J Neurosci editor issued a public statement in November 2021 that she found "no evidence of data maniuplation." She did follow with an expression of concern (after being harassed on Twitter) just to note that she is awaiting results from CUNY, but leaving out results of her own investigation is one-sided. Similarly, a different journal, Neuroscience, also found no evidence of data manipulation and this was edited out of earlier versions. Finally, noting that the NBA editor is also awaiting the institutional investigation outcome without stating that he found "no compelling evidence of data maniupulation" is agian imbalanced. This section should be balanced. 216.220.11.121 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Intro suggestions
First sentence: How do you know she is a "former" rower? She won a medal at the Head of the Charles only last year. Suggest changing this sentence. In the second sentence, Burns is not "the" senior vice president of the pharmaceutical company.... This company has several employees with the title Senior Vice President of xyz. Burns is SVP of Neuroscience, as stated in "Personal Life." Under "Rowing Career" this lingering sentence structure should be cleaned up: "Having competed... she had won..." ?? SighSci (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I addressed the first sentence. If you could present the rest of your suggestions (as you have been asked multiple times by multiple people on multiple pages) in a more readable format, it would be more likely to be done.  The rowing text was written long ago, I haven't checked to see who wrote it but it's highly likely they are no longer still editing the article, I've not read any of the rowing sources, and I'm unlikely to wade into a whole new topic unless the requested changes are laid out clearly.  Current wording, suggested wording, sources that support the change. As requested many times on other pages. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorting primary sources
With two COI editors now blocked from this suite of articles, my attempt to sort the primary sources is at: Perhaps some progress can be made towards cleanup. I'm not sure the chart is yet complete; still working (for example, I still have to review The New Yorker and others). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Cassava Sciences/Primary sources