Keep it real
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
so far, not even a rabit was pulled out of that hat ;)
What kills me is the magician's hat mentality: stick your hand of hope down it and pull out a cure, FDA BTD, a partnership, a buy-out.
If we are dependent on outside events to happen, how can Anavex state so equivocally that 3 trials will start? What if the guidance doesnt come out by the end of the year?
Hey if Missling said 300, then thats fine by me. Easy going :)
Thanks for bringing a laugh to my day.
What we need is a realistic and representative trial size, like Missling has said, eg n=300. Replicate the same results and you will have everyone's attention.
Correct about paragraph 5
Why do you expect no p2/3?
Most recent info out is in the LPC prospectus. This only mentions 2017 for Rett p2, no timeframe for AD p2 start, no mention of MS,...
Credit to Amatuer17
Amatuer17 Friday, 09/08/17 06:22:01 AM
Re: None
Post # of 119955
Yesterday's prospectus is very clear - it gives clues
1. Rett trial - got 0.6 million from Rett foundation - will start in calendar year 2017
"..The Phase 2 trial is scheduled to begin in calendar 2017 and will be a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study of ANAVEX TM 2-73 in patients with Rett syndrome lasting up to 12 week"
2. ALZ trial - is planning phase - it does not say anything about starting in 2017 like Rett - this is deliberate omission on starting date as they are not sure
3. Parkinson Trial - it talks about preclinical funding by MJFF but no mention of funding for actual trial and date
4. MS - there is absolutely no mention of MS in preclinical or pipeline. Also there is no mention of Biogen MTD in entire document
5. Partnership - "We intend to identify and initiate discussions with potential commercial partners within the next 12 months..."
These prospectus are strong legal documents as they are related to raising money. Co avoids to put anything in it that even remotely seems false or incorrect.
As such I tend to take them seriously and believe what is said and not guess what is not said.
Based in what is not said - starting ALZ and PD trial in 2017 - will not believe unless Dr M reiterates again in a conference or issues a new PR
MJFF funding not available
Biogen MTD not a positive news else they would have at least mentioned one line about MTD
I believe you are mixing up different trials. There is a distinction between those that are run by TPIV and those by Mayo. The extended ones are by Mayo. And the long-term data which will be published in the near future, is from a TPIV-trial.
You think places like Mayo run trials to keep investors from tiny biotechs in the dark? Lol, no.
Many people posting on message boards confuse virtual reality and whishfull thinking?
The longer safety data we have, the better!
Well if there was it should have been PR'ed. so still nothing to report on MS, one year later...
Those are not the TapImmune trials but the extended phase 1 trials run by Mayo.
In that case I am glad we could highlighten this as too often reality about Anavex 2-73 is forgotten and self-projections are taken for real.
The company perhaps not, but the talk on here definitely is.
Anavex first displayed 7 SuperResponders who were all a2-73 Monotherapy..
later they became 6 SuperResponders..
The assumption was and probably mathematically provable, that all 6 were part of the 7 .. so all SuperResponders were Monotherapy.
So we can conclude there is no evidence that the six super responders were on mono-therapy.
This will be a shocker...
Interesting: I have been reading so much on here about the super responders and suddenly they are unconfirmed.
Good theory.
But what about those six super responders who have a better result when on mono therapy of 2-73? Ethical conundrum?
Yes, in a company of nine, the others are of course random dudes and nobodies!
In the mean time the long talked about partnership conference turned out to be a nothing, not even worthy of a PR.
odds of a PR Monday morning are running in the very high 90s percentile.
Who would shout it out to the world that a big pharma will not take your drug any further?
I fully agree: most of what is posted about Anavex is pure speculation.
About a year ago a PR was published about an MTA with BIIB. Haven't heard a thing about ever since. And yet speculation is going wild. The mere thought that BIIB was not impressed is considered to be treason. Oh no the great Doctor Missling will not let us down.
So is BIIB still impressed by 2-73?
Sure, so today is the BIogen buyout or partnership. But then rumour has it could be Pfizer too.
I am still troubled in which colour scheme to order my yacht.
Oh great, so now Pfizer is gonna buy us out? What's the source of this?
In a corporation with multiple thousands of employees, sure. When its a tiny company of only nine, then every one leaving seems to become more important.
Can you assume that all is hunky dory when a senior director leaves in silence? I have read a dozen PR's about people joining the team or the SAB, but nothing when a senior director in charge of operations goes.
Well when someone is in charge of preclinical work and operations, you would expect him to be in charge of the operational aspects of running clinical trials, on top of the pre-clinical work.
Negative, senior director pre-clinical AND operations.
Cannot assume trials run smoother without a senior director of operations overseeing them.
I don't know if it's good or bad. Can't judge without knowing why he is leaving and what impact his departure might have on the running of the trials
But I would like to find out.
Don't put words in my mouth please. I said 3 trials are to start. And my bigger point is that the senior director of operations, who is supposed to oversee these trials, is gone and we don't know why he left or was fired.
The guy was senior director pre-clinical AND operations.
So Fadiran joining is material?
There is as much valuable when a someone in a senior position leaves a company. Especially when he is senior director operations and 3 trials to start imminently.
Why did he leave? Does this means a delay for the trials?
If they would include the cleaning lady/lad in those 9 employees I would be really worried!!
When you only have nine employees, they all matter, no?
A Senior Director leaving the company is not worthy of a PR?
If you PR those joining then you also PR those leaving. Only fair to inform your shareholders, no?
Why has this not been communicated??
Thanks for highlighting.