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.
Anxiety, Mood Disorders, Schizophrenia, Autism, Parkinson’s Disease, Others
There is evidence for, work being done on, the affects of gut flora (microbes) causing or affecting anxiety and mood disorders, schizophrenia, autism, and Parkinson’s Disease, among others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut%E2%80%93brain_axis
Homeostasis Always Has a Feedback Loop
Important information, to understand the (here) commonly tossed into the air phrase “homeostasis.”
Yes, Anavex 2-73 restores neuron homeostasis, providing restoration of full, normal function. But an understanding of the homeostatic process will give a much clearer understanding of how Anavex 2-73 is so different from (and more successful than) other Alzheimer’s treatments.
It’s the “feedback” process. Within all cells, hundreds of chemical reaction sequences are in process. For example, glucose diffuses in from the serum (blood). It gets transported to the mitochondrion, where the molecule gets passed along a complex sequence of enzymes, each of which pulls the (at the start) glucose apart, making new molecules. It’s called cellular respiration, essential for the extraction of the energy in the glucose molecule to power all the other chemical reactions in the cell.
After being processed through the many sequential reactions in the mitochondrion — each mediated, controlled by specific, unique protein enzymes — 36 to 38 adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules are produced. Carbon dioxide and some water molecules are produced as waste. The new ATPs go off into the cell and power all of its chemical reactions.
So, where’s the “homeostasis” in all of this? If it’s so crucial, how so? What’s this “feedback” thing?
If the all of the proper enzymes are floating around in the cell, at useful concentrations, the cell has to function properly and normally. The laws of physics and chemistry are at play. But enzymes are complicated, carefully-folded proteins. They wear out, or get bent out of shape and no longer function. That’s where homeostasis comes into play, the feedback mechanism.
The cell constantly monitors reactions and enzymes. When reactions are too slow, for lack of a controlling enzyme, there is feedback, where the cell automatically reads the feedback signal and starts to produce (in the ribosome and endoplasmic reticulum) more of the needed enzyme.
If there is enough of the enzyme, the process is turned off. When needed, it’s turned back on.
In Alzheimer’s and most other central nervous system diseases, the feedback mechanism no longer works. The cell may signal that it needs more of a particular enzyme (say, the enzyme to clear beta-amyloid wastes, the ones that cause Alzheimer’s symptoms). But if the cell can’t produce the now called-for enzyme, when the feedback, homeostasis process fails, disease ensues.
Anavex 2-73 re-connects endoplasmic reticula with the associated mitochondria. With this physically close relationship, sufficient ATP is produced and transferred to the ER, allowing normal production of required, signaled-for enzymes in the feedback, homeostasis process. Normal cell function is restored.
No other company has a drug that can do this for the treatment of Alzheimer’s and the other targeted CNS diseases. It belongs to Anavex Life Sciences Corp — Anavex 2-73.
Clear By Now, Nothing Big Until...
...until mass media (not financial pundits) make big stories on, “New Drug Cures Alzheimer’s!”
Of course, Anavex 2-73 doesn’t (and won’t) cure Alzheimer’s. But it is very likely to both prevent the disease, and for whom it affects, keep it from getting worse. For a few, it may even restore cognition.
Only results from the big Phase 3 clinical trial will tell the story on any of this — a story conventional news writers are likely (as they most often do with similar subjects) to get wrong.
No matter. Is it not clear by now that the early clinical results Anavex has released have not changed general perceptions of the company whatsoever? There is no reason to believe any further release of any other clinical data, save for the final Phase 3 results, will have any significant effects on AVXL prices.
But, indeed, when final trials results are released, when dozens of Alzheimer’s patients have had their symptoms stabilized or improved, when FDA then approves Anavex 2-73, retail investors will see the numbers we all know about here and rush to buy ever more expensive AVXLs.
Until then, all of our discussions lamenting the market’s supposedly inaccurate pricing of AVXL shares is mere wind. The majority of stock investors don’t buy shares based upon either demonstrated new science, or on merely conjectured future clinical outcomes. Illuminating utterances by neither company spokespeople nor Ihub pundits carry any weight on The Street. Nothing to change until big articles and reports in the mass media start circulating. Few have ever heard of “Anavex.” Presently, few care. They have no reason to.
Life, in general, is tricky.
Yes, Aussie Approval Would Change the Game, BIG.
