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.
You might want to think again...
I do not believe in the theory of a cabal, though I do acknowledge there are a few rogue actors who wish to see Anavex ruined
Good reminder, Gator.
Even Biochecker has thrown in the towel on his FUD attacks. He's vanished and apparently gone elsewhere to start anew.
We'll see more of the lamesters disappear as we get closer to approval.
Hey FUDster, who are you trying to fool?
I guess you haven't noticed AVXL's crappy stock price. Why do you think that is?
Good thought process, Blar... there are likely many discussions in the works...
My personal take is we are in negotiations which has made the company clam up as to what the strategy is. I think we are very close to knowing a lot more. No company goes this quiet for no reason. We hit all end points for every trial we ever ran. Something big is happening, but what?
Only cabal soldiers come to the defense of their kind. I'm sure he appreciates you stepping in.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4484512-stock-market-manipulation
Hey Silly... it's a network. But you not only know this, but likely very intimate.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4484512-stock-market-manipulation
Says the FUDster who contributes zilch...
Likely more than you're paid.
Takes as much luck as shooting fish in a barrel.
I have a job to do, also... mine is to call out the paid cabal soldiers / FUDsters. You've been identified...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4484512-stock-market-manipulation
https://www.griproom.com/fun/how-to-spot-fake-comments-on-stock-boards
It's one thing to be cautious or even skeptical; it's another to purposely concoct baseless negative inferences about it.
That's a poster with a job to do.
It's clear to us that you'd rather not believe the company and, instead, concoct your own FUD negative narratives around it... consistent with your job description.
No, just the FUDsters.
Most have accepted the company's statement, with supporting data, that ALL ENDPOINTS WERE MET.
The FUD club is missing you!
But we get it... you have nothing of value to contribute.
He's not, but you certainly are.
...and lives in his mom's basement.
Just to give FUDsters something to stew about.
We're convinced you are a paid cabal soldier who adds no value to the board... only FUD nonsense.
FUDsters keep ignoring the mean scores... why would that be?
• ANAVEX®2-73 treatment slowed cognitive decline by 45% compared to placebo at 48 weeks
• Mean difference in ADAS-Cog score change of -1.85 points
• Compared to placebo, ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine) reduced clinical decline of cognition and function by 27% with mean score difference of -0.42 points (p=0.040) as measured by CDR-SB
And as we know, the P2b/3 ORs were additional information and not a change in endpoint determination.
It's certainly a binary outcome when you identify which patients were above threshold vs those below.
They've obviously been instructed to ratchet up the FUD narrative, as time is running out for them... and the collusive short position needs to cover.
Here's some light reading for you... although, I'm sure you already understand it and living the life...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4484512-stock-market-manipulation
https://www.griproom.com/fun/how-to-spot-fake-comments-on-stock-boards
Biggest laugh of the day so far... keep'em coming!
Kund's analysis has been spot on accurate and correct as can be for years now. Doc shows an attention to detail, a sophisticated and interested mind who follows up, unlike this here company.
To claim that the use of Odds Ratios was "inappropriate" for the AD P2b/3 trial is another false and spun up piece of FUD from you.
The different purposes of a clinical trial and the appropriate use of Odds Ratios is key to appreciate why biotech investors and the market is currently not valuing $AVXL higher.
You make it rather difficult when your arguments are mostly baseless and spun up false inferences.
If you really believe the company is lying or hiding something, then you have bigger problems than your investment.
The mean scores weren't "retracted". They were presented and remain as valid P2b/3 data, regardless if the presentations have since been removed. If they were incorrect, the company would be obligated to correct them. They weren't, thus they remain as presented.
Most of the past presentations from various venues are no longer available.
So, go blow your FUD elsewhere.
Question is, will you and the other cabal soldiers be on the list of defendants?
This whole thing is going to end up lawsuits
More baseless nonsensical FUD from you...
Odds Ratios presented as a substitute for the trial population mean performance is exactly the issue. As secondary analysis/information Odds Ratios with n would tell a meaningful story. Anavex did not have the time to perform and present the full and hopeful secondary analysis at CTAD 2022.
Hey, I only call FUD posts FUD, which is 100% of your posts and the rest of the identified cabal soldiers.
Collusive SP manipulation, by your HF handlers, will only last so long until approvals are granted in both stocks.
After that, you and the rest of your ilk will be long gone... and the SPs will continue to climb under real market dynamics.
There's a 90% chance that the current AD OLE will serve as the confirmatory trial, where an approval pathway has been established. Since Missling stated it, then it likely has already been discussed with the FDA.
Baseless nonsense...
Any thoughts as to why Anavex is so obsessed with using responder/OR as endpoint measures
FUDsters working hard to fabricate a scenario where they can attack the Rett TLD as not measuring up, regardless of how good the results are.
People, don't be fooled by this FUD scripting.
Complete FUD nonsense...
Meeting those OR endpoints didn't mean anything,
The way our AD trial would not lead to AA is firstly inadequate efficacy or biomarker support. If good but not great, our relatively small n will likely then be an issue for regulators.
Did you reveal to Andrew that you're a cabal soldier who routinely posts FUD, and that he should be very careful how he responds, because all responses will be twisted into a misleading and concocted narrative?
I too wrote just wrote to Andrew at Barwicki with these questions. If I get an answer I’ll post it here.
Pure nonsensical FUD! It's all you ever contribute.
Is this your official FUD narrative, that ignores all data presented to date?
We don't have enough data to complete and verify the interpretation, but it does not appear to mean sufficiently met per protocol endpoint outcome measures for traditional approval as a pivotal registration trial.
Ans: because he is one also.
Here is your FUD conspiracy...
substitute OR for comparison of means in this context