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.
This stock move has been supported daily by an average of 1-2 million of buying by shorts covering every day since the beginning of August. At the rate indicated by the last few short interest reports, shorts should have cleaned up their mess and exited by the approx. the end of Sept. The question is, what's going to happen when that much daily buy volume disappears. To keep this uptrend going after the short is gone the stock will need someone showing up to replace the buying of 1-2 million shares EVERY day. Check the short interest data for yourself.
Shorts covered 14 million shares in first half of August. Huge exit beginning. 34 million still left to cover.
"John McCabe selling shares at 4.80 dollars per share. "
I wouldn't consider an 1,170 share sell an indication of anything.
A new filing today. They terminated an agreement from 2013 that paid out less than $30 million in milestone pmts. New deal pays out up to $262.6 million. Retail investors who don't know what they're doing are selling in the pre-market.
"The drop in the ADSC is downright awful"
If they had used the Part B Base of 64 which is exactly what they used on p28 of the Spring 2016 report it would not have looked awful at all. It would have looked stable. Not sure why they decided to reset the base in the latest presentation to week 0 and combine the first 5 weeks with the 26. Why not stay consistent?
Bman, No, the comp of matter patent on 2-73 expired earlier this year.
So to protect it's use in treating particular indications the company needs to get method of use patents for each indication. Note that the FDA grants 5 years of exclusivity on new drugs regardless of whether a company has a patent. (obviously exclusivity is USA only)
Xena, some of your linked posts result in...
"This is a feature that is only available for premium members. Please click here to subscribe"
Xena, I admit those are good points if indeed it is difficult to get volunteers into the trial. I would have thought with the amount of AD in society that you'd have people fighting to get into a trial rather than recruiters struggling to get volunteers.
Normally doctors participating in drug trials don't go to the media with purely anecdotal results while the trial is in process. The media does not have a right to know ANYTHING about personal and private medical treatments.
Someone who has some clout with Missling or IR should ask them that question (whether all or most patients have been moved onto 2-73 alone). I'd try but I've had no success getting beyond IR's boilerplate non-responses.
Missling should tell Macfarlane to stay away from the media or they'll cut him completely out of the phase 3.
I wasn't saying the videos were not legit. They were just not representative of the trial results. And add to that the way news reporters/producers push the limit to sensationalize a story to keep their audience interested.
I wouldn't necessarily interpret that as meaning they will abandon their existing habit of delaying new data until they can present it at major conferences.
The thing that makes me angry is the Macfarlane interviews. That's the most suspect part of the whole story. If Missling had sold shares at that time I would have run for the hills. It's hard to believe Macfarlane can do those interviews without permission from the company funding the trial.
"They knew the data was worse for months."
So what? the company has a history of presenting results at the July AAIC meetings and NOT in PR's. They were no more "hiding" anything now then they were hiding good results in 2015 when they held their data until the July AAIC meeting.
Why do they have to sell shares? Ohh I dunno, I guess I just assumed someone running a "charade" would do so for a purpose, most likely a purpose related to personal gain.
"Avxl orchestrated a charade for months..... "
For what purpose? Neither the leadership nor the company itself
sold shares into the "supposed" charade. I don't buy it.
Good Yahoo post containing link to original donepezil data where control
group had no medication. The thread is a good read and is positive about the recent 2-73 results when compared to SOC. (link to the yahoo post is at the bottom)
by docdrewbear:
"If you want to consider if maintenance of MMSE over 26 weeks is good or not, then go look at the original papers in the late 90's where the controls had no medication. You can see the natural rate of decline as scored by the MMSE (ex. graph on journal page 140, upper right) and judge for yourself where and when you'd be convinced that maintenance over natural progression is significant or not."
https://wwwDOTresearchgate.net/profile/Richard_Mohs2/publication/13788073_Rogers_SL_Farlow_MR_Doody_RS_et_al._A_24-week_double-blind_placebo-controlled_trial_of_donepezil_in_patients_with_Alzheimer's_disease._Donepezil_Study_Group/links/0deec52458b590b178000000.pdf
A 24=week,double-blind, placebo- controlled trial of donepezil in patients
with Alzheimer’s disease
S.L. Rogers, PhD; M.R. Farlow, MD; R.S. Doody, MD, PhD; R. Mohs, PhD; L.T. Friedhoff, MD, PhD; and the Donepezil Study Group*"
http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/;_ylt=AuTW37mBtEteSCKb55xFl9reAohG;_ylu=X3oDMTB2aWRzMjg1BHBvcwMyNgRzZWMDTWVkaWFNc2dCb2FyZHNYSFJVbHQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3?&bn=04bae8c0-3391-3115-ad23-19e486e82827&tid=1469747872598-1531a743-9761-4f9d-abf4-075044c58896&tls=la%2Cd%2C3%2C3
Yes they would get the 5 years of exclusivity (USA only). The question is whether that's enough for a partner to pony up big $$$ for a pivotal trial in a landscape littered with the carcasses of drugs that have failed. if the results had showed cognition continuing to improve right through week 31 it certainly would have paved the way for a deal but that isn't reality now. Those that were saying Missling already had a deal and was saving it for this conference were obviously wrong. I think one reason for the severity of this selloff is the uncertainty of whether a deal will happen.