Yes, everything I conjectured would drop off the table if, all of a sudden, the Australian government approved and promoted the use of Anavex 2-73 for their Alzheimer's patients.
Nothing will validate and illuminate the truths of the Anavex story better than some governmental approval of the drug, anywhere in the world, not just the US. Alzheimer's patients are in every country, with ever expanding economic burdens on families and governments.
Not Counting on Near-term Price Run
I, too, would think that announcement of the start of any of the three upcoming clinical trials would prompt some new, high-price share trades.
But that could have been imagined for the recent release of the PK/PD data, too.
Results of that? Inconsequential for the AVXL share price.
It's becoming ever clearer that The Street, general retail equity investors and their brokerages, know little of the Anavex story, and don't care to learn of it. Simply, Anavex Life Sciences Corp is not on many stock radar screens. When first looked at, new potential AVXL buyers see that the company is (to them, inaccurately) a typical startup pharmaceutical, with no revenues or products to sell. The record for these sorts of companies ever attaining commercial viability is poor. No apparent reason this would be any different.
In fact, the company is trying to solve central nervous system diseases that none of the Pharma Biggies have ever been able conquer, after several decades and billions of dollars of trying. What? Anavex thinks they can solve the treatment problems of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and some unknown (to them) Rett syndrome? Get real. So, it was just announced they are starting three new clinical trials for their drug candidate. So what? You'd be utterly stupid to commit funds to such a company. Far greater opportunities elsewhere. Tell me about Anavex when they start selling their drug. Not holding my breath. Not likely to happen.
Such are the prevailing on The Street views of the company. Hope I'm wrong. But I'm not anticipating anything of share price note until FDA actually approves Anavex 2-73 for something, sometime next year.
Until general reporters and news writers start putting up Anavex stories on section front pages, not in newspaper health or investment columns, the record shows there will be no general excitement about the company. Positive clinical results have the potential of prompting such stories. If a bunch of little girls with Rett syndrome stop having seizures and have markedly improved motor neuron control, that will turn into a printable human interest story. If Anavex 2-73 stops Parkinson's tremors in the new trial, that, too, will be reported.
With any of that, the Anavex story attains validity and importance. Until then, everything will be ho-hum, regardless. Positive clinical results likely to be the only thing to elevate AVXL share prices more than a few dollars.
What is meant here with "titration?"
In conventional or standard chemistry titration is the determination of the concentration of a substance in solution by measuring the volume of a known concentration of a reagent required to complete a reaction with it, typically using a chromographic indicator. From that, the concentration of the constituent can be determined.
For the upcoming Anavex 2-73 trials, are the concentrations of the drug to be titrated after administration, to be determined how much is circulating in the serum? Or, will neurons be extracted and cellular concentrations of the drugs be assessed? And, why? Isn't gross dosage the most important, useful datum, related to treatment and symptom outcomes?
Or (chemically inaccurately) is "titration" being used to mean merely dose size changes?
What, exactly, will be "titration."
Global Neurological Cases Study Shows Problems Getting Bigger
The number of patients who will need neurological care will continue to grow in the coming decades. It is important that policy makers and health-care providers are aware of these past trends to be able to provide adequate services for the growing numbers of patients with neurological disorders, the researchers concluded.
The Anavex 2-73 Metabolite
Slide 5, states:
— ANAVEX2-73 is metabolized into the pharmacologically active metabolite,
ANAVEX19-144
— Metabolite also acts as sigma-1 receptor agonist with neuroprotective action
like ANAVEX2-73, restoring homeostasis and neuroplasticity
— The apparent elimination half-life of the metabolite (21.45 hr) is approximately
twice that of ANAVEX2-73 (10.71 hr) hence the active metabolite result in
extended activation of the sigma-1 receptor
Favorable Cost/Benefit Ratio
Will Insurance Companies and Medicare reimburse for A2-73?
When Will Anavex 2-73 Get Prescribed?
Let’s assume, quite reasonably, that the upcoming Phase 3 clinical trial, using updated designs and measurements, produces data similar to the Australian trial. Should those data be similar, FDA approval would be forthcoming, inasmuch those data already eclipse the existing standard of care data, from any of the four standard of care Alzheimer’s drugs, primarily Aricept (donepezil).
Presently, comments are being posted here with concerns regarding the fraction of trial participants with superior cognition improvements, and strength of those. The newly-released data show that Anavex 2-73 did not produce universal cognition improvement; only for fraction of the patients in that study. Therefore, the drug is perceived or presented as not as powerful or universally applicable as hoped or presumed by some.
