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.
No indication I know for Anavex against arthritis.
I haven't seen any technical reports or other information that any of the Anavex molecules might effectively treat any of the various forms or causes of arthritis.
Perhaps this will incidentally show up in future clinical trials for target conditions (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, et al.).
Given the profound, demonstrated efficacies against so many conditions, it's not inappropriate to hope Anavex may someday have another answer to yet another debility.
So, the tau tangle thing again (any different?).
Merck, perhaps in desperation, collaborates with a Japanese pharmaceutical pursuing a tau protein removal drug. Good luck with that one. How many other Big Pharmas have spent billions testing both beta-amyloid and tau tangle removal drugs? Not a one has been successful in any way.
If this one can work, fine. Chances are slim, however. I'm not buying any Merck shares.
Once again, the target is an end-stage outcome. Beta-amyloids and tau tangles result at the end of the neuron dysfunction processes that cause Alzheimer's. This is where Anavex is so superior. It's drug, Anavex 2-73 treats the initial, first-stage problem, the disruption of the mitochondria-endoplasmic reticula interface. In normal, homeostatic neurons, the mitochondria are attached to the endoplasmic reticula and easily transfer adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to the ER, which allows it to properly fold proteins into fully-functioning enzymes, some of which clear the waste proteins, beta-amyloids, and tau tangles.
Anavex 2-73 fixes things before wastes accumulate, right at the start of the disease process, not the end. No other drug in consideration can do this. Unique, safe, and effective. Anavex 2-73, the eventual Standard of Care for a multitude of geriatric diseases.
Looks favorable for Rett Syndrome
Thanks for the URL.
If the molecule (or analogues) work in afflicted humans as described, the drug looks to be very useful.
Appears that it will work best if administered early on, with Rett Syndrome right at birth, as the drug appears to best treat things during development. Therapeutic efficacy at later ages, when neurons and brain tissues are more developed, may be questionable.
The drug is certainly not a competitor of Anavex 2-73. It works very differently, affecting certain neuron molecules (cytokines, etc.).
One form of the molecule apparently can cross the blood/brain barrier (it can be orally administered). It also is claimed to have a longer half-life (resides in cells longer). All favorable.
But actual therapeutic outcomes, degree of healing, is not mentioned (and presently may not be known).
Hope this can work for Rett Syndrome patients. (I'll still restrict my investments to AVXL.)
Good question --- long term safety.
No mystery.
No, takes some developed biological knowledge to be able to understand the unique, revolutionary biochemical mechanisms of Anavex 2-73, all of which point to remarkable future successes.
The general market is, by and large, clueless as to Anavex biology. Therefore, no big share price increases until information appears that the general public can understand, such as approval or conduct of new clinical trials. Presently, there is nothing the non-scientific crowd can connect with to AVXL.
In time, the entire world will learn of the Anavex revolution. (But most of us here, will have been in early, persisted, and will reap great rewards.)
Targeting the root cause. It's not beta-amyloid.
More positive Anavex developments.
The ability of Anavex 2-73 to safely, effectively treat an ever-expanding list of Central Nervous System diseases is further revealed by today’s corporate announcement:
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=74661505
Read the whole article. Count and list the number of CNS diseases for which Anavex 2-73 has shown efficacy. It’s not just Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.
I’ve done a bit of reading of technical papers investigating successful Anavex 2-73 treatment of animal-based analogues (transgenic, etc.) of human CNS diseases. That list is even bigger. Beyond CNS diseases are cancers, heart disease, psychiatric conditions, and more.
The safety and magnitude of Anavex 2-73 therapies (and later, perhaps equal or exceeding it by Anavex 3-71) are, as yet, virtually unrecognized by the general investment and scientific communities. Those communities continue to think Anavex 2-73 is but another, destined-to-fail beta amyloid target.
