Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[kevindenver]

All market participants whether they will admit it or not are part of a cabal.

[kevindenver]

That's the beauty of technical analysis, it is what it is, math is math. But of course interpretations of the math may differ.

[longtermbeliever]

if i were shorty i'll be really careful here with the institution are adding.JUST HOLD ON TIGHT LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONGS

[longtermbeliever]

with all this institutions are adding shorty will having a hard time to cover once the right news is release going to be fun.JUST HOLD ON TIGHT LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONGS

[kevindenver]

Since both methods might be presented in a final report our exercise in understanding the difference in the endpoint calculations and their application is probably futile.
But, good to exercise the brain nonetheless.

[boi568]

That's up about 2M shares. They seem to have benefitted from recent shorting, at the expense of the shorts.

They probably don't understand the stats as well as Investor and Doc.

[nidan7500]

Anyone see/understand how multiple regulatory body approvals works/benefits/slows/accelerates the open market sales picture for A2-73 (for example?). Since it seems clear that FDA would have to be suicidal (due to multiple time internally established tangles and conflicts) to lead the parade for AVXL CNS treatment approvals. Then, which national-body or reginal interests stands to benefit the most by approval use-scripting-sales for their populations of clinical users?

A. Who will be first? When? Why ?
B. How does FDA unscrew itself from Amyloid thesis CNS disease past w/a straight face and move on? (CAN THEY) (THEN WHAT?)

What other top management regulatory issues are in the way of moving FWD right now???

What will be AVXL-Dr.M. and staff's next move to drive the above issues??

[sumbuysumsell]

Food for thought. There's power in staying quiet.

https://www.thehealthyjournal.com/faq/why-staying-quiet-is-the-secret-to-success

Not everyone can do this. Few even try......

[georgejjl]

Expect a short squeeze on AVXL stock SOON!!!

https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/02/09/this-short-squeeze-candidate-could-actually-pan-ou/

Good luck and GOD bless,

[georgejjl]

I am more certain than ever.

I am absolutely certain that Roche is interested in partnering with or buying Anavex Life Sciences or licensing Blarcamesine from Anavex.

I have heard and believe that JNJ and Pfizer among other big Pharma are also interested in Anavex Life Sciences.

Good luck and GOD bless,

[Investor2014]

Yes the hope is, including mine, that the EXCELLENCE readout is good and that the totality of data from all three Rett trials, along with the RWE of parents and advocacy groups, will swing in favour of approval.

The trofinetide FDA decision is due 23rd March and so far without advisory committee. That will give an insight to how low the bar is.

[bas2020]

Bullshit! Missling unequivocally stated in the presentation and during the Q&A that the FDA requested AUC, because it's more rigorous and mitigates type 1 and type 2 errors. I know you think Missling is a liar, but true investors believe he speaks the truth about such things. FUDsters try to paint him as a liar.

[boi568]

Gee, I am impressed with your ironclad reasoning.

[WolfofMia]

This horse was beaten to death back then, and your math adds up.

However it doesnt change the fact that we got a signal in some ADULTs with RETT, in a tiny tiny trial.

Hopefully even better signal in these kids.

[Investor2014]

There is a difference between believing evidence of FDA requesting AUC has been provided and showing unequivocally that it has.

It has been provided several times.

I provided you with evidence of FDA guidance for using Anchoring and the slide from Anavex referring to that guidance in a slide and footnote to it.

Nothing about AUC, which was a Missling innovation.

[boi568]

You are assuming that Missling agrees with your analysis and your inference is correct about the undisclosed AVATAR measurements. I am going by his public statements rather than your speculative posts.

The possibility exists that you are right -- since the record is silent on your issue -- but you have never been able to prove it, just argue it. A lot.

[WolfofMia]

You see that is what happens when you provide 5% very insightful post and 95% FUD like posts.

Ever heard of the little girl that cried wolf?

[bas2020]

It has been provided several times... go look it up!

Enough of this NONSENSE!

[boi568]

Test

[ignatiusrielly35]

LOL. This is the most worthless observation to date. We have a winner.

[Investor2014]

Please provide the evidence of that FDA request.

You must be suggesting FDA "hanky panky", since they were the one requesting AUC for the small AVATAR trial

There is no FDA guidance on AUC and especially not when a data sample contains only two points again baseline.

One needs to understand AUC and statistics just a little bit to understand that of course.

[longtermbeliever]

yes with the right news.JUST HOLD ON TIGHT LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONGS

[bas2020]

Do you need to listen to the AVATAR conf-call again, to get it straight?

[Investor2014]

Did you even read my post and more importantly examine the clear evidence provided?