But those data and findings are likely to be clinically irrelevant, when physicians have Anavex 2-73 available for each and every dementia patient they treat.
It won’t be like this. “Mrs. Jones, it was good that you brought your husband in here. He does have early-stage cognitive decline. He is in the first stages of Alzheimer’s, unfortunately. But in a year or two, there is great hope for him. We now have this new drug, Anavex 2-73, and for 25 to 50% of mid to mild Alzheimer’s patients, it gives wonderful stabilization of thinking, even improving it in many. So just take care of your husband a bit longer, until we assess that he’s progressed to the mid to mild stages of Alzheimer’s. Then, replicating the big Anavex study last year, we’ll start him on the drug. Right now, he’s not suffering enough yet. Next patient, please.”
No, there will be absolutely no reason not to begin Anavex 2-73 treatment at the very first indication of dementia onset. In short, clinical use of the drug will not be restricted to a patient cohort paralleling the mid to mild stage Alzheimer’s patients in the FDA-approval Phase 3 study. The drug will be given at the very earliest stages of Alzheimer’s dementia, for which there is currently no clinical response data.
There is every good reason to believe that early, even prophylactic administration of Anavex 2-73 will yield symptomatic relief greater than seen in the Phase 3 clinical data. Those data will have been taken from patients with well-developed, rather advanced Alzheimer’s symptomotology. Ethically and practically, physicians won’t be waiting to prescribe Anavex 2-73 only to those with advanced symptoms. They will be writing prescripts at the earliest signs of any geriatric dementia — with a consequently greater likelihood of profound relief. Early detection; early treatment. No reason to limit treatment to populations used in the clinical trial. Consequently, results will be better than the Phase 2 and Phase 3 data. Early treatment will be better treatment. Amyloid plaques and tau tangles will be much smaller; far more amenable for successful Anavex treatment.
Please Explain Why Dropouts Performed Worst
...it would be expected that the drop outs would be the worst performing of the group
Precise Genomic Characterizations Forthcoming
...no easy way to characterize it precisely (no gut-bacteria-ometer),
Exactly. Treatment Start and Dosage Optimization Still Needed.
We could be looking at an approach which targets VERY early intervention, and one which requires long treatment before the beneficial effects are truly seen.
No "Blind Belief"
...investing isn't based on amateur blind belief...
As Expected, Will Continue to Sleep Well
Just did a cursory look-over of the new slides.
Everything in solid conformance with what I expected. I may post a slightly more detailed reading of the slides later; will have to take some time to scrutinize. But on first scan didn’t see a single negative. Data and plots all positive. Saw a few new, not-yet-reported positives and anticipations (gut microbe relationship, for example — likely to turn out big).
Another few good paragraphs in the continuing Anavex Life Science Corp story.
Sorry for the Error.
I used the wrong word. "Questionable" might have been better.
Intended thought was that there are at least two views of the potential for Anavex success, derived either (inadequately for some) from the Australian data, or alternatively, from eventual Phase 3 data.
Clearly, those taking early AVXL positions have done so lacking the solid positive or negative data the Phase 3 trial will yield. They have weighed the factors as they've seen them, and have decided the risk/reward ratio is favorable.
Others, will want to see more data, from a much larger trial population, before taking a new or expanded position.
Could all of this explain the rather static share price of AVXL, that those who've decided to get in early, while prices are still low, have done that in the majority? At the same time, the broader investment public hasn't yet determined Anavex to be a rewarding, low-risk proposition. That segment of the investment public won't be participating until new trials data appear later this year, or sometime next.
I doubt that any new data, PK/PD, or otherwise, to be revealed in the upcoming conferences or presentations, will cause any changes. If they are all positive, they will merely support the get-in-early crowd's view. They are already in. The new results are unlikely to prompt many new share buys.
Conversely, those concerned about the accuracy or validity of the low n= numbers (numbers of participants) in the Aussie trial aren't likely to change their views, either.
Nothing of significance likely to change until data from the three trials are released, probably some time next year.
Until then, we continue our good-natured discourses.
Thanks for the note.
Yea, the Good Results Were Phony (?)
Sample size of prior trials...
