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.
My opinion about AVXL SP drop is risk mitigation. This is a speculative play and the general market is facing a possible correction. People are looking for "safer" investments vs speculative plays. Market generalizations have been turned upside down in the past years and "safe" investments: bonds, precious metals, etc. don't perform like they have in the past and corporate giants have fallen on a whim.
They already had it in the pipeline and preclinical trials completed before 3-71 came into the picture.
Really?... Do you even remember patient enrollment? Dec 16, 2014 first patient enrolled / Sep 28, 2015 last patient enrolled.
Oh gee, next argument is that it will take over 10 years at that rate; ridiculous.
I'm fairly certain that Donepezil is no longer part of the equation. In more generic terms of MOA, mixed muscarinic receptor ligand may have similar partial effect of Donepezil, but not the same.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19363262/
Fizzle, fizzle...Donepezil can't hang. Are there any findings about inflamation with dosing of A2-73?
Your statement is a little generic, care to enlighten? Specifically in regard to the already tried cholinomimetics.
Thanks Doc, only this level of detail is reassuring to some, and I don't blame them. I usually don't have time anymore to pull sources or links for sharing. Someone like you sharing your intimate experience is better any day.
This is the conundrum for many. If you expect this will be "dead" money for so long, why invest now? You could certainly expect greater returns than "dead" money over however long it is expected to be "dead". Yay, PD and Rhetts. May this drug continue to show great results as in previous trials. BTW, I would still like to see an advancement in epilepsy, but I know that wont get us to market as quick as current path.
This is an interesting take to me. If the data was so cut and dry, why didn't anyone say so earlier. When the trials first started the outcome was so encouraging, or so it seemed to many. Nearly all patients seemed to benefit early on. Slowly over time there started to be a spread in patient response and the Anavex-PLUS idea fell to the way side, something else was going on. Still quite a few patients were responding, but some were more than others. This spread grew more as time went on. While discouraging to some, not all the information is available. If we conducted a larger trial and got the same results and could not explain the difference, do you think the drug would be approved? In my opinion, while encouraging, I would think that that type of outcome would have warranted yet another trial. We need THIS trial to give us the approval, otherwise expect more dilution. That is what the precision approach is supposed to provide, insight into the distinguishing factors that resulted in the difference of response. We can tackle any other slight opportunities later, but this trial needs the best shot that it can get if you are interested in growing this company without selling short to BP or massive dillution.
I wish Yahoo hadn't left everyone out in the cold like they did. Hundreds of posts and research flushed down the drain.
Jon, you've been here long enough... do you remember how long it was from first patient enrolled to first patient dosed in previous trial? I posted this info a couple of days ago. This is the time to be patient and let the news roll in. It will come... hopefully.
See Post 171305 wow, funny, exactly 1000 posts later.
Oh, so you think they need all 450 patients enrolled to start dosing... really?
I agree, there has not been enough information. This goes back to the lawsuit and the constant belittling of certain people that the company was pumping by issuing so many fluff PRs.
It is frustrating that the market has beaten the concept that there is no less risk than day 1. Absurd. Anyone who wants to invest with little risk, wants everyone who has invested to believe there is too much risk. Not a conspiracy theory. How do you value a speculative stock? It does not stay at 0 value until proven. How many trials fail P1? How many trials fail P2? How many of these has Anavex failed? How much has been invested to get Anavex here? Every step takes the company one step closer.
The frustrating issue with this stock is the manipulation that brought this to $15 and back down. That is not natural. How did nearly over twice the outstanding shares trade in just a couple of days with the price shooting down? Were all the investors except a handful day traders? There was simply an unlimited supply of short shares. Nobody wants to buy a stock when that can happen unexplained. Good news, nothing that wouldn't be expected, and the stock tanked. A set up.
So you are suggesting that Anavex went through all of the trouble to enroll patients, but wont start dosing? Wow this is a completely new perspective. So, like, Missling gets more shares because half of the patients will enroll, but they wont be dosed. Then he sells all if his shares and laughs all the way to the bank. Interesting.
Define trial start.
Your mixing th he compounds A2-73 is not selective, A3-71 is. AF710B = A3-71.
I think we already have economies of scale and that is part of the problem: social networking, fraudulent lawsuits and economies of scale. There is no invisible hand.
I recently saw two doctors for a procedure, the same procedure. Each of the doctors was good at what they do in thier own way, but very different in the procedure and treatment of what I had. They were also very different in their level of compassion they had for thier patients. My insurance was good with either doctor, they were both in-network and I have fairly good insurance. If you have time for a second opinion, it can sometimes be very useful.
The doctor that was less compassionate and although big headed, had seeded some reluctance and hesitation in performing the procedure. He would only operate if he was sure that what I had was going to kill me. He explained the procedure would be very difficult but he could get it done, only after more testing and several months of observation.
The other doctor was very compassionate and was humble but very reassuring, asserting confidence that although difficult he would be able to give me the best outcome possible (sure the paperwork goes over inherent risks). He reviewed my case and went over options, listening to my thoughts about each of the options and weighing them with his professional opinion. WE decided to do the surgery then, and that decision gave me a much better shot of seeing my kids grow up and have children of thier own. Had the surgery not been done and we waited another year, my odds of survival would have been much worse, almost less than half of what it is now.
So what's my point? Regardless of a doctors experience or skill they will charge about the same amount. In some cases insurance can provide better breaks on one vs the other. Doctors are very aware of procedure cost vs. benefit, so what drove the difference of opinion between the two doctors?
The first finally explained that the odds are that the procedure would have cost insurance companies now for a procedure that may be needed years down the road, despite the smaller odds of the patient outcome being fatal. This was his own opinion and decision based on the push to reduce healthcare costs.
