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.
Please. Enough with the hype. This is just a Phase 2a, Part a trial. It is early. This trial ONLY seeks to find out if the drug is safe in elderly people with AD and also to try to find the max safe effective dosage. 32 patients were given different dosages of the drug, not the optimal dose, for only 24 days! All this trial is going for is trying to find the optimal dosage and safety in AD patients!!! Got it? Judge efficacy in Phase 3 when the optimal dose is given to lots of patients for more than just 24 days.
Abstract's results are CLEARLY positive! Duh. Below is the abstract released early at the CTAD conference for Avanex 2-73 with results of its preliminary Phase 2 performance. The word "average" in the abstract, I think, disappointed some stupid investors and they sold, but that word, I believe, just refers to the average score of all 32 patients, not that the results were only an average or middling improvement. But even if my interpretation of the wording in the abstract is wrong, which it isn't, and the results seen were only an "average improvement", that is still improvement!!! The hard data given during the presentation will tell us how much the improvement actually was. At this point we don't have any numbers.
Idiot Martin Shkrelli doesn't even know if 2-73 is an agonist or antagonist. That proves he does't know what he's talking about, or is outright lying and market manipulating, I think the former is the case. Apparently, he has done NO research on Avanex and then he says it is trash. The only thing he's basing his opinion on is the abstract apparently, WHICH HE MISINTERPRETED!! Can he be that stupid or is he manipulating the stock?
http://www.ctad-alzheimer.com/sites/ctad.prod/files/files/CTAD%20Anavex%20Abstract%20confidential%20final%20Nov%202015.pdf
So much UNFOUNDED fear based on NOTHING substantial. Idiots believing all the BS spewed in the media by market manipulators.
Unbelievable. So NOBODY here knew that abstracts at major conferences such as this are revealed THE DAY the conference begins and not after the actual presentation? Is this unusual that an abstract would be on a poster the very first day of the conference before the presenation actually happens?
Shorting in after hours yesterday worked for em so I guess they're going for it again tonight. A potentially dangerous game
Who told you that piece of BS? Warren Buffet thinks the complete opposite. If you believe in the potential of stock based on fundamentals, you hold long. Only a fool would get out of this stock now. You obviously haven't researched the science behind Avanex's pipeline of drugs and why they are revolutionary. Read the studies on 2-73 and other sigma agonists, then post on here.
Bought at $13.40 at the red hammer candle, wasn't expecting the secondary dip to take her all the way down to $12.40. So difficult to predict where the bottom will be on these raids. If the shorts have to 'cover', why aren't they buying back the stock in droves yet?
Where are the bear raids of substance and short attacks we've been slammed with in the past? The dips are just so anemic.
I know MacFarlane will be the presentor. But who contacted CTAD to request the late breaking slot? Anavex or MacFarlane? Supposedly Missling said he does know the data that will be presented.
Just full results of Part A of Phase II and some prelimary data on Part B of Phase II. So author probably wants complete data for Phase II which won't be til next year
But if we are supposed to trust that transgenic mice are a reliable stand-in for humans when it comes to sigma 1 agonists and AD, by that logic, shouldn't we then be able to trust that they are reliable stand-ins for any drug that is intended to target some human cellular process? But does the data back that up? We know that there are other sigma 1 agonists that have been developed. Not exactly the same molecule as 2-73, but drugs that target sigma 1 nonetheless. Was there testing of those on transgenic mice in preclinical studies and how well did those results stack up against what was seen in human trials? These are the questions we should be asking.
Transgenic mice. These are what researchers first tested 2-73, and other drugs in the AVXL pipline, on. But what are they and how closely do they resemble humans with AD, epilepsy and Parkinson's? Here's the definition of transgenic: an organism that contains genetic material into which DNA from an unrelated organism has been artificially introduced. Sounds like GMO's basically. So I take it they took the gene(s) that code for AD in humans and stuck that in mice DNA, so mice would express AD in their phenotype? Anybody know how reliable transgenic animal models are at predicted how a drug will perform in humans? The 200+ failed AD drugs that came before 2-73, were they tested on transgenic mice? If so, did they perform well in the transgenic mice, but then failed for some reason when they were tested any humans?
I am of the impression that Missling would very much prefer for Anavex to remain as independent as possible and grow, not sell out to BP. He is still a fairly young guy. I think he wants to do things with his company, make ground breaking discoveries, make history, make a name for himself and Anavex, and make a ton of $ in the process. As CEO, he has the control and power to do that. Would he prefer to partner up to get the financing for trials or rely on LPC? I'm not sure. I want Anavex to be as independent as possible, but maybe taking on a partner here would be actually preferable to selling millions of shares to LPC. Ideally, I'd like to see great results Nov 7 and Anavex wouldn't need a partner or LPC $
Oh yes, of course I kow they reported positive results in 10 of 12 humans. I've read those studies. But, that was an extremely small sample size.
