We Called It: INMB’s Alzheimer’s “Data” Is a Joke.
$INMB just dropped their Phase 2 MINDful results.
And guess what?
Still no peer-reviewed data. Still no statistical rigor. Still no signal.
Just vibes, charts, and Cohen’s d bars.
Let’s walk through the farce. 👇
$INMB just dropped their Phase 2 MINDful results.
And guess what?
Still no peer-reviewed data. Still no statistical rigor. Still no signal.
Just vibes, charts, and Cohen’s d bars.
Let’s walk through the farce. 👇
1. They released another slide deck, not a paper.
Not peer-reviewed.
Not audited.
Not even preprinted.
Just a couple bar graphs dressed up like science — with effect sizes that wouldn’t move a mouse, let alone a market.
Not peer-reviewed.
Not audited.
Not even preprinted.
Just a couple bar graphs dressed up like science — with effect sizes that wouldn’t move a mouse, let alone a market.
2. This was their “make-or-break” Alzheimer’s trial.
Yet there’s:
🚫 No p-values
🚫 No raw data
🚫 No journal submission
🚫 No third-party validation
Just a company trying to sell a narrative — before the inevitable crash.
Yet there’s:
🚫 No p-values
🚫 No raw data
🚫 No journal submission
🚫 No third-party validation
Just a company trying to sell a narrative — before the inevitable crash.
3. They’re bragging about an effect size of 0.27.
For context:
0.2 = weak
0.5 = moderate
0.8 = strong
So we’re talking about borderline noise.
And that’s in the hand-picked subgroup (Aβ+ w/ inflammation), not the full population.
For context:
0.2 = weak
0.5 = moderate
0.8 = strong
So we’re talking about borderline noise.
And that’s in the hand-picked subgroup (Aβ+ w/ inflammation), not the full population.
4. “Placebo-controlled”? Cute. But not credible.
They claim there’s a placebo arm now. Great. Where’s the published methodology?
Where’s the trial protocol?
Where’s the data?
You don’t get to play scientist on PowerPoint and call it peer-reviewed.
They claim there’s a placebo arm now. Great. Where’s the published methodology?
Where’s the trial protocol?
Where’s the data?
You don’t get to play scientist on PowerPoint and call it peer-reviewed.
5. Let’s be honest. This wasn’t a readout. It was a rugpull.
They raised $19M weeks ago.
With no named investors.
At market.
Right before this “data.”
If you knew results were strong, you’d wait.
If you didn’t… you’d cash out early.
Guess what they did?
They raised $19M weeks ago.
With no named investors.
At market.
Right before this “data.”
If you knew results were strong, you’d wait.
If you didn’t… you’d cash out early.
Guess what they did?
6. $INMB is a textbook biotech mirage.
No approvals
Chronic dilution
Fake consultants
Overhyped science
Retail exit liquidity
We laid this out weeks ago.
The data confirms it.
And now… it’s just embarrassing.
No approvals
Chronic dilution
Fake consultants
Overhyped science
Retail exit liquidity
We laid this out weeks ago.
The data confirms it.
And now… it’s just embarrassing.
7. Don’t take our word for it. Ask Wall Street.
$INMB soared over $13 on Alzheimer’s hype.
Then gave it all back.
Because there’s no there there.
And tomorrow, when volume returns?
We wouldn’t be surprised to see a sub-$1 print.
$INMB soared over $13 on Alzheimer’s hype.
Then gave it all back.
Because there’s no there there.
And tomorrow, when volume returns?
We wouldn’t be surprised to see a sub-$1 print.
8. INMB doesn’t need a peer review. It needs a fraud investigation.
We said it before and we’ll say it louder now:
The MINDful trial is a placebo.
Just not the kind with control groups.
We said it before and we’ll say it louder now:
The MINDful trial is a placebo.
Just not the kind with control groups.
🧨 Full Report:
“The Placebo Hustle: INMB Edition”
Read now:
🩺 Rated S for Shortable.
#biotech #Alzheimers #shortselling $INMBbmfreports.com/articles/inmb
“The Placebo Hustle: INMB Edition”
Read now:
🩺 Rated S for Shortable.
#biotech #Alzheimers #shortselling $INMBbmfreports.com/articles/inmb
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
