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.
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
I lean on facts and truth. You obviously lean on nonsense FUD.
I only insult FUDsters. Why do you feel insulted?
This statement is most incorrect and extremely misguided...
The 30mg and below group was used as placebo in p2a publication comparing to 50mg efficacy, showing how little the company thinks about 30mg efficacy.
FUDsters continue to ignore the successful data of the AD P2b/3 trial, and create their own concocted FUD.
Here, again, are the facts of the successful AD trial...
ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine) Meets Co-Primary and Key Secondary Endpoints for Patients with Early Alzheimer’s Disease
• Odds Ratio of ADAS-Cog meaningful improvement in cognition at threshold of -0.5 points or less (90% CI) 1.839 (1.17, 2.94) P = 0.015
• Odds Ratio of ADCS-ADL meaningful improvement in function at threshold of +3.5 points or higher (90% CI) 2.67 (1.17, 6.13) P = 0.0255
• 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
Funny how FUDsters criticize the use of valid OR calculations, while ignoring the mean scores provided.
They ignore and/or twist the positive data provided and create their own set of "FUD statistics".
... and claim to be investors.
I find it hilarious that posters are discussing a possibility that will NOT happen: i.e. no further updates this year. SMH
Per Anavex: You can expect Rett Excellence results in H2.
And I believe there will also be a peer-reviewed journal article published on AD & PDD before YE.
Last year, Missling stated that AD P2b/3 TLD would be presented by EOY... and he delivered.
n's are typically not provided in an O.R. calculation, because it's a ratio of Odds.
If the n's weren't significant then there wouldn't be any O.Rs calculated, as they would be meaningless.
I think Anavex is being very careful with its wording, until all the data are revealed in a peer-reviewed journal.
If you know anything at all about pre-revenue biotech stock prices... they are 100% controlled by collusive manipulation. Seems you're falling for the repeated FUD narratives.
well aware of the company credibility and stock price damage due to a delay
More baseless claims and flawed inferences... your forte.
But not for a large enough n to make the ADL per protocol outcome measure of baseline to EOT mean score vs placebo statistically significant.
LOL. How does a trial "sort of" meet endpoints?
"sort-of" met endpoints
First: ALL ENDPOINTS WERE MET. Two of the three mean score comparisons were provided.
Second: Odds Ratios were used to highlight the Super Responders, both Cog and ADL.
With >4x of treated patients, over placebo, exceeding the ADL IMPROVEMENT threshold of +3.5, then it's rather apparent that the mean score comparisons were favorable.
Don't let the FUDsters distract from your rational thought process.
It's rather obvious, Anavex selected an IMPROVEMENT threshold to identify the SUPER RESPONDERS.
Anavex had to introduce a threshold to apply OR.
There's no hope for you... SMH
LOL! FUDsters hard at work...
When no other AD P3 trial has produced Super Responders, where patients functionally improved, then you're likely not to find any previous trials using O.R. calculations.
It's not that difficult to understand, if you don't always try to spin a negative narrative.
FUDsters repeating the tired old concocted narratives; it's what they are paid to do...
Missling has had his share of screw-ups. Things like the long-unnamed disease, endpoint fumbles, incomplete TLRs, FX delay, etc are unfortunate and avoidable.
Baseless nonsense as usual! Nell was first a scientist before doing modeling on the side.
Is FUDing your fulltime job or do you just do it on the side?
I'm expecting Missling to deliver earlier than end of year. It didn't take all that long to deliver AD TLR in time for CTAD last year, so I expect Rett TLR will be quicker.
Also, 9-10 months is enough time to have a journal ready, certainly by EOY.
It's also possible that both Rett and AD NDAs could be ready to submit by EOY.
If that happens, then Rett approval comes by mid next year, with AD approval soon thereafter.