"didn't meet the 3 of out the 6 PRIMARY chosen endpoints"
and if this was a pivotal trial that would be show stopping but this is a phase 2 trial intended only to prep for a pivotal trial and there is nothing in these results so far that would suggest a pivotal would be useless.
Good question. In the spring report it shows a baseline of 64 on p.28.
TauRx failed thanks to Donepezil. Potentially good results otherwise just like here.
"This is a very good indication when negotiating with PFE"
And why would that be? 2-73 as a monotherapy is in the public domain. The composition of matter patent has already expired. It would have been much better if the combo was working better than 2-73 alone since they have a patent application in the system for that.
It's actually turned out to be a perception negative that the 5 week and in some cases the 17 week data was so good. Yes it may be true that for some of the tests if you just draw a line through the data at week 0 and at week 31 things look "stable" but when you throw in the values at 5 & 17 weeks you end up with big negative slopes going into the last data point.
For example, if the P300 amplitude on chart 9 had just linearly moved from the 5.99 baseline to the 5.93 week 31 value it wouldn't raise an eyebrow described as "stable", but when it goes from 5.99 to 7.09 to 6.88 to 5.93 that does not look "stable".
It only took a quick glance at the poster to see that many of the results showed a drop off after week 17. It's all on one page.
(Assuming he had control) Missling should never have allowed Macfarlane to do those Australian patient interviews. Talk about getting people's hopes up. Geeez
"Disease stable to 31 weeks, very bullish"
Go look at the Cogstate chart and check the difference between week 17 and 31.
AF just tweeted, lets say it was "not supportive"
From some of the charts it looks like the 2-73 + donepezil combo was definitely worse than 2-73 alone. Ironic that the TauRx news today showed the same type of thing.
Is there some FDA requirement that when you do a pivotal for a new AD drug that most of the trial must combo the drug with current SOC? AF indicated they do this because "that's how doctors treat patients" but if the FDA approves a new drug that is clearly better than SOC WITHOUT using SOC then why would docs not simply prescribe the new drug alone?
Possible smell test for AD...
http://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-07-26/smell-test-could-identify-alzheimers
But isn't the "one back" test a memory test, and didn't the last report show the greatest stat sig improvement in that particular test?
If there's no up move on good news then IMO it shows how limited the audience is. It's hard for a stock to move if 95% of those following the company already own a full position. Yahoo still shows only 2 analysts following the stock and the only press coverage we get is Australian local news. That's absurd. Hopefully some tutes with deep pockets have been waiting on this update to become more aggressive.
"no notable difference observed on MMSE score between ANAVEX 2-73 alone and ANAVEX 2-73 with donepezil."
It'll be interesting to see if they keep fighting with the patent office to get the 2-73 + donepezil combo patent approved. No value to that patent if 2-73 works just as well and without the donepezil side effects.
So that explains why I remember all those lousy iron shots with greater clarity after I've taken my post round Ibuprofen ;)
Just to be clear, neither did I say that. I said **IF** he had not responded at all it would still be just as meaningless and not reflective of the overall trial results.
One person's response to 2-73 is statistically meaningless. I think we already know from data presented so far that 2-73 may not work on 100% of patients and may provide varying degrees of improvement to those it does work on. If her relative had been in the small percentage that saw no benefit at all and if she had made some posting that the drug "didn't work" would that be some kind of "red flag" that things aren't going that well for the trial? Hardly. It just means he was one of those at the bottom of the response curve.
It could just be the lawyers are balking at legal liability of potentially leading some investors to believe there is across the board improvement in every test, even at the bottom end of the margin of error. It also may be the lawyers think it's best not to use those words in a trial with no placebo control.
"Wouldn't 273 be protected under the patent that was approved for the cancer indication?"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=123429552
"FUD" is an acronym for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt" spread for manipulative purposes.