Who are the weak hands that are selling in the $4.90's. Have some cajones, at least, and ask for 5 BUCKS!

SMH ... don't they know Anavex is increasing in SP!!

Thanks, John.

Hosai, thanks for the FB info.

Does it state that he is still CMO @ Anavex?

TIA

In NY Times this AM:

DFRAI, thanks for the article though far above my understanding.

Is Nature setting up its readers for the Anavex peer review article with this Sigma 1 piece (and others it has printed)?

Time will tell.

See the 8-K filed with SEC.

Thanks, Bar.
Here is the web site's listing of open positions. It appears to be the same list from a year ago plus, though a few positions have been filled.

You would think someone would be assigned to keep this current!! Pathetic!!

https://www.anavex.com/job-opportunities

Current Job Openings
Biostatistics Associate Director/Director/Senior Director
Clinical Data Associate
Clinical Development & Medical Evidence, Senior/Exective Director
Clinical Development, Director/Senior Director/Executive Director
Clinical Operations, Sr. Director/Director/ Associate Director
Clinical Trial Operations, Senior Clinical Trial Associate/Clinical Trial Associate
Data Programmer
Global Pharmacovigilence, Senior/Executive Director
Head of Research & Development
Quality Assurance, Associate Director or Senior Manager
SAS Programmer

Whatever! I think my point has been made.

Sorry, chrismiss, we need more info and details, as in a link or two.

TIA

george, if it didn't, why isn't 2-73 Plus the drug in trial? The 2-73 Plus/2-73+DPZ did not help those taking it in the P2a trial. The only participants that improved were those on 2-73 only.

P.S. Per you:

Excuse my language, but you know damn well that 2-73 + DPZ, a/k/a 2-73 Plus, does NO good for the patient. DPZ overwhelms 2-73 such that 2-73 has no impact . We have known this for many years.

Nice try at obfuscation, Investor ... but why should we think you have changed and would want 2-73 to be successful!

Investor, from an earlier post regarding P2b/3 AD trial, it was noted that the placebo is DPZ. So, we will learn "soon" how 2-73 vs. DPZ fight turns out.

I think we both want to see a 2-73 "KO!"

That's me! ✋️

EU approves Sanofi's Dupixent for 'smoker's lungs'

Reading the first line:

Early on, Merck, Lundbeck and Takeda were willing to join Anavex in the Consortium as each perceive some value in 2-73..

Those three companies (and others in the Consortium) will be rewarded for their foresight in the long run.

Wolf, I read this AM and did not see any "p" values. That is why I was not surprised ANVS was down early. Non-event, it seemed.

WS and MM's must have pushed it for new financing coming.

Did you see a "p" value?

mrp, he is similar to your boy, HH, and Aisen ... tied strongly to the amyloid concept. He probably thought he s/h/b the lead person on SAB and left in a huff. Good riddance.

When did Dr. Cummings leave the SAB?

My apologies if discussed before as I missed it.

Tred, it took only 1 or 2 placebo (or dosed) caretakers to fudge the numbers for a few $$$,$$$ to sink the "p" number as they knew their charge(s) would receive blarcamesine in the OLE for as long as they want once the trial was over ... Australia AD trial being the forerunner.

Unless, Dr. M knows the TGA will wait on the fda and/or EMA to decide ... Then, why waste the effort!

Great find, Guzzi! Super article.

Nice that he noted what the placebo group was given ... Donepezil (though he spelled it wrong).

Hosai, FYI - no change in the job openings on the Anavex web site for the last 6+ months, even though some positions have been filled.

Nice that TGD is making the pitch!

... shown most remarkably in the placebo group, who are now on blarcamesine.

Good stuff, pete. Might led to the basket approach on rare diseases with support from Rett data.

So, what happens in a trial that is 2:1 (dosed/placebo) at the beginning and due to dropouts, the final numbers yield a 3+:1 ratio. Aren't there biases that have entered into the trial?

Thanks, abe, but I take issue with this statement:

Similarly, does george's report on Trif* show that Trif* was not stat sig in the OLE data? Does this draw into question the original date?

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174663492

So, Steady, if the placebo OLE group report an improvement from the data during the study (p<.05), does that provide any justification that the Excellence placebo group was skewed and that blarcamesine was stat sig?

williams, all the AD stocks are up: SAVA, ANVS, BIIB, and LLY as well as XBI.

Just so we get it correct, pogue. 🙂

george, did they use the same placebo formula as Anavex did? ;)

Hoskuld, not a word. I'm calling today to ask if Rett timeline will be include in Dr. M's presentation tomorrow.

From Q1 PR:
Another event at the end of July ... will Dr. Randy be there?

sage, his is bragging ... mine is Wishing.

nidan, please cut the Dr. Peter Senge remarks. You don't need quoting him for years and its relevance is ... IRRELEVANY!!

Peace,
John

I called and LM for Clint as to where was the PR after DM's comments about Rett's new trail that would be announced at Rett conference last week.

No reply.

Would you please stop the "2015" every time you post?

NO ONE CARES ... given your persistence, it is almost seems that you are a subtle negative poster.

If it were important, my posts would have "2009" included as when we invested!

ANAVEX NOW ... RIGHT NOW ... MONO-STYLE ... for LIFE ... and for ALL AGES!!!

P.S. Notice, I don't include "2009" within my tag line.