This willful ignorance, however, is not possessed by whatever parties Anavex principals are discussing with potential marketing collaborators. Behind closed doors, experts are fully aware of the revolutionary Anavex molecules, and will act appropriately. We don’t get to monitor those discussions, but the science and clinical data can be understood by a college freshman biology student. No real mystery; just new, unique, and unexpected facts.
And none of this is obscure to FDA officials monitoring Anavex’s progress. The Trump administration’s efforts to bring new drugs promptly to market set Anavex 2-73 in sharp focus, a perfect demonstration drug for this new initiative.
Let’s see how this plays out.
The seven dropouts issue.
As far as I can determine, there is no information telling why seven trial participants dropped out. There is no good reason to believe these drop-outs occurred because of adverse events, bad side effects, from Anavex 2-73.
People drop out of clinical trials for many reasons, unrelated to and unaffected by the drug being investigated in the trial. Remember, almost all Alzheimer's patients are elderly, open to any number of geriatric health conditions and problems, and of which (unrelated to Anavex 2-73) could prompt the decision to drop out of the trial.
In fact, I would think it to be required to report any trial drug-induced drop outs, drop-outs caused by trial drug-induced adverse events. I've seen no such reports. I presume, therefore, that the seven drop outs were for other reasons, not directly caused by Anavex 2-73. Those seven individuals do not, as I understand it, taint or question the trial's remarkably favorable low adverse incident rate. As the published trial data show, Anavex 2-73 is without any disqualifying adverse events. Side effects, when present, are relatively mild (headache, et al.) and do not complicate the drug's usage in any way.
The published data are clear. Anavex 2-73 is utterly safe when prescribed in the dosage ranges of the P1/P2 Australian clinical trial.
Safety and Insomnia Factors. Another Anavex 2-73 market?
The profound efficacy of Anavex 2-73 to effectively allow people with insomnia to resume normal sleep is, of yet, not properly factored into future AVXl values.
Two matters of demonstrated value:
A, Anavex 2-73 has proven to cause no disqualifying adverse events. Unlike almost all neuro-active drugs, it has no record of disqualifying side effects, as proven in the P1/P2 Australian clinical data. The stuff is utterly safe.
B, In that same clinical trial, it demonstrated universal, complete treatment of insomnia.
What, then, if Anavex 2-73 were to be proposed as a new prescription insomniac? Insomnia is a major public health issue, causing all sorts of untoward outcomes, at great cost. The market for a safe, effective treatment for this mental health scourge is gigantic.
Were that to occur, were it to come to market as an insomniac, might it be subsequently discovered that those treating their insomnia with the Anavex drug subsequently had reduced rates of CNS disease onset? (Incidental CNS disease prophylaxis?)
Never heard of the company.
Provide a URL, please (regarding anything associated with AVXL).
Clueless regarding the hard science.
Gone no where? Really?
Been watching the trading range.
I’m no technical analyst, merely a common retail owner of AVXL shares (because I understand the revolutionary biology of the company’s molecules).
Appears to me that AVXL has traded sideways for a few weeks. No declining nor ascending trends. Would like to hear what the tech analysts think this means.
For me, it means that the majority of AVXL shares are now in strong hands, held by individuals and institutions looking beyond the regulatory and clinical results horizons, confident that future share prices (and perhaps dividend returns) strongly suggest long-term holds will be the most profitable actions with this equity.
I’m holding my shares, and will not cash out any until at least the high double digits. (And when share prices ascend to those lofty levels, new substantiating clinical results and other solid-science info might project or forecast 3-digit share prices.)
I’m pleased that there have been no persisting sell-offs into the 3- or 4-dollar levels. Again, seems that few shareholders want to liquidate. Presently, no cheap shares are being offered. The vast majority of AVXL shareholders now see that Anavex Life Sciences has a remarkable future beyond the near-term investment horizon. 2018 is going to be very interesting, very rewarding, I believe.
The recent FNSR trade volumes (in the hundreds of thousands) have been said to be “all a front.”
That is a perplexing explanation. What, specifically, is a stock trading “front.” I’ve been buying and selling equities for 20 years and have never encountered the term.