I know, you did not!

[BAR123]

State Street just reported and they currently own 7.46% of the outstanding shares of Anavex. That would be approximately 5.8 million shares.

[McMagyar]

Will one day be wealthiest man on planet

[Investor2014]

Complete nonsense.

For all you know, moving from 84 to 92 could have tipped the balance.

[LBSR TO DA MOON]

Form SC 13G/A ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES
Filed by: STATE STREET CORP

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 13G

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AMEMDED FILING


ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORP
(NAME OF ISSUER)
COMMON STOCK
(TITLE OF CLASS OF SECURITIES)
032797300
(CUSIP NUMBER)
12/31/2022
(DATE OF EVENT WHICH REQUIRES FILING OF THIS STATEMENT)

CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX TO DESIGNATE THE RULE PURSUANT TO WHICH THIS
SCHEDULE IS FILED:

(X) RULE 13D-1 (B)
( ) RULE 13D-1 (C)
( ) RULE 13D-1 (D)

*THE REMAINDER OF THIS COVER PAGE SHALL BE FILLED OUT FOR A
REPORTING PERSON`S INITIAL FILING ON THIS FORM WITH RESPECT TO THE
SUBJECT CLASS OF SECURITIES, AND FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT
CONTAINING INFORMATION WHICH WOULD ALTER THE DISCLOSURES PROVIDED
IN A PRIOR COVER PAGE.

THE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS COVER PAGE SHALL
NOT BE DEEMED TO BE "FILED" FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 18 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 ("ACT") OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITIES OF THAT SECTION OF THE ACT BUT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT (HOWEVER, SEE THE NOTES).


CUSIP NO: 032797300 13G PAGE 2 OF 7 PAGES

1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON: STATE STREET CORPORATION
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NO. OF THE ABOVE PERSON: 04-2456637

2. CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
NOT APPLICABLE

3. SEC USE ONLY

4. CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

5. SOLE VOTING POWER
0 SHARES

6. SHARED VOTING POWER
5,680,194

7. SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0 SHARES

8. SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
5,812,605

9. AGGREGATED AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
5,812,605

10. CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (9) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
NOT APPLICABLE

11. PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW 9
7.46%

12. TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
HC


CUSIP NO: 032797300 13G PAGE 3 OF 7 PAGES

1. NAME OF REPORTING PERSON: SSGA FUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC.
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NO. OF THE ABOVE PERSON: 04-3555193

2. CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP
NOT APPLICABLE

3. SEC USE ONLY

4. CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

5. SOLE VOTING POWER
0 SHARES

6. SHARED VOTING POWER
4,526,948

7. SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
0 SHARES

8. SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
4,542,248

9. AGGREGATED AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
4,542,248

10. CHECK BOX IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (9) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
NOT APPLICABLE

11. PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW 9
5.83%

12. TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON
IA



CUSIP NO: 032797300 13G PAGE 4 OF 7 PAGES

ITEM 1.
(A) NAME OF ISSUER
ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORP

(B) ADDRESS OF ISSUER`S PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES
51 WEST 52ND STREET 7TH FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10019 UNITED STATES

ITEM 2.
(A) NAME OF PERSON FILING
STATE STREET CORPORATION
SSGA FUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC.

(B) ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE OR, IF NONE,
RESIDENCE
STATE STREET FINANCIAL CENTER
1 LINCOLN STREET
BOSTON, MA 02111
(FOR ALL REPORTING PERSONS)

(C) CITIZENSHIP: SEE ITEM 4 (CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF
ORGANIZATION) OF COVER PAGES

(D) TITLE OF CLASS OF SECURITIES
COMMON STOCK

(E) CUSIP NUMBER:
032797300

ITEM 3.
IF THIS STATEMENT IS FILED PURSUANT TO RULE 13D-1(B), OR 13D-2(B)
OR (C), CHECK WHETHER THE PERSON FILING IS A:
SEE ITEM 12(TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON) OF THE COVER PAGE
FOR EACH REPORTING PERSON AND THE TABLE BELOW, WHICH EXPLAINS
THE MEANING OF THE TWO LETTER SYMBOLS APPEARING IN ITEM 12 OF
THE COVER PAGES.
SYMBOL CATEGORY
BK BANK AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3(A) (6) OF THE ACT.
IC INSURANCE COMPANY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3 (A) (19)
OF THE ACT
IC INVESTMENT COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 8 OF
THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940.
IA AN INVESTMENT ADVISOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE
13D-1(B) (1) (II) (E).
EP AN EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN OR ENDOWMENT FUND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 13D-1(B) (1) (II) (F) .
HC A PARENT HOLDING COMPANY OR CONTROL PERSON IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 13D-1(B)(1)(II) (G).
SA A SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3(B)
OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT (12 U.S.C. 1813).
CP A CHURCH PLAN THAT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF
AN INVESTMENT COMPANY UNDER SECTION 3(C)(14) OF THE
INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940.