The second made the decision based on future healthcare costs and compassion about patient input. The procedure would have had to be done either way, now or later. Later I would be older and higher risk and sooner would have small odds of giving me my life. Should patients have a voice?
This was a life altering event; my family has experienced 5 life altering events. In the nearly 20 years I have paid into my insurance plan, the insurance company is still way ahead. The odds of 2 of these life altering events are less than 1 in 40000 combined and less than 1 in 500000 with less than 1/3 the cost of the first. Do insurance companies make better doctors? How much do insurance companies skim off the top? What kind of position would I have been in if I didn't have the money to pay? How much does BP skim off the top for a pill? There are many problems, and having everyone pay for insurance is not going to fix them. These problems are evident in other industries as well.
I would say Anavex is on a better track than most of them...
Spending a little time researching each of these drugs helps to understand the competition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=6021548_gr1.jpg
This is interesting, with no improvement to ADCS-ADL:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/novel-drug-treatment-shows-improved-cognition-in-a-phase-3-clinical-trial-in-persons-with-mild-to-moderate-alzheimers-disease-in-china-300737649.html
I know these don't add any credence to A2-73, but it does highlight the promise. It is also interesting to look at some of the other trial designs and the odd decisions to move forward.
December 16, 2014 – Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (“Anavex” or the “Company”) (OTCQX: AVXL) today announced enrollment of the first patient in a multicenter Phase 2a clinical trial for ANAVEX 2-73
January 12, 2015 — Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (“Anavex” or the “Company”) (OTCQX: AVXL) today announced dosing of the first patient in the Phase 2a clinical trial of ANAVEX 2-73 and ANAVEX PLUS
Date Registered: April 11, 2018
Date Ethics Committee Approved: April 27, 2018
Date Competent Authority (AEMPS) Approved: July 4, 2018
Interesting... is that the date the competent authority (Agencia Española del Medicamento
Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo) authorized the trial start?
It really is insane... hopefully things pan out in 10 years, or less. Maybe I'll still be around then and can retire. It would be good to see so many people get relief and be happy.
Someone, quick... do the math. 67 billion/~45.43 million equals $1,474.80. Woohoo, we'll all be rich.
Yeah, the metabolite half-life is much longer and I would think another trial would be needed if changing doseage. The charts depict a starting concentration of 0, so we don't know the effects of additional dosing in a short period (yes, information over longer periods are provided; I'm talking about hour by hour changes over the course of several days). The recent PRs indicate that a high blood concentration is significantly correlated with effect. Just like absorption, people eliminate and process chemicals differently. In the spirit of precision medicine I would be cusious what the differences are in patients that cause faster elimination and if increasing dosing intervals would provide a more consistent and elevated blood concentration needed for positive effect.
Not anything to work out right now. Let's see if the drug works first on those that maintain higher concentrations.
Looks like it needs to be taken like tylenol, every 4-6 hours...
Wow, looks like I was late to the party. Page came up in older posts.
Haven't had a chance to look into any of this lately... Was the PR about dose or blood concentration; two different things and part of what genomic study was to help with, absorption.
Small subset of the trial, how do those qualifiers relate to the market? How many alzheimers patients are represented by these factors?
I'm up a lot, but this is trying my patience. I've been considering reducing my share and investing elsewhere. Might dig into utilities more. There is some life here now, maybe the momentum will keep going.
Well, that's better than my 50k shares.
Nope. Anavex needs investors. 2 years wont get to profit.
They do need to substantiate the science, I agree, but they also need money. I have been hearing the partner bit for years... yawn.
You're right, it isn't magic and money does not appear out of thin air. Marketing and advertising is different than keeping investors informed. Maybe tomorrow will be a positive enlightenment. Who knows.
Nope. Been here quite a while. Perception matters when dilution reduces my share in the company more than it needs to. It also matters how you get from point A to point B, not just that you get to point B.
Perception matters. It does not substantiate science, but it does increase investor confidence that the organization and operations are heading the right direction. Most investors don't like substantial unknowns and to be told milestones that don't come to fruition without explanation. Especially when dillution is needed to advance operations.
Right... and that is not investors...
NO, too many other places to make money. Unless you have blinders on.
Agreed, they need to substantiate the science. Dilution in the mean time with little information to interest investors about the current operations hurts shareholders. As an investor I like to be informed about progress. I'm glad we are getting the trials started. I imagine most of the silence comes from the predestined hit pieces from AF. They were so well scripted.
This is a high risk investment that has performed poorly over the last bit. Investors are obviously "bored" or the sharepoint would not have continued to decline. I think we have a decent shot at a winner with the three significant trials in the works. The CEO or whomever secured outside funding for the trial deserves thanks. Investors need to continue to hear about progress and plans.
Who said 5 min.? I wonder if Anavex has started dosing patients, or if enrollment is going well? Anavex PRed about conducting alzheimers trials in "North America", what is the status? Ah, doesn't matter, keep the faith and we'll find out later after the turd is unwrapped. No sniffing.
Yes, but it is wrapped in shiny paper. That shiny paper can add value. Eventually people discover that they still have a turd, and that's when they try to sell the paper.
Sometimes selling the paper fills the gap until they can unwrap and find a gem. So what is a companies responsibility to shareholders, tell the truth and make a conscious effort to improve shareholder value through key performance metrics; not selling a shiny turd. Sell the shiny paper with a gem inside.
In other words, PR what you know. Keeping the gem wrapped up in a brown paper bag makes people think you are going to leave a turd on someone's door step.
What does this have to do with Anavex?
Thanks Kevin.