What is the “front?” Who creates it? How? Why?
At 12:37 EDT, 203,000 FSNR shares have been traded. The latest posted price is $0.0431. If that were the price of all of the trades, about $8,700 has been expended by buyers.
If Freestone is a worthless company, what, conceivably, would be the reason anyone would fork over $8k for 203,000 shares of a worthless, going-nowhere company?
The only plausible explanation I can conceive of is that someone has information that the company does have a viable future, worthy of an $8K bet; to play out handsomely in the future.
Again, explain the “front” thing. Makes no sense. Only plausible explanation is that someone thinks FSNR is worth an $8k position at these low prices.
Ok, I'm out of the options game.
Well, never was in, just tried to figure it out. Clearly, it's not for my personality type: rectilinear science, merely adding and subtracting numbers, watching plotted data sets. Risk determinations at the most elemental level.
I'll hold my AVXL shares; will take profits in the distant future, after great appreciation. I'll stick to what I know best, cellular biology and associated topics.
(And yes, were I to create a webpage telling the details of neuron chemistry, it would for many [well, most] be as arcane and inscrutable as the options game would be for me.)
Therein is the cause, I believe, of the narrow and horizontal AVXL trading range. Very few retail or even institutional investors can fathom the world-changing technologies in Anavex's arsenal. To them, Anavex is but another doomed-to-fail pharmaceutical start-up, with some hokey early phase data that cannot playout well in a real giant placebo-controlled double blind trial. They are certain of this because of the multitude of similar Alzheimer's drug Phase 3 trial failures.
But those good folks couldn't tell the difference between the secondary and tertiary structures of a peptide or protein, and how those apply to normalized enzyme function. Without such knowledge (in orders of magnitude greater depth) the unique significance of Anavex 2-73 (and later Anavex 3-71) cannot be usefully comprehended.
The only thing that will change AVSL share prices will be news of a financial nature from the company. We await such.
I'd love to watch an options expert operate.
With AVXL and few other equity positions, I'm a retail buy and hold guy. I've tried to learn the options game, but it seems too difficult; seems to be just a complicated way to lose money.
Would like to see every position taken, and more important, why. All the while telling us options novices the terminology. "Puts." "Calls" "In the money." etc.???
It appears that up to $10,000 were expended in today’s trade volume (168,436).
Who, in his right mind, would fork over so many dollars for such a worthless company?
No one with $10,000 laying around would.
Someone believes Freestone does have profitable future, worthy of an investment of this size; with a share-price payoff some time in the future.
We'd all like to know what prompted today's FSNR trades (there were apparently, only 2).
Alzheimer’s experts call for FDA Alzheimer's drug changes
The posting,”... recommends that the FDA approve new medicines that demonstrate a proven benefit on at least one therapeutic endpoint - either cognition or function. The current FDA standards require a new drug to show benefits on both proven endpoints, an unnecessarily challenging hurdle the authors say may be inhibiting investment in new Alzheimer's treatments.”
Additionally, this was stated:
The authors wrote that a modernized FDA standard for Alzheimer's medications would reflect changes in the field and in treatment since the 1990s, and it would also align with draft guidance issued in 2013 for drug development for early Alzheimer's. Specifically for Alzheimer's, the authors argue, if a new drug improves memory but has less positive impact on a patient's daily functioning skills, the medication should still meet standards for FDA approval, because clinically meaningful improvements in cognition matter importantly to persons with Alzheimer's independent of functional improvement and vice-versa.
Irrespective of the degree of impact on secondary measures, the notion that the FDA would deny approval for a safe and well-tolerated drug candidate that achieves its primary endpoint of improving cognition in patients with Alzheimer's disease is almost unthinkable," the authors wrote.