CUSIP NO: 032797300 13G PAGE 5 OF 7 PAGES

ITEM 4. OWNERSHIP
THE INFORMATION SET FORTH IN ROWS 5 THROUGH 11 OF THE COVER PAGE
HERETO FOR EACH OF THE REPORTING PERSONS IS INCORPORATED
HEREIN BY REFERENCE.

ITEM 5. OWNERSHIP OF FIVE PERCENT OR LESS OF CLASS
NOT APPLICABLE

ITEM 6. OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON
NOT APPLICABLE

ITEM 7. IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY WHICH
ACQUIRED THE SECURITY BEING REPORTED ON BY THE PARENT HOLDING
COMPANY OR CONTROL PERSON
SEE EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED HERETO

ITEM 8. IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE GROUP
NOT APPLICABLE

ITEM 9. NOTICE OF DISSOLUTION OF GROUP
NOT APPLICABLE
























CUSIP NO: 032797300 13G PAGE 6 OF 7 PAGES

ITEM 10. CERTIFICATION

BY SIGNING BELOW I CERTIFY THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
AND BELIEF, THE SECURITIES REFERRED TO ABOVE WERE ACQUIRED AND ARE
HELD IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND WERE NOT ACQUIRED AND ARE
NOT HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OR WITH THE EFFECT OF CHANGING OR INFLUENCING
THE CONTROL OF THE ISSUER OF THE SECURITIES AND WERE NOT ACQUIRED AND
ARE NOT HELD IN CONNECTION WITH OR AS A PARTICIPANT IN ANY TRANSACTION
HAVING THAT PURPOSE OR EFFECT.

SIGNATURES

AFTER REASONABLE INQUIRY AND TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE AND
BELIEF, EACH OF THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES THAT THE INFORMATION SET FORTH
IN THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE, COMPLETE AND CORRECT.


STATE STREET CORPORATION


ELIZABETH SCHAEFER
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DEPUTY CONTROLLER



SSGA FUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC.



JACLYN COLLIER
CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER

EXHIBIT 1
THE FOLLOWING TABLE LISTS THE IDENTITY AND ITEM 3 CLASSIFICATION
OF EACH SUBSIDIARY OF STATE STREET CORPORATION, THE PARENT HOLDING
COMPANY, THAT BENEFICIALLY OWNS THE ISSUER`S SECURITIES. PLEASE
REFER TO ITEM 3 OF THE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 13G FOR A DESCRIPTION OF
EACH OF THE TWO-LETTER SYMBOLS REPRESENTING THE ITEM 3 CLASSIFICATION
BELOW.

SUBSIDIARY ITEM 3 CLASSIFICATION
SSGA FUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC. IA
STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS EUROPE LIMITED IA
STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS LIMITED IA
STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST COMPANY IA


NOTE: ALL OF THE LEGAL ENTITIES ABOVE ARE DIRECT OR INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES
OF STATE STREET CORPORATION.









CUSIP NO: 032797300 13G PAGE 7 OF 7 PAGES


JOINT FILING AGREEMENT



IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 13D-1(K)(1) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934, AS AMENDED (THE EXCHANGE ACT), EACH UNDERSIGNED ENTITY (EACH A
COMPANY) HEREBY AGREES TO ANY AND ALL JOINT FILINGS REQUIRED TO BE MADE
ON THE COMPANY`S BEHALF ON SCHEDULE 13G (INCLUDING AMENDMENTS THERETO)
UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT, WITH RESPECT TO SECURITIES WHICH MAY BE DEEMED
TO BE BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY THE COMPANY UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT, AND
THAT THIS AGREEMENT BE INCLUDED AS AN EXHIBIT TO ANY SUCH JOINT FILING.
THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE EXECUTED IN ANY NUMBER OF COUNTERPARTS ALL OF
WHICH TAKEN TOGETHER SHALL CONSTITUTE ONE AND THE SAME INSTRUMENT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, EACH COMPANY HEREBY EXECUTES THIS AGREEMENT
EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE SET FORTH BELOW.



STATE STREET CORPORATION


ELIZABETH SCHAEFER
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DEPUTY CONTROLLER



SSGA FUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC.




