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.
Got Mine
Several Weeks ago; voted exactly as could be expected.
Depends; Not Much
Whether Anavex 2-73 might disable specific neurotoxins, or subsequently restore nerve function depends on just how the neurotoxin worked its damage.
Most bind to or disable essential enzymes. With that, normal neuron chemical processes are interrupted; the nerve no longer functions and associated, controlled organs or systems are disrupted.
I'm not aware of neurotoxins that dissemble the mitochondrion/endoplasmic reticulum connection. Anavex 2-73 would be able to prevent that, or restore the connection, perhaps.
Would not be surprised if some post-docs have done some quiet, in-house testing of this on lab murines. Not the kind of thing, however, that should be in the public domain.
My IMEXF Due Diligence
First, none of the following is a pump or bash of Imagin Medical Inc. None of it is provided with the intention of promoting or inhibiting anyone’s taking of a position of IMEXF shares. Merely, it’s how I’ve weighed my moderate ownership of a few IMEXF equities.
Those anticipating a buy or sell of IMEXF shares are implored to do their own due diligence.
1. Young, Risky. Imagin is a young, no-revenues biotech start-up. As such, it has investment risks not associated with firms with known revenues, products, services, etc. It is not a place for funds that can’t be lost. It is a penny stock. Risky, with no guaranteed future. Therefore, I’ve used only discretionary funds for my small position. I can afford to lose the entire investment.
2. A Promising Technology. Imagin has a demonstrated, complete new bladder lesion detection technology that, if FDA-approved, will markedly improve bladder cancer detection and treatment. The details will not be laid out here. But using proprietary digital image analysis technology, it markedly increases the detection of bladder cancer lesions, but much faster, with more precision than existing endoscopes. For detailed explanations of the imagery analysis improvements, read cogent info on the company’s website. No doubt, it works better and faster than any existing machinery.
Once approved, Imagin bladder lesion detection machinery will become the Standard of Care. Urologists failing to use Imagin imagery, failing to find cancerous lesions with conventional, existing endoscopic procedures, will be open to mal-practice suits. Physician liability insurance companies will quickly mandate the use of Imagin technology.
3. FDA Approval Required. But before the first Imagin endoscope can be sold for clinical use, the machinery and its use procedures must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Now, for new drugs, especially those treating cancers, this can be a daunting, difficult task. Two or three double-blind clinical trials must be conducted, monitored by the FDA for drug tolerability, safety, and efficacy. The vast majority of trial drugs fail these thresholds and do not get approved.
But Imagin is not attempting to gain approval for a new drug, of potentially disqualifying treatment outcomes. Imagin is seeking approval for new, very safe endoscopic hardware; physically identical to existing, approved endoscopes. The real deal with it is not the lenses, optics, or illumination inside the bladder. It’s external, in the digital processing of the captured imagery. Therefore, unlike new drugs, Imagin hardware and technology have virtually no prospect of causing unanticipated, negating adverse events — no side effects.
Consequently, I anticipate FDA approval of the Imagin devices, with ample sales to urology clinics to follow.
4. Moderate Share Count. But, if, like many penny stocks, Imagin had several hundred million outstanding shares, even with approval and sales, share price returns would be tiny or moderate; spread out over hundreds of millions of shares. For me, penny stocks with massive share counts are not worth considering. Too much share value dilution from the starting gate.
But Imagin has about 84 million outstanding shares. Corporate revenues spread among them, in time, might be very significant.
5. Time to Market. Until FDA approval is gained, the Imagin story is just that, a story. How long, then, and by what means, shall sales revenues come to the company?
First, and foremost, final clinical trials of the machinery are being conducted, monitored by and for FDA approval. When these trials are completed, probably within the year, clinical results will allow FDA approval.
But, that, alone will bring no revenues to the company. Somehow, Imagin machinery must next be placed in urology clinics across the country. How that will happen is unknown. Two possibilities. Imagin will keep the technology in house and, somehow, manufacture and sell it itself.
Or, after FDA approval, the company can auction off rights to the machinery, taking outright rents or complete sales revenues. Some other company may be the actual manufacturer and seller of the technology. Imagin, and its shareholders, will take only license fees, etc.