Of mice & men. How much stock, no pun intended, do you put in the preclinical trials using mice as a model for humans with ad? I've heard it said, "We've cured cancer and every disease known to man in mice." But then the drug is tested in humans and the results are usually disappointing. Why is this? I know 2-73 was given to mice. Now, I don't think those mice were elderly mice that had developed ad. So, I'm not sure how they simulated ad in those mice and how close that simulation was to the actual disease in humans. Sure the drug worked nicely in the simulated version of ad in mice, but how well will it work in the real disease in humans? I "think" mice have neurons and sigma and muscarinic receptors that function the same as in humans. I never hear the preclinical trials brought up, just Phase 2a. I'm gonna dig into the lit on the mouse studies, see how they assessed improvement and what biomarkers they used
These daily sell offs. It seems if there's a run up of about $!, then there comes the inevitable lil bear raid that typically has been running for about -$0.6 before it bottoms out. And then we wind up with a daily gain of maybe 4%, which I'll take. My question is, how do the traders know when they sell that the drop is gonna continue? Do they figure the total drop will be around $.6 after a $1 gain? Are the sell offs coordinated, like are they all are on headsets communicating with each other? I'm assuming if there is good news Nov 7 and there is big $ and funds buying into this stock, that there will be less volatility and the annoying daily mini bear raids?
We all wish the sample size was 500 from last July, not 12, but then the share price right now wouldn't be only $9.
Do you think the initial title of the presentation including the word "Improvement" was intentional to show the data's hand a little bit? Not sure why MacFarlane would do that tho, IF he was the one that came up with the title. He's directed a dozen trials of ad drugs before so you'd think he'd know that they can't hint at results before the actual conference. Maybe he or anavex did it knowing CTAD would change it but they wanted to 'show their hand' to investors, potential partners, funds, the media, etc. I get why Anavex might want to do that, but why would MacFarlane? He's not supposed to get involved with that side of things. He's supposed to be independent and objective.
i concur. Their IR firm sucks! All they do is refer you to the Anavex website. IDK, maybe they're under instructions not to reveal anything. Otherwise, they seem like they haven't done any DD on their client or been in close contact with Anavex.
Good Reddit Article. The back n forth after btw the author and his detractors was good too. Not sure whom to believe, but I'm leaning towards Avanex being a winner.
Last time I posted was about P300 latency. A very valid question to which I got reassuring answers. Ward made no mention of P300 latencies that I'm aware of. He commented little on the science behind 2-73, except to say he was concerned about the small number of patients (n=12) reported on back on 7/22.
I'm a new to the game of investing in individual stocks and have questions, so don't judge me as if I've been doing this for years.
LPC accused of illegal shorting here http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/specific_search/lincoln%20park%20capital
Francois Parenteau has tweeted recently - "To the fools buying $AVXLD , don't you realize the stock is being manipulated to an unsustainable level for an upcoming dilutive financing?", "$AVXLD CEO might be overly promotional but he's no fool. Highly dilutive stock offering, well below market price, is imminent.", "$AVXLD deal with Lincoln Park Financial is a classic case of death spiral financing. We remain bearish.", and "$AVXLD financing with Lincoln Park Capital. Check their credentials at http://www.ripoffreport.com"
Any credence to his tweets?
Correction, patent approved for Anavex 2-73, not Anavex PLus
I would think Wednesday will be a catalyst. I expect more investment leading up to Nov 7 from Wed on. And the patent being approved for Anavex Plus is another catalyst.
I'm assuming, looking at the waveform, that latency is the time (ms) it takes for the wave to reach peak amplitude after stimulus. Just eyeballing the graph, it looks like the latencies of the baseline and 36 day waves are almost identical, so no change in latency between those two waves, which is probably why latencies weren't even mentioned. You know if there was a noticeable difference, they surely would have mentioned it. Although, the latencies of the baseline and 36 day waves aren't that much greater than that of the normal wave. So maybe that is also why they're hyping amplitude, b/c there is such a clear difference between a normal brain and one with mild-mod alzheimer's, whereas with latency, not so much.
I don't comprehend this line of reasoning. If what you say is correct, why'd the study even bother to record amplitudes? And, if a positive change in amplitude does show improvement in cognition in patients with alzheimer's, as Anavex contends, why didn't they use the more reliable ERP measure, which is latency?
I think it was a vulnerable time for the shorts and piggy backing profit takers to attack. No positive news or PR coming out for ages, negative hit pieces by Street Sweeper and Ward and than an uptick in bashing last week to foment a dip. The dip wasn't based on anything meaningful like bad news or bad data. I think all of biotech was down last week too.
Coordinated bear raid? The drop we saw last Thursday and Friday wasn't based off any real news or data. What precipated it was first the weak Ward SA article and then an onslaught of bashers posts leading up to the dip and during it. Since yesterday mid day, zilch bashing. 50% of that dip was due to shorts. They then had to cover and hence the inevitable rebound. It is almost like an uptick in bashing, devoid of any legit negative news, is a cue that a short sell off is about to ensue.
Jim Cramer confesses to doing it here. Shocking and revealing video admissions
The Phase 2 study has just been using Neuronetrix's hardware and software to record and interpret EEG's and ERP's (P300 amplitudes).
Yes, Daniel Ward, in his SA piece, went on and on trashing the company's CEO. He failed to mention, undoubtedly on purpose, that he was speaking of a former Anavex CEO, not the current CEO. I don't think he ever mentioned Christopher Missling, the current CEO. Is Ward qualified to question the science of the Anavex study design? No, to my knowledge he's a 24 year old with a degree in lib arts, probably creative writing, with zilch on his resume to date other than writing hit pieces for SA.