Here's the exact text, including the FDA's italics:
To incorporate the patient’s voice in drug development and decision-making, the FDA will systematize the collection and use of patient and caregiver data;
But, No One Is Paying Any Attention
The magnitude of Anavex 2-73's stabilization or improvement of cognition or well-being, quite contested by some here on the basis of putatively thin statistics, is not really a matter of concern for those of us who have taken small AVXL positions.
We did that because of our due diligence, after examining all of the evidence, bullish or bearish, pro or con, regarding a) the unique mechanism of action of Anavex 2-73, and b) the profound visible (not statistical) results of the few people in the Australian study. We compared all of that to the meager outcomes of the four existing Alzheimer’s drugs. No comparison.
Again, FDA approval will not be based upon whatever statistical data that were derived in Australia. Those data are very interesting and very promising. But FDA will turn its decision upon Phase 3 data. If they, in any way, cause better outcomes than the four existing Alzheimer’s drugs, given the exceptional safety and tolerability of Anavex 2-73, FDA approval will be forthcoming. Period.
Disputations over the minutia of known Anavex statistics approaches Medieval arguments over the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. No one has presented any useful data indicating the early results from Australia are, in fact, all wrong. They may not have the magnitude implied or inferred by some (well, many). But the results appear real, not stochastic, not merely by good chance.
So, how shall we small-time retail AVXL owners play all of this? Yes, until FDA approves Anavex 2-73 for the treatment of various diseases, it’s all a matter of chance, as with a card game. Those of us who have done our due diligence believe we hold very strong hands, that the probabilities for eventual FDA approval are very high.
We are reading these statistical disputations as merely entertainment. Our expectations, we think, are well founded and will eventually be rewarding.
We haven’t seen any postings giving thanks for the statistical enlightenments that prompted any cautionary AVXL sales. Any one know of any one who has sold their AVXL positions after attaining elevated understandings of the thin statistics propping up the AVXL share price?
The game has not changed.
"Data" is a Plural
One datum, many data (look it up).
The PK/PC numbers are data, plural. One of them is a datum.
We are all interested in learning the PK/PC data. They may indicate therapeutic efficacies. Each datum will be closely analyzed.
Yes, Please Show the Correct Math
think $1000 or more is possible. It isn't. Want proof?
Have No Useful Thoughts on Share Split
Would like your thoughts on AVXL doing a split of 4 for 1 at around $200.00 /share
A $1000 Anavex Share Price? How so?
What would it take for an Anavex share price to be $1000?
First, this is no projection or prognostication of any future Anavex share price. Don’t use any of this information to guide or direct any Anavex equity purchase. Mostly, it’s all for fun. But, could it happen? Could the Anavex share price someday be $1000? Let’s have some fun and play with the numbers.
The first number to decide upon would be the number of outstanding shares that could be traded. Presently, there are just over 41 million shares of AVXL. To simplify things, let’s presume there will eventually be 50 million Anavex shares.
Share prices, generally, are determined by the market’s knowledge of and perception of dividends. For a $1000 share price, the central questions are these: what would be required corporate revenues to support such a price, and what fraction of those revenues would flow into shareholder dividends?
So, let’s look at backwardly. Let’s start with a presumed $1000 Anavex share price. What dividends size would support this share price?
We need to recognize the P/E ratio, the ratio of a company's stock price to the company's earnings per share. Presently, on the Dow Jones, P/E ratios are about 20 to 1. Therefore, a $1000 share price requires a dividend of 1/20 of $1000; a dividend payout of $50.
How much money would Anavex Life Sciences Corp. have to have to send out $50 to all of its 50 million shareholders? 50 x 50 million = 2.5 billion. Somehow, Anavex would have to have a minimum of $2.5 billion to cover a $50 annual dividend cost.
Now here’s the real rub. With its annual revenues, the company must cover all of its costs, including sales costs, product manufacturing costs, taxes, loan costs, facilities costs, licensing costs, R&D, salaries, among others. What percentage of total revenues, after all of these costs have been paid, might be available for shareholder dividends?
One site (https://www.simplysafedividends.com/pfizer-pfe-dividend-stock-analysis/) indicates that Pfizer, a major US pharmaceutical, pays out approximately 50% of its annual revenues to shareholders. If Anavex could do this, to do a $50 dividend payout, annual revenues would have to be approximately $5 billion.
Now, what would it take for Anavex to gather annual corporate revenues of $5 billion?
Things here are pretty murky. Two crucial questions: globally, how many patients each year will be purchasing or using Anavex products, and, at what prices?