The authors emphasized that the new standard is essential at a time in which recent clinical trial failures on Alzheimer's drugs have adversely affected investment in disease research. The FDA has not approved a novel Alzheimer's treatment since 2003, and the 5.5 million Americans with Alzheimer's and their caregivers are desperate for innovation.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-05/apa-aec051117.php
The failure of yet another Alzheimer’s drug, Neurotrope’s bryostatin-1, might prompt some to find this in favor of Anavex Life Sciences, inasmuch as Anavex now has the only human trials data that solidly show authentic positive treatment results (to be more firmly established in an ensuing big Phase 3 trial). Neurotrope will not be an Anavex competitor.
Nonetheless, the failure of Neurotrope’s drug will do nothing for Anavex. The investment advisor community will, as before, site this as proof that no drug company, big or small, new or old, can offer any useful Alzheimer’s treatment drug; that investing in any company — such as Anavex — is a demonstrated fool’s game. A multitude of very expensive trials have failed, and so will Anavex’s, it will be contended.
The unique neuron biochemistry of Anavex 2-73 is beyond the comprehension of most advisors. They lump all Alzheimer’s drugs in the same category — requisite failures.
As in the past, I’ll suggest that AVXL share prices will trade sideways, in a narrow, static price range until new, hard clinical data are released some time in the distant future. Case in point is the market’s reaction to today’s hiring of a former FDA official. The implications of that are very positive, but the market discounts it.
AVXL is only for the patient — with stunning future rewards.
About the Standard of Care (SOC)
An important factor in any future medical uses for Anavex drugs (once approved by the Food and Drug Administration and available for prescription) will be the Standard of Care (SOC) mandate. It would be useful for Anavex investors to understand the meaning and application of SOC. We hope and believe Anavex 2-73 will eventually be the SOC for Alzheimer’s, dramatically eclipsing (and negating) any of the few Alzheimer’s drugs currently on pharmacy shelves. As most are aware, none of those provide continuing good results. At best, they merely suppress the severity of symptoms but for a short, limited period of time, from a few weeks to a few months; whereupon the symptomatic trend toward death resumes. Tragically, that’s the meager Standard of Care today.
What, then, is the definition of SOC? Very interesting — and very promising for Anavex Life Sciences and its shareholders (but even more so for Alzheimer’s victims).
Here is one website’s definitions http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33263 :
This is not a rebuttal; a presentation of hard data.
Take the time, if you will, to ponder the copious data presented in this Anavex slide show, presented at a major neurological symposium:
http://www.anavex.com/my_uploads/CTAD-Anavex-December-2016.pdf
First (if you care not to read and comprehend the entire presentation), note the safety of Anavex 2-73, the absence of disqualifying or severe adverse effects, side effects, on page 16.
Then, skip to the chart on page 25, and note the restoration of measured cognitive function (electrochemically) on page 25.
No other drug or clinial trial has ever been able to reverse and/or restore normalized cognition in Alzheimer's patients. Anavex 2-73 did that --- without any of the severe side effects so common in neurological agents. That's the Anavex "story," and it's not fiction.
The seminal question here is, is the insomnia of Alzheimer's of a different cause than common insomnia?
I know of no evidence or reason to believe that Alzheimer's insomnia is unique, unlike any other. On this basis, I'd offer the conjecture that Anavex 2-73 will effectively treat most or all forms and causes of insomnia.
Only way to know will be to treat a broad spectrum of insomniacs, of course.
Another future clinical trial and Anavex 2-73 application?
The favorable insomnia outcomes of Anavex 2-73 in the Australian clinical trial have not been much considered. They should be. Should the drug prove to be a universal and safe treatment of insomnia in the upcoming Phase 3 clinical trial, the implications (to use a now-common phrase) will be H U G E. According to Wikipedia, “Between 10% and 30% of adults have insomnia at any given point in time and up to half of people have insomnia in a given year....”
What if a low dosage of Anavex 2-73 provides universal insomnia relief? Would there not be a chance that at first, the drug gets prescribed for insomnia, followed sometime later with over the counter sales?
This will be another useful determination of the big Phase 3 study.
I don’t believe the entirety of Anavex 2-73 clinical applications have yet been discovered.
