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.
Partnership is not an issue at this time. Dr. Missling has stated the following here:
TWST: Did you want to say anything further on partnerships?
Dr. Missling: For larger markets like Alzheimer’s disease, partnerships for commercialization are very common. This is something that no small company can market by itself and, for that reason, at some point in time, there will be certainly discussions in that direction.
It is clear, that while a favorable partnership is welcome at any time, for AD, AVXL is seeking a partner once the drug is proven to work and ready to generate revenues (commercialize).
Tying the patent issue to a partnership is also moot, at this time. Whether anyone believes in the CEO is another matter, but his remarks are filed with the SEC.
IMHO
,Phase 2a trial of @Anavex_News presented at #CTAD2016: favourable safety profile, reduction in insomnia and stability on MMSE at week 57 pic.twitter.com/57lNR0T8fm
— Jean Georges (@JeanGeorgesAE) December 10, 2016
Using the word "cure" for phase 2 results would be premature, but also irresponsible! #HOPEnotHYPE https://t.co/TUbld6g5e3
— Jean Georges (@JeanGeorgesAE) December 11, 2016
Michael Gold MD, who is with Accera, is also a member of Anavex's scientific advisory board. Interesting. How does this relationship work?
IMHO
Biomedicine
Biogen’s Plaque-Busting Alzheimer’s Drug Shows Promise
There is nothing I would like better than a Biogen/Anavex partnership for Alzheimer's, but it is not an easy decision for Biogen, because the market will see this as an admission of failure and in the face of such public praise as your article, this will not go over well. However, anything is possible and perhaps internally, Biogen has seen the writing on the wall. So in that case a partnership with Anavex may be the best choice. Who knows?
Either way, the Biogen MS interest in A2-73 is enough to get excited about.
IMHO
Today's news will begin to generate a chain of news going into the future
When they begin testing, when they get the results etc. and may be more tie ups with other companies as time goes by
Nothing to complain about - its all good.
A very important point. Any company on the fence or one that may have walked away from Anavex at some point in the past, will do a double take after this news.
Nothing negative about today's news, although the science news has not changed
IMHO
It's possible, but they have not announced that, nor is it on the MJFF funded grants page, so that's pure speculation. I would guess that they are in the application stages for a Phase 2 grant for proof of concept studies in humans, however. MJFF has funded human trials before, evidenced by funding both pre-clinical work as well as the human Phase II trial for isradipine.
You are right in that nothing is a given with regards to MJFF funding the next phase. However, I cannot fathom how the MJFF gave 450K, liberally, to a then unproven trial on mice, and after getting positive results, the same MJFF becomes parsimonious (frugal) for a chance at the ultimate prize.
Funding of the AD trial is another issue.
IMHO
Seems many here believe that just because "they" manipulated the stock down dramatically, the data must not have been good. That is misguided reasoning (but understandable). Had the manipulators decided to run the price up on the data, then everyone would presume the data was great (sustaining)...also inaccurate. The data is simply inconclusive with the small n; however, it is nonetheless encouraging.
Agree 100%. Especially the last sentence.
IMHO
Good post. I agree, especially with this:
Slide 29, gives 12 week data. Increase of +3.21 at week 12
"Interim Data: Anavex 2-73 improved ADCS-ADL signal in 11 of 14 (78%) of patients"
"*p = not significant. Trial was not designed to capture statistical significance"