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.
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.
LOL... you obviously don't know what "FUD" means, even though you spew it daily. Go ask Mikey for help.
Why don't you buy shares of SAVA and ANVS so you can't copy and past your silly rants over there, too.
It's quite possible we could see Rett Excellence TLR this month and the peer-reviewed journal detailing AD & PDD data published during CTAD. It would be well played if that's the plan.
Though, The Rett TLR could also come after the journal... not much difference.
Another FUDster coming to the defense of his fellow cabal soldiers.
https://www.griproom.com/fun/how-to-spot-fake-comments-on-stock-boards
I stand by the facts and truth. All else, including your nonsense, is just FUD noise.
Here, again, are the facts of a 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
Manipulation before news...
What a joke you are... spewing nothing but complete FUD BS.
You obviously are well versed in collusive manipulation... and just need to fess up, FUDster.
Seems you either need a lesson in collusive manipulation... or just fess up.
I should probably cancel my .70 ask.
...meaning they exploit the FTD loopholes.
If shares had IDs or blockchain to validate them... and require all shorted shares to be delivered. But that ain't happening.
Yeah... the undeniable fact that you're a cabal soldier with loads of FUD ammo.
That's the problem... fraudulent phantom shares created by illegal naked shorting don't have to cover; they don't exist.
Nothing personal, but hope you have to chase.
Full disclosure... I've been "spoofing" with sell orders 5c and 10c higher, then cancel them when the price gets close. Am I in trouble?
LOL, nice try.
It's called "confirmation bias" and it's a real thing.
But, hey, I'm as hopeful as the next guy!
Agreed... Otherwise, NWBO would've requested the new 30-day review, in its PR, rather than 150.
If they intend to submit by Sept 25th, seems they would've said 25-40 days, in their PR, instead of 30-45 days, which 30 days comes slightly after the deadline.
Therefore, both NWBO and MHRA knows the date of submission. It would be silly if they didn't make the September 25th deadline.
That was entertaining... you venturing into the lion's den ill informed and getting chewed up and spit out... Ouch!
It's quite obvious 'your' not.
Is that the best FUD line your handlers can provide?
It was a no-brainer to reload, at .50 and .45, all the shares previously sold at around .75.
The difference being, most have to anticipate the expected manipulation, since we don't have access to the "script" like you do.