Stunning. Nothing but last-century Alzheimer's perspectives.
Just read the webpage. Same old same old. Lots of failed tries to eliminate beta-amyloid plaques and tau tangles. Nothing close to success. Then, present Standard of Care (SOC) acetlycholinesterase inhibitors, yielding but a few weeks or months of symptomatic progression relief.
Is anyone wondering why AVXL has not markedly appreciated? Perspectives and understandings such as the author presents on this webpage pervade pharmaceutical commentaries.
Clearly, the mechanistic details, efficacy, safety, and applications of Anavex 2-73 are virtually unknown by the investment advisory community. What little (inadequately) is known is summarily dismissed as just another ensuing Alzheimer's treatment fiasco. There have been so many of those commentators fail even to take the time to learn the unique chemistry of the Anavex molecules. Poor reporting it is.
As I've contended previously, nothing much is going to change until Phase 3 data are released, showing in great magnitude all (and perhaps more) than the Phase1/Phase2 trial in Australia revealed.
The vast majority of investors invest on the basis of anticipated share price increases and dividend returns. The underlying, enabling hard science is unknown and/or irrelevant. We can lay out the science in the greatest detail here all we want. It will make no difference. Hard neuron science simply is, and will not, play any part in the AVXL share price. The reporting of drastically-decreased (or even just stabilized) symptoms in dozens upon dozens of the upcoming Phase 3 clinical trial will do the trick. Money can be reliably envisioned from such data.
Reasons Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics data are not being revealed is unknown to me.
I won’t speculate on this at all. It has nothing to do with whatever expertise I might contribute (reasonable, but not complete understanding of cellular chemistry and physiology). I will presume that Anavex is retaining the info for some presently inscrutable negotiations purpose, for some future corporate benefit.
I don’t doubt the data exist, nor that they are important. Why they are being retained is in the realm of financial negotiations, etc. Far beyond my ken. I try to stick only to the science of Anavex; nothing regarding share prices, etc.
But thank you for asking.
Rett Syndrome, no "h", no "'s."
To answer your good questions.
Yes, additional human trials are needed, for several reasons. A conventional double-blind Phase 3 study, with an experimental arm (with the real Anavex 2-72), and a control arm, where a physically identical placebo is administered is needed. FDA rules require such for eventual drug approval. FDA is “protecting us.” They want to be as certain as possible that adverse events (side effects) are minimal and not disqualifying, and that the drug actually works, with regulatory efficacy. The previous Phase 1/Phase 2 study is inadequate for all of this — a matter I do not contest in any way.
My point is this. The existing murine and P1/P2 data, coupled with an understanding of how Anavex 2-73 restores normalized neuron function (its hard cellular biochemistry) all predict a very successful Phase 3 trial. The chances that the drug will prove non-effective in stabilizing or reducing Alzheimer’s symptoms, and/or prove to have disqualifying adverse events are, to me, infinitesimally tiny. Hence, I’m confident in the appreciating value of my early equity position in AVXL. Wish I could buy more shares.
You mentioned the heretofore unconsidered factors of insomnia relief and quality of life outcomes for both patients and care givers. I would add the many additional conditions Anavex pipeline drugs will treat; from cancers, psychiatric conditions, heart disease, to epilepsy, and a growing number of others. All of that will play out so favorably in coming years, for both patients and Anavex Life Sciences, I’m certain.
The magnitude of the Anavex medical revolution is unappreciated by most. Few are able to envision it, for several reasons. Commonly, Anavex’s Alzheimer’s approach is erroneously conflated and mixed with the dozens of failed amyloid suppression or removal trials of other drug companies. They all fail; therefore, Anavex 2-73 is likewise destined for expensive clinical failures, too.
Many others fail to understand Anavex 2-73's unique biochemistry and its ability to restore normal cell function. Too good to be true. Appears to be a mystical nostrum. Can’t be true, as future clinical trials will prove (so they think).