I’m not certain which option would be most favorable to me, an IMEXF shareholder. Either way, I see the IMEXF share price appreciating by several factors beyond the present 25-cent range. I’m in at around 33-cents. At an eventual $2 share price (I think it will be much higher), I will have a 6x return on my small investment.
The Science Is Good, The Company Will Be
I continue to hold my moderate AVXL position; won’t be selling any of it any time soon. Should Anavex tank (won’t happen, too many solid, diverse assets), I’d just write off the loss. I’m no fool. Have invested only what I can afford to lose.
But fully expect Anavex Life Sciences Corp to be a giant success, for its management (which holds a lot of shares and warrants), for health insurance companies, for retail and institutional owners, and for patients. I still hold that Anavex technologies will have a greater, more positive effect on 21st century medicine than antibiotics did in the 20th century.
Presently, those with moderate understandings and perspectives of Anavex see only a potential for Rett, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s treatments — and for many, very reduced, if at all.
Watch. The Rett results will affirm Anavex sigma-1 receptor agonist efficacy, clearly indicating that restoration of neuron homeostasis will uniquely occur in any number of other central nervous system diseases, too.
But the Anavex story will be much larger; primarily because of prophylactic applications, for both CNS conditions but many others yet to be discovered in humans (already known in lab murines, yet to be announced — lawyers prevent such corporate presentations).
I won’t go into all of that again. Those who’ve read my discussions either agree, or continue with their own perspectives, absent any real understanding of cytological processes.
Well enough. I no longer have anything to contribute to IHub discussions of Anavex Life Sciences Corp. Nothing new or useful has appeared here in the last many weeks. Fact is, none of the clinical trials have started, for whatever reasons. Until they do, and until results appear, deliberate or surreptitious, most of what appears here is useless jabber.
My best wishes to all.
IMAGIN Takes Imagination
Thanks.
Confining one’s perception of IMAGIN MEDICAL as merely and only a provider of urinary endoscopic imagery technology is likely to prove shortsighted.
Presently, I’m extremely impressed with the company’s new bladder endoscopy hardware. Unlike new drugs needing extensive human trials, most often exhibiting untoward side effects (adverse events), FDA approval of IMAGIN endoscopy technology appears virtually assured. No chemicals are systemically administered, only existing cancer lesion-binding stains. Already on the market, not a factor contributing in any way to FDA dis-approval. In fact, a positive, inasmuch as the amounts of these dyes or stains will be markedly reduced with the new imagery hardware. A positive.
I can see no reason the current clinical tests on humans won’t turn out extremely positive, with no adverse events, only improved cancer lesion detection.
No new physics being administered; just more precise detection, using reduced chemical markers and reduced illumination. All positive.
So, I have every reason to believe the technology will gain prompt FDA approval, with rapid, consequent sales, whether by IMAGIN itself, or by a tech buyer.
Either way, IMEXF shares will appreciate by an order of magnitude or two, once the greater market comes to understand all of the company’s demonstrated positives. So far, the company is on no one’s radar; just another obscure don’t-know-if-it’ll-fly medical device start up. Lots of those, and most fail. But they don’t have the demonstrated, safe, effective technology of this company.
Then, after revolutionary urinary endoscopy, what next? As mentioned, endoscopic soft-tissue detection of cancers and other lesions can be big. Offhand, I can imagine (intended) endoscopic examinations of the entire GI tract and the lungs, requiring new, dedicated endoscopes. Veterinary applications, too, will follow. Those won't be tiny.
Rather Promising
I read the article, here:
https://www.ucirvinehealth.org/blog/2017/03/flat-polyps-colonoscopy
Interesting, applicable text:
The Firelands Prairie, North Central Ohio
Fireman,
Great work, the prescribed burns on Martha’s Vineyard.
I have three areas of expertise: a) advanced placement biology instruction, b) tallgrass prairie restoration and management, and c) was a master falconer, raptor bander, rehabber, raptor biologist — so I understand exactly the suppressing of the woodies on Martha’s Vineyard, to promote herbaceous habitat for nesting Northern Harriers. Must be done — by professionals.
