Annovis Bio Inc (ANVS)

One of the many negative issues of $ANVS via an A.I. Overview. I would share this with @MaccM as a helpful data point as she has shared some of my previous information with her entire staff previously. However, I think everyone in her office understands the situation. Dr. Maccecchini told me that Andrew Walsh, current Vice President, Finance, isn't qualified to be a CFO. Thus, the Prefect Solution to the missing CFO! She is grooming her own CFO 🌱 in-house and will be able to permanently solve her revolving CFO problem. Her previous CFOs did not do what she wanted in a way she wanted and this will no longer be an issue going forward with her two-part plan. 1. Dr. Maccecchini will helm this CFO role ac hoc until ... 2. Andrew Walsh is installed as her CFO 900% control ✅ Some Retail longs won't have any concerns with this and continue to stay long. That's their prerogative. It's also my prerogative to share my personal experience with this company.

$ANVS If you are an Investor & then someone who chose to sell at a loss before approval decides to give you advice, You may want to take it w/ a grain of salt. Likely even if Your intent is to make money off a pre revenue biotech i.e. catalysts/hype/swings/short term trades. Emotional connection results in strong bias. If we took opinions of everyone with an emotional connection, data analytics while controlling for time as well as other variables for drug success/failure would not be possible. GLTA -Singularity

$ANVS Option 1: gamble on a presumably underfunded biotech with post hoc data and a history of delays and failures. Option 2: await potentially stellar data and the inevitable 50-100M raise that follows and enter derisked. Esquire recommends option 2.

$NVDA $OCGN $ANVS

$ANVS FDA commissioner Dr Makary mentioned Alzheimer’s drug as his priority vouchers candidates in the following CNBC interview. Watch CNBC's full interview with FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary https://cnb.cx/3U6uDVW

$ANVS mega green candle!?!!

$ANVS Beware of the virtuous. This is an investment, and a risky one. The entire AD/PD sector is notoriously risky. Your empathy for patients suffering from these diseases is not somehow in question because you distrust management or the data to date, whether this company or any other. Don’t invest/trade based on people raising the morality of the science. That's the cheapest dime-store psychology there is.

Is $ANVS now "choosing resilience and discipline" over fabricating stories of joint ventures with European 🌏 countries, as well as in 🇯🇵 Asia 🇨🇳 ... but, apparently not 🇷🇺 Russia? Q: Why? Why not Russia? A: Because Dr. Maccecchini has morals ... 😂 Or, is Annovis Bio's going to maintain their "resilience and discipline" by continuing to tell stories of patient improvements, telling patients' family to buy stock, showing her fortitude in standing up for patients and shareholding by using inappropriate language and pumping during "Patient's Live Forum" and other platforms? Dr. Maria Maccecchini is "very comfortable" and "very confident we have the money" ... yes, from Retail investors who she's duped along with a Cayman 🇰🇾 Island based-fund which now controls over 5% of Annovis Bio. Posting this here @ILikeDaStocks because @Stocktwits doesn't currently offer an attachment feature in their "Messages" system yet, but hope they will at some point.

$ANVS https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06709014?term=Buntanetap&rank=1

$ANVS I am no expert. Do your own due diligence. Understand the risks before investing in a clinical stage biotech. Annovis Followers on Stocktwits = 9,563

$ANVS I have a theory “Their fucked and we are fucked” Risk factors to track: ability to raise more funds (current cash may only last into late 2025), won’t even make it the whole trail. trial enrollment pace, potential dilution (we loose more money) if more financing is needed, and regulatory milestones (e.g., NYSE re-compliance).