Then, Anavex Life Sciences is a pharmaceutical start-up, with no proven revenues, without even an FDA-approved product. The record for such companies mandates a very harsh assessment regarding any retail equity position. Therefore, it’s regarded as a long and potentially bad gamble by so many “experts,” both financial and scientific.
You mentioned the assessment of a placebo effect as a potential cause of clinical efficacy. Not a factor. Not a consideration. No one, ever, has been able to suppress or reverse the multitude of Alzheimer’s symptoms by willful or hopeful thinking.
Anavex Life Sciences and Anavex 2-73 are the real things.
Murine neuron mitochondria and endoplasmic reticula are identical to humans.
Those who wish to await Phase 3 efficacy trials of Anavex 2-73 are certainly welcome to do so.
Presuming that the well-characterized restorative function of Anavex 2-73 as a sigma-1 ligand in murine (rats and mice) neurons is sufficiently different so as to obviate homeostatic restoration in human neurons is founded upon no science whatsoever. Pure conjecture.
The science is very contrary to that notion.
There are good reasons...
The homeostasis (normalized function) restored by Anavex 2-73 is not and should not be regarded as a "side effect." It is the primary, desired outcome --- unlike anything else treating disfunctional neurons.
Good questions; valid concerns — with useful answers.
If Anavex technologies (candidate drugs) are such powerful and safe Alzheimer’s treatments (along with many or most other CNS degenerative diseases), just why are there a) no substantial proclamations of validity from external “experts” or authorities, and b) why no useful press coverage?
Even more concerning is the relatively low share price. It’s been slowly elevating of late; but nonetheless, many of us AVXL longs think fair share prices are many dollars above the current $5 – $6 range (well, many, many dollars more).
First, few people have the biological or chemical knowledge to adequately and sufficiently understand the rather complex biochemical and cellular biology mechanisms by which the Anavex sigma-1 receptor agonists function, how they restore cellular homeostasis.
Most investment advisors and commentators couldn’t even define “cellular homeostasis.” They’d have to (but many haven’t yet) look it up on Google. Nor will they even know what an “agonist” is. Move on to the complexities of mitochondrial connections to the rough endoplasmic reticula, with adenosine triphosphate synthesis and transfer, coupled with calcium ion gating and signaling — all of which folds waste-clearing enzymes properly (and much more), and we have people in way over their heads. To them, sounds lake make-it-up chemical or biological hocus-pocus.
If it’s valid — and they have no way of knowing — it’ll all show up in “proper” Phase 3 double-blind clinical trials. Without those, financial analysts can confidently and powerfully say, “Stay away! The science is unproven. Don’t bet your dollars on such a far-out, yet to be proven medical technology. Remember, billions have been spent trying to find an Alzheimer’s drug. Every one has failed, and so will this one, it appears.”
Only one way around all of this. If FDA approves Anavex 2-73 as a drug to treat the orphan disease Rett Syndrome, and all of a sudden, little girls who have the disease (males seldom if ever have it) start to live normal lives and loving parents become ecstatic about their children’s normalized future, the press will write that up.
The proof will be in the pudding, the treated kids.
Or the pudding may be Down Under, should the Aussies move Anavex 2-73 to their market sooner than the FDA here. It’s one thing for a few “strong responders” to revert back to normalcy in an early clinical trial. Quite another when common citizens report remarkable symptom turn-arounds from a drug they bought at the pharmacy (well, in Australia, at the “chemist”).
Until any of that appears, AVXL equities are likely to stay cheap and not fully appreciated. The game belongs only to the longs.
What, per chance, are the implications (and chances) that Anavex drugs get approved and used in foreign countries before the US; such as Australia, and here, Germany?
Are we overly fixed only on domestic, FDA approval, whereas Alzheimer's and other CNS diseases are profound problems elsewhere, too?
What happens if, say, Australia first approves Anavex 2-73, with consequent good and rapid results in the tens of thousands down under then taking the drug?