Yes, I’m located in Ohio. Have the stunning job as an advisor to NASA, where at their 6400-acre (10 sq mi) Plum Brook Reservation I advise and direct the restoration of up to 3000 acres of original native tallgrass prairie and oak savanna. Prescribed fires are essential. I create the burn plans, direct the burn crews.
Without prescribed fires, tallgrass prairies across North America get overtaken by woody brush. Those profound grasslands are then permanently lost. Native Americans burned Midwestern prairies before European settlement, maintaining them for flame hunting (flame herding of deer and elk to spear kill-points), keeping landscapes open for travel, and for human food foraging on the prairies (wild onions, ground pea, other nutritious foods).
The NASA engineers and administrators are truly superb in understanding these ancient biological processes, and their responsibility to maintain and restore the native tallgrass prairie, the Firelands Prairie of northern Ohio, the easternmost tallgrass prairie of landscape scale in North America. Just great people to work with, inside the fenced facility, in areas that, after my fires (10 years), now look just at they did 400 years ago. Closest thing to real wilderness in all of Ohio — all because of properly-used fire, exactly in the manner of Native Americans centuries before.
Best Wishes
Fireman,
We all wish for you a quick and strong healing. I’m a Certified Prescribed Fire Manager in my state, authorized to plan and conduct prescribed fires in tallgrass prairies. More than most, I know what you do, and how you do it — and understand the deep sense of duty, obligation, and responsibility in your fire control efforts.
Personally, I’m waiting for a few day 50-degree days, with low winds, for wild fuels to dry. Have to burn a total of about 1500 acres of tallgrass prairie, in smaller fractions on several sites. Only those of us who have experienced wild fires up close and personal, whether escaped or prescribed, know the majestic intensity of these unique events in nature.
Anavex Has No Competitors
Frequently posters tell of companies that Anavex must compete with; that other, bigger pharmaceuticals can out-compete little Anavex.
One competes with competitors playing the same game, with the same ball, by the same rules, etc.
Anavex has no competitors. No one else has a central nervous system drug with a) the same or similar mechanism of action of Anavex 2-73, b) any equivalent Phase 1 and 2 human clinical trial outcomes for Alzheimer’s, particularly profound safety and long-term efficacy, c) applications for a wide diversity of CNS diseases and conditions, d) providing control of epileptic episodes, and finally, e) has the strong potential to safely induce healthful sleep.
No competition. FDA does not approve new drugs because they would compete with existing ones. Presently, there are but four Alzheimer’s drugs; the most prevalent is Aricept. To get approved, Anavex 2-73 needs merely to eclipse the very meager efficacies of that drug. A very low bar, indeed.
At 1:32 EST trade volume 604k shares.
551K is normal for the day.
More interest in LXGTF?
Nice price ascent from mid February.
Share price should run when more discover the product, the market for it, and its eventual marketing.
Glad to have taken a position. Everything looks good: good product, good market, just the highest chance of FDA approval. Will yield $$ in time (short).
Mice Aren’t Men — But Have Same Chemistries
The mice aren’t men crowd will, once again, so thoroughly tell us that these results, like all the other positive therapeutic outcomes in murine populations with biochemistries and pathologies parallel to human diseases (in this case, tuberous sclerosis), simply can’t and don’t predict human efficacies for any Anavex drug.
Well enough, for those who want to base their considerations of AVXL equities on such perspectives.
It is noted that here, once again — now for a new pathology –- Anavex 2-73 yields very positive therapeutic outcomes in diseased mice.
The significance? There has been not yet a single Anavex-in-mice study that didn’t yield positive therapeutic outcomes. Not a single, published failure yet.
This is further evidence of the wide base of central nervous system (and other) diseases Anavex 2-73 has proven potentials against. It won’t be just Rett, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s.
From the conference poster:
This Silence Is Golden
Just A Perfect Analogy, Explanation of Anavex Superiority
With your frosted freezer, you’ve so perfectly explained just how Anavex technology is superior to any other existing or envisioned Alzheimer’s therapy.
The excess frost, representing the excess amyloid plaque, is exactly perfect. Scrape off the frost, and because the freezer’s “homeostasis,” feedback control of frost deposition no longer works, the frost returns. The freezer is then frost-demented, and will fail to function usefully.
