I "Shorted" QCM
On Friday November 5, 2021 I initiated a "short" position: against QCM. If you are looking for a ticker for QCM you won't find one. Because QCM is short for Quintessential Capital Management. How did I initiate a "short position" against QCM? I simply bought an additional 200 shares of SAVA. I am bearish about QCM and for once being a bear actually feels right. Read on and I'll tell you why. Why did I "short" QCM? Because of the completely farcical report they released on Wednesday November 3, 2021 where they reported they had taken a short position against SAVA. Why do I call the report farcical? Because QCM has attacked the integrity and competency of IMIC and its staff and if you will read on, you will see what a terrible blunder that was. Quoting from QCM's report:
Cassava’s prominent clinical research site (whose CEO is coauthor of critical research on Simufilam), IMIC Inc., is co-owned by a former escort, stripper and crack addict with a criminal record for consumption and possession of cocaine. IMIC’s Principal Investigator has been hit with a rare and ominous FDA warning letter during recent trials"
Ouch QCM. IMIC is partially owned by Aimee Cabo Nikolov (ACN), who is a former escort, former stripper, and former drug user. First off, is QCM taking a moral stand against sex workers or is that an investment strategy against sex work? Is QCM saying they are taking a short position against sex? (Sarcasm). Secondly, ACN says she was sexually abused by her stepfather while a minor. QCM casts her experience in doubt by noting she did recant what happened but then QMC notes that:
Following her recantation, Aimee claimed having caught her “rapist” in an illegally recorded admission of guilt. She either lied when she accused her stepfather or she must have lied in her recantation: either way, her integrity is compromised.
First off, an initial recantation does not mean the abuse did not happen. Approximately 23% of children do recant. It commonly happens. Experts note that:
Recantation was influenced by children’s vulnerability to adult familial influences, lending support to a filial dependency model. That is, children who were younger, who alleged abuse against a parent figure, and whose nonoffending caregiver reacted unsupportively to disclosure were significantly more likely to recant their allegations completely at least once during the investigation.
Guess what, Aimee's mom (the nonoffending caregiver), absolutely reacted unsupportively to disclosure and called Aimee a liar. We will never know whether Aimee was raped or not by her stepfather. But the life Aimee turned for a short time in her youth, would suggest that it may be true. For her to later turn to sex work for a time in her early life is not surprising; many childhood rape survivors do it. Why do they do it? Because it is a mechanism by which they try to regain control over their lives and bodies. Victims of sexual abuse also very often turn to drugs as a way to numb the trauma of what they have experienced. Aimee's story is what it is, but does it have any real relevancy to her integrity today? I believe QCM wants us to focus on the idea that her integrity from decades ago is still compromised to this day. In this day and age, we do not forever hold the integrity of a person in question for decades, especially of things that occurred while they were under the age of 18. That is an absurd, sensational, and puritanical standard, but QCM seems to be using that standard to imply negative things about Aimee's integrity and credibility to this day.
But that isn't even the main reason why I believe my "short" position against QCM is the rational thing to do. IMIC is co-owned by Aimee and her husband Boris who QCM calls a colorful character and insinuates that these two "might not be the best choice for heading a clinical trials center". Shots have been fired by QCM! IMIC has been hit. SAVA has been hit. Biogen has been hit. Wait.....what?! Biogen got hit? Yes, QCM unintentionally shot and hit Biogen and many other corporations with the same bullets it used to shoot at IMIC and SAVA. I'll tell you in just a moment, but first I must ask QCM, are you in dangerous position of bad logic? Yes and here is how!
I have established that QCM is not a fan of IMIC and QCM thinks IMIC has questionable owners and employees. Well, QCM, I think some rather large corporations disagree with your assessment about IMIC and their employees. Which large corporations think IMIC is worthy of conducting their clinical trials? Make sure you click on the links provided below to see the clinical trials that IMIC has or is currently involved with. Here's the list and market cap (as of 11/6/2021) of notable IMIC clients: IMIC Client: Eli Lilly (Market Cap: 275B) ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT04451408 Principal Investigator: Evelyn Lopez-Brignoni IMIC Client: Biogen (Market Cap: 40B) ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03887455 IMIC Client: AstraZeneca (Market Cap: 194B) ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02245737
IMIC, and its employee Evelyn Lopez-Brignoni that QCM casts suspision on, have been involved in many clinical trials for many different corporations. I could list more, but why beat a dead horse? (Sorry QCM). Large corporations in this industry have selected IMIC as a suitable location that can be trusted to accurately generate data for their clinical studies. QCM insinuates a rather tin-foil hat theory: "We find the sudden change of fortune remarkable and wonder whether it might be related to IMIC’s relationship with Cassava and the noted anomalies in the study." The most logical reason for IMIC doing well is because they have more clients, especially from large corporations. There's no smoking gun here QCM and you can't make the rational mind think there is one.
I can think of $509 billion dollars worth of market cap (see list above) that thinks IMIC is a qualified and reputable organization to conduct their clinical trials. Why is IMIC magically now not qualified to run clinical trials for SAVA? Could it be because QCM wants people to believe that IMIC is twisting results for SAVA? QCM's insinuations and logic leaps are not only shockingly bad, they could possibly be construed as libelous. If you question the integrity of the clinical data coming out of IMIC for SAVA, logic dictates that you must also question the integrity of the clinical data coming out of IMIC for Eli Lilly, Biogen, and AstraZeneca. QCM cannot cherry pick which company's data they like or don't like coming out of IMIC; that would be intellectually dishonest. But as of this writing QCM has insinuated that ONLY the clinical data coming out of IMIC for SAVA is potentially suspect! Can any rational person believe anything coming out of QCM when the narrative they spin is so far removed from reality? The deeper I dig into QCM's so called "research" on SAVA the more I think of an episode of torture from the Television Show "Star Trek: The Next Generation". In a well known scene, a Cardassian leader, Gul Madred, tells Captain Picard there are five lights, when in reality we can all see there are only four. Captain Picard refuses and Gul Madred continues to torture him in an effort to make Picard agree that there are five lights. In my opinion, everything that comes out of QCM is torturous to read because I feel like I am Captain Picard and they are Gul Madred who is constantly droning on that there are five lights. The game is over for you QCM. I won't agree that there are five lights, especially when all the real facts tell me there are only four lights.... or in other words SAVA is the real deal and IMIC can be trusted to produce quality data. I won't sell my shares so QCM can cover its short position. I stand by my decision to "short" QCM by holding my shares of SAVA. This post does not constitute medical or investment advice.