When, and how, does Anavex 2-73 get approved and come into widespread use in the rest of the world? CNS diseases do not proliferate only in the US; they are worldwide problems --- with a US-based solution: Anavex.
Global, not just domestic perspectives should be pondered.
This is an utter non-issue; alarming only to those lacking elemental chemistry knowledge.
ANAVEX 2-73 is a tetrahydrofuran derivative, not tetrahydrofuran itself. This means that any number of side groups or other chemical appendages have been attached to the tetrahydrofuran base, thereby changing its toxicity and chemistry altogether.
To make this simple, for those with minimal chemistry background, an equivalent statement would be:
"Be careful, table salt is derived from chlorine, and it's strongly toxic."
(Table salt --- sodium chloride.)
Rats and mice validation is valid.
Mycroft brilliantly laid out how Anavex 2-73 promotes cellular health (normalcy, “homeostasis”), in a duel fashion.
Most drugs promote health by affecting or controlling single molecular reaction pathways.
For example, aspirin works by locking onto cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2), an enzyme involved in pain signal transmission. It chemically disables COX-2 molecules, thereby reducing pain signal transmission.
Anavex 2-73, inside neurons works in remarkable, multiple ways. It facilitates the healthful, multiple roles of the sigma-1 receptor. No other drug has been shown to usefully do this clinically.
CNS diseases need functioning sigma-1 receptors. In youth, sigma-1 chemistry is normal, with normal, healthful neurons. But with age (or other factors), normal neuron chemistry is disrupted.
Primarily, but not uniquely, energy-producing mitochondria become disconnected from rough endoplasmic reticula, where properly-folded enzyme proteins are produced and control normal cell function. In these aberrant conditions, Anavex 2-73 re-connects the mitochondria and endoplasmic reticula. Health-giving enzymes are then again produced.
Essential Ca+ signaling, among other effects, is also restored and enhanced by Anavex 2-73.
Anavex 2-73, by facilitating normal sigma-1 receptor functions, promotes healthful neuron chemistry. Although a bit over-stated, it’s like a diligent mother inside the neuron, keeping all of the chemical children in good order and discipline. She carries a big stick, and doesn’t hesitate to slap things back into order.
All of this is SO different from the many, now-failed Alzheimer’s treatment drug candidates. First, none of them work; and all have single, narrow molecular pathways they are supposed to affect. Smart investors, after doing deep due diligence (attempting to comprehend the unique, broad-spectrum functionality of Anavex drug candidates), should recognize how Anavex is entirely different; that lumping Anavex 2-73 in with all the other failed and proposed Alzheimer’s drug candidates is a gross chemical and investment error. Healthful apples and toxic oranges, as it were.
But, for due diligence, another unique, favorable trait of Anavex 2-73 should be noted.
All of the above would be irrelevant, were Anavex 2-73 to have, as do almost all nerve-acting drugs, severe side effects. Not so with this molecule. After adequate human testing, not a single significant (disqualifying) adverse event was recorded. No strokes. No hemorrhaging. No psychoses. No heart attacks. Just a few mild headaches or upset stomachs and the like. All of which would be usefully tolerated, given the stunning symptomatic relief Anavex 2-73 promises for those with Alzheimer’s.
Post #93794 explains it well.
(Better than I could have.)
No, Anavex 2-73 will not cure Alzheimer's.
That's because the root cause(s) of the disease will remain in any person treated with the drug. Stop the drug, and the disease symptoms are likely, in time, to resume.
Insulin does not cure diabetes. It controls it. Anavex 2-73 can do two things; prevent the onset (appearance) of CNS diseases, or, stop or reverse their progression.
The likelyhood of just popping a few Anavex 2-73 pills for a week or so to permanently prevent or treat any CNS disease is remote. As with insulin in diabetes, patients will have to take on-going, maintenance dosings of Anavex 2-73.
Of course, this is exactly the kind of product Big Pharmas want in their arsenals, drugs that have to be purchased continually, creating persisting revenue streams.