Like frost in a freezer, amyloid proteins are part of brain health, when properly and normally used and deposited. Freezers do have a homeostatic process, where temperature detectors control internal temps so as to locally melt off excess frost deposition. Normally functioning neurons have homeostatic processes that control waste protein production, deposit, and excretion. Anavex 2-73 restores this process. Other therapies, such as the acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as Aricept, don’t do this. They only slow, for a time “frost” build up. Eventually, plaque “frost” contaminates synapses — end of story (and a life).
Once again share price is ascending. Is some clinical trials nurse talking to her friends?
Someday
What Were Those People Thinking?
Like What I Learned Today
I took my second modest position with this company today, after reading the reports of the device’s first clinical tests. Of course, they are quite incomplete; but we are not dealing with a new drug, with yet unknown biochemical outcomes within the body.
Here, it’s not biochemistry. It’s external, easily quantified biophysics — well, really, just physics. That’s the realm of mechanical and electrical engineering, in this case artfully (proprietarily) applied to medical data assessment machinery.
Real story, as I see it, is this. If the machinery can work right at the start --- as reported --- yielding and recording useful patient data, there is little or nothing that will prevent full development and approval. The device puts nothing chemical or mechanical into the body; merely listens to sounds and detects pressures, etc. All physics, nothing biochemical; nothing resembling a new drug.
Therefore, I can’t imagine anything henceforth that could unexpectedly pop up and disqualify the approval of the device(s). The facility and convenience of the machinery is clear, surpassing any hardware in use. Big market; awaiting FDA approval.
Please tell. Any foreseeable reasons these first positive clinical outcomes won’t continue, all the way to prompt FDA approval? I see none.
Off-label Therapies?
Dado, as a practicing physician, can you detail for us what’s involved in off-label prescription and use of drugs such as Anavex 2-73 — once it’s FDA-approved for, say, Rett syndrome (but no others)?
If off-label prescriptions yield very favorable results for a number of central nervous system diseases not included or indicated on the drug’s “label,” what might then happen?
What’s the chance that this might lead then to wide professional use of the drug, before specific FDA labeling for a CNS disease? “Hey doc, my kid’s got a rare CNS condition. Please, put him on this Anavex 2-73 that stopped the epileptic fits those Rett girls.”
Are there tort law considerations for the prescribing physician? Medical malpractice concerns? Institutional restrictions?
Or, could the drug simply be prescribed by many physicians, based upon very favorable anecdotal outcomes for non-indicated conditions?
Nurses are helpful people, tell their friends helpful information.
Nurses help run clinical drug trials.
Well, Then, Just Who And What Are Qualified?
Who, Or What, Then?
Who Loses Most?
I find interesting the contention that Missling simply is not doing all that he can or should to positively affect the AVXL share price.
If he performs poorly, causing the share price to languish, who loses more, he, or his critics?
Do any of Missling’s Ihub critics have anywhere near the number of AVXL shares, options, or warrants he has?
Fact is, no Missling critic here has anywhere near as much to lose as Missling himself, should his actions (or inaction) cause the Anavex share price to decline.
Might it be reasonable to presume that anyone’s interest in an increasing AVXL value relates rather strongly with the number of such shares owned, particularly for Missling himself?
Once Again, the Anavex Sleep Factor
From the patent application:
Biogen As Smart As Experts Here – No-Go
Is Biogen silently cooperating with Anavex toward some sort of joint venture, where both mutually benefit from Anavex 2-73?
Get real. We’ve been reading here for some time now how a) Anavex Life Sciences Corp has inadequate leadership, and b) how Anavex 2-73 simply is not and cannot be an FDA-approved treatment for central nervous system diseases.
The people who know best just what is or should be happening inside Anavex Life Science Corp post quite frequently here (well, multiple times each day of late). They know and proclaim that Anavex Life Science Corp and Anavex 2-73 have no futures whatsoever. They know stuff neither Anavex, Biogen, nor we small-time retail AVXL equity holders can’t possibly know. We are deceived and altogether deluded with Anavex 2-73.