Let’s go conservatively to begin with. Let’s assume the total global market for Anavex drugs, in five or 10 years, will be 20 million people. Next, let’s assume (not very likely) that annual personal Anavex drug costs are merely $500. 20 million patients times $500 equals $10 billion of annual revenues.
If those turn out to be the actual working numbers, a $50 dividend and $1000 share price are plausible.
But the global market for Anavex drugs is likely to be some multiple of 20 million. One website claims that about 44 million people have diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease across the globe, with many more yet undiagnosed.
Fewer numbers of Parkinson’s disease, but they are in the millions, along with those who have other central nervous system diseases Anavex drugs might eventually treat.
Given the tremendous costs of conventional CNS disease treatments, Anavex might charge $1000 a year per patient, while saving governments and insurance companies many thousands of dollars of annual per patient costs.
So, with 50 million global Anavex patients, with an annual per patient income of $1000, Anavex would have an annual income of $50 billion. If, as with Pfizer today, half of that flowed to shareholders, $25 billion would be divided among the 50 million Anavex shareholders — a whopping $500 per share dividend. At a 20 to 1 P/E ratio, Anavex shares would trade for about $10,000.
Again, none of this should guide or direct any AVXL share purchases. Anavex 2-73 clinical trials might fail. The FDA may never approve an Anavex drug. The company would go bust. The numericals posted here, by no means, are the only factors involved in the successes of Anavex’s future. Do your own careful due diligence. In startup firms like Anavex, never, ever, invest more than you can afford to lose.
My best wishes for Anavex Life Sciences Corp., its shareholders, but most importantly for the millions of suffering people Anavex technologies might successfully treat.
But, Has It Worked? Can It Work?
Thanks for the more expansive perspective of CRISPR technology.
Might it, eventually, be able to be administered externally to provide systemic relief of a general central nervous system genetic defect in a human?
Are you speaking conceptually, or are there any actual, model cases of this that would provide a model and example of useful genetic manipulation therapy for genetically-caused Alzheimer's or Parkinson's?
Tell us. Has it worked yet. I'm not aware of any such outcomes. Getting the CRISPR protein across the blood-brain barrier, then across the plasma membrane, into a functioning nerve cell, appears to be a daunting task.
Explain, please, the biophysics of the "nanoparticles" that seem essential for all of this to work. How can they get into the cell; then, how do they unwind the protective chromosomal chromatin surrounding DNA to gain reactive access to the then naked nucleotide sequences? All of that can be done in lab cultures of pure cells. Has it yet been done in systemic human cells for anything like Alzheimer's? If not, when? (And, how?)
And, of course, only a fraction of Alzheimer's cases are caused by a single gene defect amenable to CRISPR tech. The specific genotypic pathology of most Alzheimer's cases is utterly idiopathic, of unknown cause, genetic or otherwise. For CRISPR technology to work, all controlling genes must be known and targeted. With all of the genomic analysis of Alzheimer's genomes, there has been scant discovery of causative genes, beyond ApoE. Correct?
Functional Gene Editing Not Here Yet
CRISPR technology, the ability to excise detrimental nucleotide sequences (genes) and insert favorable ones is, indeed, a remarkable technology; with lots of promises.
In microorganisms, or multicellular organisms in early development, CRISPR technology can be useful.
But there is simply no prospect that a 65-year old person exhibiting dementia, caused by an ApoE gene, is going get that gene replaced in the many hundreds of millions of cells involved in that gene's expression (primarily in nervous tissue).
CRISPR technology will not be an obviating competitor for Anavex. Anavex 2-73 is a simple pill, taken orally, and it does its work quite well. Gene manipulation is complicated and difficult, working in specific cells in a lab setting.
Eventual Anavex Market Capitalization Will Be Many Billions
I only calculated a potential revenue, MC and PPS for Epilepsy. What if AD, PD, etc... is added in? Can you say off the scale?
Clarification: “Pharmacokinetics,” “Pharmacodynamics”
These are often abbreviated as PK/PD. What are they?
In the simplest form, pharmacokinetics (PC) determines how an organism changes a drug; pharmacodynamics (PD) determines how a drug changes an organism.
One, what happens to the drug in the body; in the other, what happen to the body with the drug.
