F1ash, your quote referencing their poster describes Part B while I was alluding to Part C. I was using your clarification there, that Part C is really a completely new trial to speculate that it would give them the freedom to adjust the lower doses. I assumed that they were constrained from doing so by Part A + Part B protocol and not patient tolerability. If they attempted to titrate up and reached the tolerability bounds earlier then my guess of their flexibility to do so in Part C is redundant.
Separately, I'm not sure why Dr. Perry said that the case of a drug improving or benefiting patients through a long period has never been witnessed before when you have shown results from the Flurizipan study in detailed charts, clearly showing about a good 18% showing retained improvement at the 12 month interval.
I'm not sure why Dr. Perry was on the call (as 3rd party) in the first place. It's as if Missling were implying "if you don't believe in the data or what Anavex is saying then listen to this editor of the Journal of AD". Esp. when he has a galaxy of stars in the Anavex SAB. Beats me.