Here, the real Anavex story, with it’s multiple deficiencies can be surely known. Biogen people read the real stuff here. How, then, could they possibly have any interest in either the company or its drug?
Are the expert posters here valid, reliable, and predictive? Well, look at AVXL share prices. If the share prices of a company are the always-right, forever-right and only indicators of corporate futures, let the reader discern.
Missed The Call
I’m a retired high school biology teacher, of some professionally-recognized competence; and in the past, I’ve posted on IHUB some explanations of the unique mechanisms of action of Anavex sigma-1 receptor agonists.
My wife said I got a missed phone call from some “Antivex” “board of defectors” member who wanted to have me explain to him the details of just how Anavex drugs could “fix them ‘nerons.’”
I’m sorry to report that the fellow never called back. I was unable to convey my extensive knowledge of neuron biochemistry and physiology to the fellow.
Therefore, we can now all understand just why things are progressing so slowly, can’t we?
The Internet is just such an exhaustive resource of useful information (as with this posting).
Anavex Probably Not A Sleep Apnea Player, But...
Sleep apnea, decidedly, is a major health problem, with a pile of untoward sequelae (bad downstream outcomes).
But, for the most part, sleep apnea is caused by a mechanical, not neurological problem. Loose tissues, the lining of the lower nasal and upper throat air passageways collapse during sleep, obstructing normal nocturnal breathing. The body responses to the strangling accumulation of carbon dioxide in the lungs by a sleep-awakening gasp for air. The person awakes, and begins normal breathing. Sleep again follows, with consequent collapses of nasal and throat linings, with more gasping.
A CPAP device, a mask that inflates the oronasal volume with pressurized air keeps breathing pathways open during sleep.
Anavex 2-73, in restoring mitochondrial functions, etc. is not likely to, somehow, tighten either the musculature or tissues involved with sleep apnea.
But, of course, at the start of the Australian tolerability trial there was no anticipation of Anavex-induced improvement of insomnia. Let's wait and see if, somehow, it might provide relief from sleep apnea, somehow allowing nerves holding things open during the day to do so likewise at night. On second thought, not altogether improbable. A physician more knowledgeable on the exact nerve biology of the matter could give a more accurate prognosis.
New To LXGTF -- It's Future?
Greetings.
Just discovered Lexingtion Biosciences; like their technology and new hardware. Should it muster well in clinical trials (very likely), the company will be a winner.
Have any students of the company projected future capitalization and share prices?
Will this be a $1, $5, $10, or $50 equity?
Compliance With Real Drugs Always A Problem
How Come the Aussies Continue With Anavex 2-73?
Has been fun this last week watching all the experts here, pro and con, pondering how many Anavex angels can dance on the head of a neuron.
Anyone doing diligence on AVXL, dumb or due (diligence that is), might want to likewise ponder just why a good number — what is it, 19? — of those who participated in the Phase 1 safety and tolerability test of Anavex 2-73 down in Australia, lo those many months (well, years) ago, have elected to continue to take Anavex 2-73 long after the trial ended. They are the only humans who have ever had this either powerful or useless drug coursing through their veins.
Why, perchance, do so many, apparently a majority of the original trial participants continue to take the drug? After all, they all had mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease, not a condition or disease state associated with careful thinking and deliberation. Nonetheless, those lucky folks, the only on the planet so allowed, elect to continue to take the Anavex drug? What gives?
It’s already been shown by several expert posters here that any real, good therapeutic results in that trial, given the small number of participants and the confounding, inadequate serum drug concentrations, could mean only, necessarily, they were placebo effects. The dumb Aussies actually believed the drug would cause them to play the piano again, paint pictures as before, sleep really well, and who knows what else, deceptions that have caused the bulk of the trial participants to continue with this molecular fraud.
Perhaps new FDA rules will allow a new drug to be approved and sold, after three things have been proven: a) those who take it have minimal side effects, of no health consequence, b) it has no physiologically detectable outcomes, no changes in somatic chemistry, etc.) and c): it induces a powerful, proven, placebo effect that provides continuing, chronic symptomatic relief.
Literally, what’s going on in the minds of those Aussies — and in the minds of those here who utterly discount what those people Down Under continue to do with Anavex 2-73?