JACLYN COLLIER
CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER

http://archive.fast-edgar.com/20230209/AQ2YC222Z22XR2K2222U2WY2R8AGZZ222252

[bas2020]

You must be suggesting FDA "hanky panky", since they were the one requesting AUC for the small AVATAR trial...

In any event AS WITH THE AVATAR and US Rett trials, EXCELLENCE endpoints are all "Change from baseline to End of Treatment (EOT)". No AUC hanky panky!

No intent to FUD, surely...

[Investor2014]

Nor did the AVATAR endpoint ever officially, as in on clinicaltrials.gov.

Well, as far as we can tell, the EXCELLENCE trial's endpoints have never officially changed from the beginning of the trial through to its recent conclusion.

Missling changed the readout to use AUC instead of the protocol EOT because it looked better, but blamed the CRO for being tardy with the clinicaltrials.gov updates.

I am disappointed with the lack of objective due diligence here.

[catdaddy]

Looks like there is another beneficial owner over 5%.

[Investor2014]

No he did not!

Missling indicated that in the EXCELLENCE trial, unlike the AVATAR trial, there will be no statistical need for anchoring given the greater number enrolled in EXCELLENCE.

You are confusing Anchoring with EOT vs. AUC.

See my previous post.

[bas2020]

NOPE... only FUDspects might wonder why.

[Investor2014]

Let's dive in and separate CGI-Anchoring and EOT vs. AUC, two very different concepts.

Dr.M still stumbled over explaining RSBQ, RSBQ-AUC, CGI, and CGI anchored scores.

Starting with the FDA guidance: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims, which is what Anavex are referring to on slide 8 of the Top-line AVATAR readout slide deck, as well as on below slide from the obligatory Anavex readout rescue / explainer deck follow up.



There is guidance on Anchoring, but not EOT vs. AUC. When Missling says the endpoint for Rett is harder to achieve (than for tronifinetide), it is due to the Responder Analysis Threshold as discussed in slide 9 of same deck. I will get to AUC vs. EOT below.

E. Planning for Clinical Trial Interpretation Using a Responder Definition
Regardless of whether the primary endpoint for the clinical trial is based on individual responses to treatment or the group response, it is usually useful to display individual responses, often using an a priori responder definition (i.e., the individual patient PRO score change over a predetermined time period that should be interpreted as a treatment benefit). The responder definition is determined empirically and may vary by target population or other clinical trial design characteristics. Therefore, we will evaluate an instrument’s responder definition in the context of each specific clinical trial.

The empiric evidence for any responder definition is derived using anchor-based methods. Anchor-based methods explore the associations between the targeted concept of the PRO instrument and the concept measured by the anchors. To be useful, the anchors chosen should be easier to interpret than the PRO measure itself. For example, the number of incontinence episodes collected in incontinence diaries has been used to determine a responder definition for PRO instruments assessing the annoyance of incontinence. A 50 percent reduction in incontinence episodes might be proposed as the anchor for defining a responder on the PRO instrument. Confirmation of this anchor approach in early clinical trials can provide the basis for the proposed responder definition in the confirmatory trials.

Another anchor-based approach to defining responders makes use of patient ratings of change administered at different periods of time or upon exit from a clinical trial. These numerical ratings range from worse to the same and better. The difference in the PRO score for persons who rate their condition the same and better or worse can be used to define responders to treatment. Patient ratings of change are less useful as anchors when patients are not blinded to treatment assignment.

Another set of approaches to defining a responder are distribution-based methods that use, for example, the between-person standard deviation or the standard error of measurement to define a meaningful change on a scale. Distribution-based methods can be used to categorize these changes as small, moderate, and large and often can be combined with anchor-based estimates to provide confidence in the responder definition. Distribution-based methods for determining clinical significance of particular score changes should be considered as supportive and are not appropriate as the sole basis for determining a responder definition.

Alternatively, it is possible to present the entire distribution of responses for treatment and control group, avoiding the need to pick a responder criterion. Whether the individual responses are meaningful represents a judgment, but that problem is present with almost all endpoints except survival. Such cumulative distribution displays show a continuous plot of the percent change from baseline on the X-axis and the percent of patients experiencing that change on the Y-axis. This display type may be preferable to attempting to provide categorical definitions of responders. A variety of responder definitions can be identified along the cumulative distribution of response curve.

Guidance on interpretation considerations for a clinical trial’s SAP is found in section V.E., Interpretation of Clinical Trial Results.
25

Now for AUC vs. EOT, starting with the Q1 cc Q&A.