This granulated question regarding a single measurement about ADAS-Cog improvement over placebo at 3 months for $ANVS can not be satisfactorily answered in isolation or in comparison with CGTX or AVXL. Each of these companies had different trial designs. IMO, after knowing what I know about Dr. Maccecchini I would say that it is likely her data is non-robust ... as it always had been. Additionally, the Alzheimer's Disease Scale-Cognitive sub scale (ADAS-Cog) has two main versions: the original ADAS-Cog 11 and the expanded ADAS-Cog 13. The ADAS-Cog 11 has 11 items, while the ADAS-Cog 13 includes two additional items: a number cancellation task and a delayed verbal recall task, for a total of 13 items. I have discussed Annovis Bio's studies with different people and groups. I was always the outlier in my group as no one saw any value in Dr. Maccecchini's studies. Their opinion was that they were poorly constructed and were not robust nor investable. This is supported by the lack of Institutional investors. Understanding this science to a deep degree is not my strength. I rely on others for this. I trust myself less now regarding judging someone's character after my experiences with Dr. Maccecchini. I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that @moneyonthebrain is asking his/her question in earnest. S/he has asked me this question before and I have seen this image promoted as a strength of Annovis Bio's data on some of his/her other posts. I am assuming that s/he has a background in science. My goal is to share a viewpoint which is likely different than his/her's. This viewpoint (below) of the data is not mine, but someone who I consider a friend who was kind enough to take a moment of his time to share his impressions. Thank you : ) --------- To start, the trial length was only 3 months, in which placebo effect is still in play (as is even evidenced by the relatively large placebo improvement). Combined AD cohort (202 patients) did not show statistically significant improvement. It was only after narrowing down to mild-only patients did the company see efficacy in ADAS-COG11 against placebo, which was not pre-specified. From all sourceable material, the most promising sign of efficacy comes from the 29 Apr 2024 PR, specifically Table 1: https://www.annovisbio.com/press-release/annovis-bio-announces-statistically-significant-phase-ii-iii-data-in-patients-with-early-alzheimers-disease Distribution of responders and non-responders per cohort definitely allude to the drug providing real benefit to patient. How great that benefit is could be decided by a longer trial. What the company needs now is a large placebo trial with pre-specified patient populations spanning 48-76 weeks - unless of course ANVS believes they can only provide symptomatic relief, in which case 12-24 weeks is likely adequate. Comparisons between ANVS and its competitors should be taken with extreme caution at this stage, given the data provided came from a poor clinical design featuring unproven Alzheimer’s patients, low N, and lack of pre-specified patient populations. Finally, I’d like to point out that the AVXL metric provided is not correct. If more evidence is required of the messy outcome for the clinical design, I’d look at the ANVS investor slide deck, slide 13 in which the company had to compare all ADAS-COG11 results to baseline instead of placebo because placebo improved an astronomical amount. Placebo outperformed 7.5mg, was nearly equal to 30mg, and was equal to pooled doses. The only cohort that performed well was the 15mg which seems fishy. NFL - a marker of degeneration performed very well I see from slide 19 they are looking to run an 18 month trial with two primary readouts, one at 6 months (to assess whether the drug could be symptomatic approved) and the other at 18 months, to see if it can be approved as a disease modifier. This is the data that needs to be seen and compared. I do see the N for each arm (placebo or 30mg) is only 380 each. They may have some issues there if the drop out is strong. --------- We're lucky to have Stocktwits users who are able to offer insights at this level. We don't all have to agree on things or how we interpreter data. However, when we see something that's fishy ... or, if we know it stinks we should share this with each other. I finally understand Dr. Maccecchini based on what she has disclosed to me on why her data is weak at best when the data is not narrated by her, but by others on her staff and Board. I get the sense that no one cares ... so I won't go into it * I am also not going to delve into CGTX for the sake of keeping my post short. Apologies moneyonthebrain for taking so long to get back to your question. I saw your question, but just felt like any answer from me would be inadequate. Cheers!

$ANVS has a CEO who takes advantage of Retail investors and patients. She self promotes herself as a Lone Wolf in biotech against the amyloid hypothesis who is going to prove that her drug is going to save humanity from Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, etc. She has touted for years that, “Buntanetap is the only drug to attack multiple neurotoxic proteins simultaneously” even that statement is not true since other drugs also address multiple neurotoxic proteins at the same time. Dr. Maccecchini refused to change her tagline even when advised that this statement is false. I have seen her use images without licensing rights. I have seen an amazing number of things. She blames everything on short sellers and has publicly called Seeking Alpha authors by name for being negative towards her in Seeking Alpha's "Comment Section". She has emailed me to counteract (aka: discredit others). Perhaps feeling impatient for someone else to do it, she even called out valued Stocktwits user @ReturnOfEsquire on this channel. Of this this call out included that self promotion of herself and her drug being better than anyone else's in existence. What she doesn't do is design robust drug studies ... even thought self-designates herself as "being great at designing drug trials!". I'm wondering if @Pika_Capital and @BlndSqurrl have ever seen cost-to-borrow (CTB) fees in excess of 1,200%? I don't track CTB data very often and I'm wondering if this is just one more data point confirming that the CEO of Annovis Bio is scamming investors, that her science if weak at best, and that professional traders know that ANVS will provide a great ROI even with CTBs in excess of 1,200%! (Yes, those are my notes in the image below from 7/7/2024 when I still believed in Dr. Maccecchini and her lies.)