Things I’ve Learned Here Last Week
1. The share price of a start-up biotech like Anavex exactly correlates to, exactly reflects the real science of a company’s proprietary technologies. Price low, as with AVXL, the underlying science must necessarily be flawed. The market is exquisitely “efficient,” knowing hidden things about complicated biochemistry and neurology that blokes posting statements on some online message board couldn’t, themselves, possibly know or understand. The current share price is always the truth, no matter.
2. Likewise, the share price accurately foretells the future of every sort of corporate outcome: clinical trials, FDA drug approvals, company survival. AVXL share prices have been declining for some time, therefore a) there is reduced or absent chance any of the three clinical trials will even start, b) or, if they do, they will all fail with no consequent FDA approval for any molecule in the Anavex pipeline. Share prices, remarkably, determine the results of future clinical trials.
3. Same thing about corporate management. Low and/or declining share prices always, necessarily indicate poor management. Simple, even universal concept — good management necessarily causes share prices to rise; conversely, bad management causes share prices to decline.
4. The solution to the bad management/low share prices problem is simple. Fire the guys. Any one else would do a better job. Share prices, then, would go up.
5. Anavex principals, from the CEO on down to the scientific personnel, are dumb; couldn’t see, anticipate, or plan for changes in clinical trial results or new FDA drug trial protocols. They were and are locked into last-century thinking into drug trials and drug development. No hope.
And, a bunch more. But no need to lay out any more revealed Anavex negatives. Scrutinizing readers of this investment forum, like all who post here, weigh things at the highest intellectual levels, have reached their own understandings of Anavex Life Sciences Corp, pro or con, bull or bear.
I have a tendency to forget things I learn. By the time the market opens Tuesday morning, inept as I am, I will have forgotten everyone of the five big things I learned here last week. I will forget to liquidate my small AVXL position, unable to turn those few funds around into an equity that has none of the five listed problems. Feel sorry for me, please. In a year or two, I’ll have forgotten the entire matter. I’ll be Ok.
Company Knows More, Does More Than Is Known
Does it occur to those who have read today’s many postings that, simply, Anavex officials know a lot more about Anavex 2-73's potentials than what is generally presumed, known, or even suggested on this board?
On one side (I’m there) are postings that the Anavex molecules are unique, have specially effective and unique mechanisms of action against a number of central nervous system diseases, where they restore normalized neuron homeostasis. We also have confidence in company management, planning, and operation.
On the other side are those who question virtually everything about the company; it’s science, it’s management, and future.
It becomes ever more evident that, in fact, Anavex Life Sciences Corp is being operated by extremely competent principals, who know (but haven’t fully disclosed) crucial things about Anavex 2-73 and the internal reasons and goals for the Australian trial. Those are very different from what was imagined or discerned, by both Anavex bulls and bears — far more significant.
It appears that Missling and company have artfully, cleverly arranged any number of things to eventuate very positive outcomes.
The company’s reticence appears ever more clever, facilitating eventual successes.
Let’s watch all of this continue to develop.
Two For Three
Don't They Learn From Our Experts?
Ha. So Little They Know.
How could a firm like Blackrock buy more AVXLs? Don't they read the investment expertise provided here? Anavex is losing it, will go nowhere. Bad management, bad product. Only amateurs (like me) dabble in such risky biotechs. We, of course, are going to lose our shirts. Of all people, we don't listen. One would have thought, though, the Blackrock people would have known better.
Hard to figure, isn't it?
I find the slump of share price interesting. Personally, I'm all for it.
I can understand it, in that many were probably looking for some right-now share price improvements. Instead, IMEXF has no news driving share prices higher. Quite the contrary. The little news available indicates nothing positive can appear until efficacy news comes out of the Univ of Rochester clinical trial of the new technology. That's not any time soon. In months, not weeks. Till then, there is not a thing to drive the share price higher.
I can live with that. I have a small position now. And, with declining share prices, will take on some more IMEXFs. I'd be delighted to see the quick-money types sell out and drive the price down to a nickel or a dime. I'd take a much larger position with the same funds.