And this is why Dr. Missling will be extremely reluctant to sell off Anavex technologies to other companies. Keep the proprietary molecules in-house, yielding stunning, persisting financial rewards. External firms may be engaged in manufacture, packaging, distribution, and sales. But Anavex Life Science Corp. reaps the primary rewards.
Anavex Life Science Corp. I believe, is destined to be a Big Pharmaceutical. Those of us with AVXL shares will be well-rewarded — as will those who are treated with Anavex drugs.
I read virtually all of the postings here, noting several categories they fall into.
Many, understandably and quite legitimately, are focused on short-term trading gains. Buy some shares low, hold for a time, then sell high. Take a profit, and turn back around and buy at a new low, and sell again at a new high. Day-trading, momentum trading, etc. For those here for those purposes, I wish the best. In the coming weeks, months, and years, AVXL should, as the investment advisories proclaim about good trades, “out perform.”
Others, however, see AVXL as purely a long-term investment, targeting greatly advanced share prices and rewarding dividends in the (maybe) distant future. I’m in this group (and one below). I don’t know a Fibonacci pattern from an Elliot Wave Pattern. The oft-posted technical analysis charts here are beyond anything I can comprehend or use. Glad those with technical analysis proficiencies post these. They can be useful for others with TA interests.
I base my AVXL investment purely upon Anavex fundamentals, the soundness of the company’s management and technologies. Whenever I can be useful, I post a message explaining the biology of Anavex molecules against neurodegenerative diseases. I would think the majority of readers and posters on this board are in this category, long-term AVXL investors aiming for substantial, future share-price appreciation and dividend returns. Typical “retail” equity investors, we.
But, lastly, there is a final category of reader here, with unique and personal interests, related to personal experiences with Alzheimer’s and other CNS diseases. I am in this category, too; as I have a mild but confounding case of Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia, a rare genetic condition that causes the adductor muscles of my legs to remain tight, spastic; complicating normal walking. A study was done (in France) where human genes of my condition were inserted into lab rats, and they, like myself, had difficulties walking normally. Then, these transgenic rats were given, orally, Anavex 2-73 (or a close proprietary analogue) and wonderfully, the rats began to walk normally. I’m a biologist and I have every molecular biological reason to believe that once Anavex 2-73 is available, I will take it and resume, at least to some degree, normal ambulation. Personally, that would be wonderful.
But on a more somber note, I watched my dear mother attempt to care for my father in his last five years, slowly declining and eventually dying of Alzheimer’s. The hope Anavex 2-73 holds for Alzheimer’s victims and their care-givers transcends (for me at least) any of the remunerative rewards of AVXL ownership. The prospect that, literally, millions can find both relief and prevention of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Rett Syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and a host of other neurodegenerative diseases (in addition to various cancers, heart diseases, and others yet to be treated) rises far above the monetary rewards I anticipate.
All of this enters the supremely social, even spiritual realm; where profound “good” is done for multitudes who would otherwise suffer so horribly. I’ve seen that suffering in the last years of my father’s life. I am encouraged by the solid science of Anavex, the company’s management, and the many retail AVXL shareholders here who share these hopes.
For those who suffer, Godspeed, Anavex Life Sciences Corp.
Not aware of Anavex’s technologies or molecules? What kind of explanation is that for the collective and professed ignorance of conventional Alzheimer’s researchers?
Scientists doing research are obligated to scrutinize and closely examine ALL of the published data and papers related to the topics they are investigating. To fail to do so is profoundly unprofessional, even amateurish. In an hour’s reading of two or three Anavex technical papers any competent molecular biologist or neurologist can comprehend (as did I, and I have no such deep training) exactly how Anavex 2-73 is new, different, efficacious, and revolutionary.
The standard dismissing response, of course, is, “Well, we can’t latch on to any of that until a proper double-blind Phase 3 trial is published and accepted by the FDA.”
If it’s of any joy, those people are going to be left staring into blank microscopes and empty tissue culture plates when Anavex achieves its destiny.