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.
Time to complete the reload from now till EOD... Thanks!
Is AF or other cabal mouthpieces attacking it? If so, then beware of manipulative shenanigans.
"Alternate facts?" LOL You're quite delusional.
A trial that has met all endpoints, where patients have functionally IMPROVED, are the truthful facts... all else is FUD spin.
My convictions have never wavered... much like your FUDing.
Short covering happens in stages. But you know that.
Can always count on manipulation executing a slow retrace before the next round of short covering
... it's getting close to my target.
Thanks, James; we'll check it out.
If it was from a poster with a different last name it might not seem as fishy.
Admitting you work for the manipulators would likely get a 'Like' from most here.
Appears a big cover just took place... 15k on the ask that got bought up.
Most here are certainly right about your non-stop spun-up FUDing and your complicities of collusive manipulation.
Doubtful... it keeps getting bought up (short covering) in anticipation of news coming.
...and the spun-up FUD narrative continues.
Why aren't the manipulators dropping it below 8.70?
One hellofa spin there, Doc, to reiterate the concocted narrative.
You show up here this morning to try and convince investors to sell. A sad job it is.
Don't associate the good science and trial results with the collusive manipulation.... by your handlers.
Written by the biggest hustle and con here....
He was likely a HS biology student at one time, an insecure one at that.
You could be missing a key difference in those studies. The MABs were successful in mitigating A-beta in mouse studies... and that translated to human studies. Unfortunately, removing A-beta doesn't lead to an effective therapy... i.e. a flawed thesis.
Conversely, SR1 has been researched fairly extensively to be an effective target for addressing AD and other CNS disorders. Therefore, demonstrating effectiveness in murine models has a good probability of translating to human studies for the reasons falconer provided... and for 2-73 it will soon be proven.
Well, it's panning out quite nicely for 2-73, eight years after initial murine trials. I highly expect 3-71 will have similar results and clinical success.
Some posters just like to throw cold FUD water on any positive developments... and act like they are experts, while putting down others who are more educated and experienced. It's rather comical... and an indication of childish insecurities.
Well done, falconer!
While we wait for Missling's surprise news... here's a link to a rather comprehensive and insightful interview on Alzheimer's. Enjoy...
So, confirmed... you don't like to hear the truth.
You're here for other reasons. Got it.
Do you really think that the blarcamesine ORs were endpoint measures? I think you're missing the boat if you do.
You can't handle the truth? LOL
Thanks for confirming that SAVA's is a P2, not a P3... long way to go...
Only FUDsters make such concocted issues.
You'll have to ask Anavex, FUDster. There's a lot of data from the past that are now removed. It doesn't mean they're no longer valid. That's just plainly stupid FUD to assume so.
The data presented was on which they continue to make their claim that ALL ENDPOINTS WERE MET!
Only a FUDster would say it doesn't apply anymore. So typical of you.
You're wrong again... FUDster. This has been posted many times...
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
More fake FUD!
replaces baseline to EOT mean with ORs.
I'm surprised frrol didn't provide that information, when he claimed it was unusual for a trial to compute OR for an AD trial.
For donepezil, it must've been that little bit of S1R activation that caused it, huh?
Yes, and 63 is 3x 21, which supports the 1.84 OR.
...in other words, it's well over your head. Got it.
I believe they provided amply evidence of a very successful AD trial, with the remaining details to come in a peer-reviewed journal this year. Anavex apparently feels it's unnecessary to hold retail investors' hands through the process. And knowing the FUDsters, no amount of positive evidence will keep them (and you) from twisting and concocting more fake narratives.
...so says the FUDster's sidekick.
I did in the edit...
Leave it to a FUDster to downplay a pivotal AD trial that met all endpoints, where patients functionally IMPROVED.
According to our esteemed MB Doc, who you admire, there were a calculated 63 treated patients who were among the super responders. I find that astonishingly positive... in fact, super responders are unheard of in AD P3 trials, until now, so any number of them would be astonishing.
I don't believe you're using the equation correctly...
Your estimates of 63/280 (22.5%) versus 21/154 (13.6%) would produce an OR under that formula of 22.5/13.6 = 1.65 instead.
Wrong. Co. A offers the better result with the same OR, but with a HIGHER improvement threshold.
It's why Anavex chose improvement thresholds and not just baseline. There's a bit more "noise" around baseline during a short 48-wk trial.
The reason that you've never seen Odds Ratios used on previous AD trials is because no other P3 trial had super responders. Would look rather silly to report an Odds Ratio of not improving or declining a little less compared to placebo.
Anavex used it to highlight the super responders, at identified IMPROVEMENT thresholds... and the FUDsters spin it negatively.