Yun Zhong

Okay. And then switching to the Rett syndrome study. I believe though press release announcing over enrollment had the language that with the FDA's input, you are using the primary endpoint. So I wanted to confirm that the primary endpoint is RSBQ and you see similar to -- or the same to the one used in the EBITDAR study? And so has the FDA agreed that the AUC, the modified RSBQ scale can be an appropriate endpoint for Rett syndrome study?

Christopher Missling

Yeah. We have it described in clinicaltrial.gov, and it was also never change in clinicaltrial.gov for the EXCELLENCE study. It is the RSBQ primary endpoint, and the CGI is key secondary endpoint over the course of the trial.

Yun Zhong

Is that the same endpoint that was used in the AVATAR study?

Christopher Missling

Slightly different. So it's actually the measurement over time from beginning to end of trial. AUC.

Yun Zhong

Not AUC?

Christopher Missling

Not AUC.

Yun Zhong

Not AUC?

Christopher Missling

Exactly, yes. Because the study is large enough that it can carry the signal by itself without AUC.

So I think we got that cleared up in this exchange. There will be NO resorting to flicking between EOT or AUC in the EXCELLENCE trial, like Missling fancied for the AVATAR readout.

The reason of course for that is that AUC makes zero sense in a short trial with only one mid-point data sampling and one EOT., which would be subject to a binary outcome of either AUC or EOT being stat sig positive. That is of course unless both AUC and EOT shows success or failure. Jin Kun has already been useful teaching Missling a lesson in stats. That will be especially important after EXCELLENCE as the time comes to present the collective data from the three Rett trials to regulators without obvious statistical nonsense.

Actually no even sure if the EXCELLENCE 12 week trial has a mid-point data sampling event, can't find any slide with the design. Of course if there isn't AUC is not even possible.

In any event AS WITH THE AVATAR and US Rett trials, EXCELLENCE endpoints are all "Change from baseline to End of Treatment (EOT)". No AUC hanky panky!

[FitzyP33]

Anyone wonder why AVXL is still registered and incorporated in Nevada?
Anyone know of a real = non-grift firm that isn't incorporated in Delaware?
That's where corporations have the most protection

[bas2020]

Yes, but that includes all unexercised options.

[georgejjl]

Christopher U. Missling MS PhD MBA is the beneficial owner of 6,229,644 shares of AVXL stock.

See page 73

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1314052/000173112221002062/e3306_10-k.htm

Good luck and GOD bless,

[bas2020]

CM is already a shareholder... roughly 1M shares.

[georgejjl]

EXPECT regulatory approval for Anavex's blarcamesine BEFORE the end of 2023.

Good luck and GOD bless,

[LakeshoreLeo1953]

All drugs and reagents were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich except PRE084 (Cayman), and SKF10047 and BD1047 (Tocris Bioscience).

Tangential relation to Anavex product(s) as the investigation was SR! receptor
not 2-73 or 3-71.

[georgejjl]

NOT if rather WHEN Anavex's blarcamesine is approved by the FDA, then the AVXL stock price will be much much much higher than it is today.

GOD bless,

[LBSR TO DA MOON]

"Already making money."
Based upon the time of your post below, you went short somewhere between $11.09 - $10.65. Of course, you don't bother to state your actual price and position size...
Did you dump all of your long shares (assuming you even had any) yesterday?

As usual AVXL goes straight down and circling the drain.
Already making money.

[sab63090]

Yes, Bas....that is the question!

Does he exercise and hold some or all of the stock or does he exercise and sell all of these very low strike calls before or after they are due to expire! These are so cheap (exercise price) that he can easily pay for them...but I would assume he wants to use a cashless exercise for some of them....we'll see the Form 4 and 8k on that, 2 days after that occurs.....insider reporting rules...

He will be an owner of shares and can be like us or he can jump out with a good profit assuming the price is good. He is totally vested now, so that can happen at any time up to July 5th.

[bas2020]

Sorry... trash day was yesterday.

[ExtremelyBullishZig]

How long have you been claiming short squeeze? How much is institutional ownership? Oh yeah...

[JKS3]

All the lies about meeting primary endpoints.

RSBQ-AUC
ODDS RATIOs
Arbitrary thresholds
logistic regression

No one buys the nonsense. Now needs dilution to continue. No partners or approvals in the next decade.

It's time to invent another endpoint for pediatric Rett trial to claim success.

[peeved]

this could be the lower high

and shorts could win big time since there is no interest in buying this other than retail

[FitzyP33]

As usual AVXL goes straight down and circling the drain.
Already making money.

[ExtremelyBullishZig]

I stand corrected...the market does not like the dilution news or Anavex...lol

[ExtremelyBullishZig]

Yes that is great because the 100% dilution over the last few years doesn't make up for low dilution last year...lol