As I've mentioned, IMEXF is very different from new biotechs with new drugs that, if approved, will yields hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. There are lots of those, and almost all fail in Phase 3 clinical trials.
The difference here is that Imagin is an authentic biotech. It has a technology, not a new pharmaceutical, a new drug. Drugs have multiple effects on the body, some good, many bad. Most biotechs fail because their drugs fail to work as intended, or worse, have contravening side effects.
What are the chances of either of these with the Imagin technology, their lenses and image-processing technology? The only thing in the body, on the end of already approved and in-use cystoscopes, are some new lenses. They don't even touch bladder walls; can have no possible side effects. The spectra of light used are already known not to evoke averse events in living tissues.
The only thing needed to be determined, does this technology, this hardware (not a drug) facilitate cancer lesion detection and the surgical treatment thereof? No plausible in vivo reasons it won't, in both cases.
Sell your IMEXFs now, please. If the price gets low enough, I'll buy them. Check me out. Put in a sell order of $0.10.
Right now I'm putting in a standing buy order with my broker at $0.10. Hope to be of service to those who can now intelligently get out of Imagin and put their funds to work more profitably eleswhere.
No new info, but a good summary of the technology.
As I see it, Imagin’s future depends entirely on the outcome of the Univ of Rochester clinical validation of the technology. My understanding is that all of the components of the hardware, at least those inserted into the bladder lumen are pretty standard. No likely clinical problems with their use.
Finally, will the imaging yield any or all of the anticipated outcomes? Unlike the pre-approval clinical testing of candidate drugs, which most often have initially unknown effects, good and bad, this appears to be mostly just some physics, optics and proprietary circuitry, using a tissue-staining dye that in higher, conventional concentrations must be used minimally, with care.
As others have, I’ve tried to foresee potentially negating outcomes. Don’t see any. Candidate drugs have all sorts of adverse events in early clinical trials. Most never attain FDA approval. I can’t see any adverse events caused by this technology, things that would adversely affect the patient.
So, the only controlling matter is whether the imagery improves cancerous lesion detection in bladder walls. I can see no reason it shall not. The engineering of the optics is known to work. It’s just a matter now of having some urologists scan some lesionous human bladders.
Will be waiting to learn of those studies.
DOW Off 4.3%, AVXL Up 8.1%. How Come?
The Right To Try Factor
Yes, how might President Trump’s presentation of a “right to try” for people with lethal, debilitating diseases play out? Might Anavex 2-73 be a candidate drug for those with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, two diseases of virtually lethal outcomes?
Did not 6 of 25 in the Australian trial have cessation, termination of their symptoms that would have otherwise led to a lethal outcome?
Were those also not universally at a maximum tolerated dose? Would not an MTD for all have produced an even higher symptomatic termination rate?
Also in consideration would be the degree, rate, and severity of side effects. If those utilizing a new Right to Try Rule experienced the same side effects as the Australians in that human trial, none of the adverse events would be enough to cause willing patients to terminate Anavex dosings. Those measured side effects are small and fractional compared to those for a host of approved drugs.
And finally, add in greatly improved sleep, more cordial moods, and expanded and useful conversation, all of which (and more) combine to produce a congenial and normalized life style.
Offhand, Anavex 2-73 would appear to be high on any list of Right to Try drugs, would it not?
In the absence of completed clinical trials, ponder for yourself the social, political, and economic forces that would come into strong play should just a few with mid-stage Alzheimer’s take Anavex 2-73 under a Right to Try rule and gain any or all of the outcomes mentioned above.
Another Sleep Problem Finding Re Alzheimer’s
Where Will This Go?
Greetings.
On the basis of the sound physics and biology of this company's technology, and its very significant and apparently facilitated ability to eventually gain FDA approval for clinical use, I've taken a small, initial position (at $0.34).
Presently things are quiet. That is understood. I have only the slightest concern that my small position will not eventually be rewarding.
But regarding that, can anyone lay out plausible share-price outcomes for IMEXF in a year or two, when their multispectral cystoscopes will be probing the bladders (and perhaps other organs) of many?
Will IMEXF mature out at $10, $20, $50, or higher? Anyone studied this, with useful projections or conjectures?