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Released CTAD 4 November
LB18 - Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Characterization of ANAVEX™2-73 for Designing a Phase 2/3 Study in Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease
A Midstream Treatment Focus
www.t3dtherapeutics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CTAD-Presentation-09-Dec-2016_website-posting.pdf
Looks good, any science minded views?
Again, SOC Drugs Shown Weak, Anavex Should Surpass
Here’s another report on the safety and efficacy of the four existing Alzheimer’s treatment drugs, donepezil (Aricept), rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/smh-srs092817.php
More of the same.
Donepezil was also the only cognitive enhancer that reached the minimal clinically important threshold--meaning effects on outcomes were observed clinically, as well as statistically--on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment cognition scale, making it the likely first choice for those patients and clinicians considering these medications, the authors said.
Previous research by the authors found that cognitive enhancers do not improve cognition or function in people with mild cognitive impairment, and these patients experience significantly more nausea, diarrhea, vomiting and headaches.
Text from Patent Application
https://www.google.com/patents/US9750746
Three Years of Cognition Protection in Alzheimer’s:
EXAMPLE 1 Neuroprotection Against Beta Amyloid
A 67 year old male diagnosed with early stage Alzeheimer's dementia is treated with 10 mg of A2-73 and a sub-MAD dosage of 3 mgs donepezil, once per week for three years. His mental function is tested quarterly and does not decrease over the period. On autopsy his brain is found to contain senile plaques but very low content in amyloid peptide oligomers.
An 80 year old female patient is diagnosed with AD and treated with donepezil 10 mg daily for 3 yrs without. The medication is switched to daily donepezil 3 mg and A2-73 0.5 mg in a combination dosage form. The patients cognitive score stabilizes and then increases slowly and regularly over the following months
Staying Right Here, With Restraint — Thanks
Falconer - become a columnist on Seeking Alpha
Nothing Really New, No Response on The Street
Would have expected stronger reaction to conf./new information.
DPZ Effect Short-term Only
DPZ has some improvement but only temporary.
Duration of Anavex Therapy
...the implication is that once one gets healthy brain electric activity over time this translates into cascade of improvements in other scores from basic ones to more complex.
Please, Tell the Real Story on Slide 28
Pull up Slide 28 here:
www.anavex.com/my_uploads/Anavex-September-2017-Presentation-.pdf
This data plot has been contested, has it not? For most of us, the data appear clear and precise. Cortical network performance, a recognized measurement of cognition, is plotted for three populations: a) “healthy controls,” (green), b) typical Alzheimer’s patients for an equivalent period (red), and c) those Alzheimer’s patients taking Anavex 2-73 (beige).
Why would it be unreasonable to believe that Anavex 2-73 actually does hold Alzheimer’s symptoms at baseline, and/or actually suppresses them in the last weeks of the clinical period?
No one has yet presented any equivalent or surpassing data for any other Alzheimer’s drug. No other drug has been able to hold or reverse Alzheimer’s symptomatic progression for 52 weeks.
Should Anavex attain FDA approval for Anavex 2-73, mentally speculate on future Anavex Life Science Corp capitalization values by scrutinizing the information on slides 42 and 43.
[As always, conduct detailed and precise due diligence when taking any equity position in an unproven, no-product pharmaceutical start-up such as Anavex. If any, risk only able-to-be-lost discretionary funds.]
Sigma-1 Receptor Agonists for Other Human Diseases
Might homeostasis lead to proper protein folding in the pancreas to allow a drug similar to or A2-73 itself to allow the Type One diabetic to produce his/her own insulin in the proper measure daily with an oral dose of the homeostasis drug?
A Probable Stop-gap Approach
Just read this info. Not really promising; doesn't address any root cause of Alzheimer's. Just improves otherwise declining memory. Might work for a while, but the ever-declining course of the disease would continue unabated by this drug. A stop-gap approach.
Curious, of course, that lame efforts such this get NIH funding, inasmuch as Anavex has a drug with so much greater potential.
Anavex 2-73 and Sleep
Contemporary problems of sleep depravation and inadequacy continue to compound. Formerly regarded as merely a minor inconvenience of hectic modern life, it is now rather fully recognized as a major disease- and disability-causing problem. Get consistent periods of sound sleep, or suffer from any number of untoward outcomes, some at hand; others later in life (such as with Alzheimer’s).
www.independent.co.uk/news/sleep-deprivation-epidemic-health-effects-tired-heart-disease-stroke-dementia-cancer-a7964156.html