$ANVS according to one theory, has "AI Agents" apparently playing the long game and scamming Dr. Maccecchini via emails. Under this theory, Dr. Maccecchini could have been lured into telling people her escapades of how she (mis)treats her employees, contractors and other questionable activities. These communications extended beyond emails and included methods such as phone calls, video conferences, etc. These communications covered topics including her Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and what value ... or, complete lack of value she has from the members of her SAB and what her plans for them are going to be for each of them* (Note*: I'm marking this statement about Annovis Bio's SAB, since I'll likely refer to it later.) My supposed bearish post, if labeled as such, are a public service in my opinion. These posts over the last few months are simply factual statements (90%+) and some conjunction (-10% ... if even that much). As @ReturnOfEsquire mentioned, I have taken long-positions investing in Annovis Bio since 2021. The attached email is one of many examples of my support of the company. I was saddened and shocked with how Dr. Maccecchini treated this IR firm and forced their departure. I was amazed at her delight reveling in her retelling of that termination story. (One might note in this conversation that OpenAI released ChatGPT to the public on November 30, 2022. I do not consider myself an early-adopter of technology.) This situation fits into this tread I got tagged into: https://stocktwits.com/Pika_Capital/message/620551361 Although ANVS doesn't have 100K+ plus Stocktwits followers (and likely never will), the company's trajectory will end up in the 30¢ s/p territory as the CEO herself publicly stated. @Pika_Capital and @BlndSqurrl are seasoned investors in this segment and if ANVS has more follows, it would make their list (see thread above). C.B. do you remember how AngryBadger got a call by CEO, Carrie Bourdow, to change his plans to vote against TRVN's r/s? He held approx. 1M shares of TRVN at the time, if I remember correctly. If any of you think CEO Bourdow was bad ... reading my posts from just these few days will demonstrate a new level of how dishonest and poorly and CEO can act. Dr. Maccecchini is a CEO that's operating off the rails, blown through 3 CFOs and acting in those capacities herself each time, disregards her attorneys, SAB, and her own Board members (w/ the exception of the Chairman who maybe operating in like with her). She doesn't even heed warnings from her own attorneys.

$ANVS … I’m aggressive for calling out nonsense and explaining how AI Agents are written and easily prompted to negatively/positively spin in information domains. @ReturnOfEsquire is a myopic parrot - Why can’t YOU publicly admit the science is very promising and has real potential? Or anything positive about the company - It’s strange indeed…perfect foresight though 🤣 Be positive, and I hope you reassess your information contributions to the world BUB!! ✌️Not going to stoop to your level 💪 but hearing your limited perspective was interesting the 1st and 2nd time, but not the 10th or 30th Jimmy the Lawyer!!

$ANVS Most biotech scam boards have aggressive morons like this. Fox has been here for a long time, and like many longs, suffered massive losses due to equivocal science and outright deception about government/private P3 funding. Do you want added value...??? WHERE IS THE NIA AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT you POS???

$ANVS Quantity and Conjecture Do Not = Added Value. Tell us your name/previous title within the company NDA @ForestFoxes , and I’ll retract my statement that you are an AI Agent. 😂 Doesn’t a company who is attempting to help folks (SS success in P2 & P3 for a majority and all encompassing temporal group) and its investors have a right to face its accusers of…whatever you have been trying to say (without saying)??! Please, do tell us your name since you can’t say anything else inside your supposed experiences besides BAD MARIA!? 😢 I invite all investors to look into @ForestFoxes posts - IT usually inputs a ChatGPT prompted collage based on a constructed narrative. My Analysis: It’s an Advanced AI agent written by an adversarial entity repeating the same (mostly) nonsense. Real people are not dumb, and are waking up to automated information manipulation. Info manipulation is as easy as a few thousand lines of code these days. Anyhow I’ll stop arguing with a machine, bye ✌️

$ANVS would do well if they integrated autonomous scripts into their work since some of the benefits of these scripts include: - Reduced errors: Automated scripts can execute tasks with greater accuracy and consistency than manual methods. - Improved safety: In certain applications, such as autonomous vehicles, scripts can improve safety by reducing the risk of human error. For context of why I made the statement above, please read the attached 7-part posts which includes actual emails from Dr. Maccecchini which demonstrates how she doesn't care about all the errors in her work and how members of her team, including "All our PR people", "our scientist", etc. don't want to exert the effort to ensure veracity of what the company releases to the general public whether it be for their patients or Retail investors. https://stocktwits.com/ForestFoxes/message/620735455

$ANVS has a CEO who is very unprofessional. If you had direct contact with her she won't show this side of herself to you because she values your support ... your money. She might however encourage you to make comments to discredit others who don't support her narrative. Have your received such encouragement @The_Singularity as I have? If so, what was the form of your encouragement (telephonic, electronic mail, video conference, etc.)? This is a public traded company. We should share what we know. Some Readers on this channel might think that I am new here and only post negative things about Annovis Bio. This is not true as I have been tracking this company since 2021. Here's a sample of one of my posts: https://stocktwits.com/ForestFoxes/message/367291055 Clicking on the image will expand it into a high resolution demonstrative with more clarity than the Stocktwits 5MB attachment limit.

$ANVS has some interesting investors. @The_Singularity has a descriptor which includes being a bio-engineer and a data scientist. That is a terrific background and should be an asset to this channel. The statement "love learning" in contrast of this recent post/attack against @byeonkh therefore has me confused. Honest science takes into consideration ALL the data. Therefore, why attack someone who has only posted a total of 16 times about ANVS? Is it because any post that does 100% or 900% support the CEO is unworthy? In the attached sample one can see that there were 21 "Likes" which indicates that the post was thoughtful. Explanation? An apology perhaps?

$ANVS @byeonkh Great 👍 AI bot, just like Forest Foxes… go troll elsewhere….oh wait you are another autonomous script without a soul.. In that case keep posting enough BS to confuse everyone 😋

$ANVS high risk potentially very high reward