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.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
This phrase has been attributed to Samuel Clemens, Mark Twain. It seems presently to have function in the current considerations of the statistical metrics of blarcamesine’s clinical trials.
Fewer people fall when they have Alzheimer’s and are being treated with blarcamesine. Contrarily, people with Alzheimer’s being treated with a placebo have greater fall rates.
The claim, then, that blarcamesine reduces Alzheimer’s fall rates must simply be one of those lies. Or, more probably, because it's Anavex and blarcamesine, it's a damned lie. Real statistics, by professionals competent in those arcane numerical machinations, will prove conclusively that blarcamesine simply does not, cannot reduce falls in people with Alzheimer’s.
Blarcamesine group falls were not by mere chance.
Get it right. Blarcamesine reduces chances of falling.
People who follow our experts will reject prophylaxis.
Blarcamesine’s prophylactic powers will be incidentally recognized.
Better than activists.
Anavex not going to Nashville play country music.
Well, Anavex paid good dollars to be a Gold Sponsor of this Rett Syndrome science meeting in Nashville, for 2.5 days next June.
https://give.rettsyndrome.org/event/2023-irsf-rett-syndrome-scientific-meeting/e459238
Is this a waste of corporate dollars? This sponsorship cost $25,000. Or, might Anavex want to put itself at the front of Rett syndrome therapies. Could this be the start of getting blarcamesine approved as a successful Rett syndrome therapy? The conference website states it “...will consist of both poster and oral presentation sessions and breakout discussions focused on basic, translational, and clinical work on Rett syndrome. Between sessions, the 200+ expected attendees will have ample time to connect, break down barriers, and forge new partnerships to advance toward treatments and a cure for Rett syndrome.”
For any or all of that, what does Anavex think it can present? This will not be just a vacant 40-minute talk by an Anavex presenter. Lots of questions and comments by Rett syndrome research professionals. I’m betting (holding my AVXL position) that significant things will be revealed.
Again, blarcamesine-induced prevention of Alzheimer’s.
Very Different MOAs
Funny Nomenqlature
Well, the use of the phonetically naked, lone Q (without a following 'e') in 'Leqembi" is apparently not so unique in drug trade names. Here are some others, which like the new Biogen drug look to be awkwardly contrived and artificial:
CIBINQO
Qbrexza
Qelbree
Qinlock
QNASL
Qsymia
Qtern
Qvar
There are many others, too, with interior lone q's. Pharmaceutical marketing is strange; qwestionable, even.
Name is Qwestionable
But again, the unanswered question of Alzheimer’s prophylaxis.
Day-high.
Blarcamesine a Common Cold Cure/Prophylactic?
There is the possibility that people taking blarcamesine in human trials could have reduced incidences and severities of common colds. Ponder the significance of blarcamesine being able to suppress any and all of the coronaviruses, which includes common colds and others.
https://research.cornell.edu/research/coronaviruses-common-cold-sars-mers-spike-protein
Maybe Anavex Sigma-1 Ligands Work, Too
Prodromal or Prophylactic Blarcamesine
Big Pharma Perspectives on Anavex
Interesting question.
But who can understand?
.
Nature is fooled, too.
Thank you for posting that link.
But, understand, as with most other general readers of this message board, I don't find myself compelled to arbitrarily click on such naked links, so as to discover what they might actually be talking about. Without a clear introduction, who can know what's being posted or promoted?
Always helpful to format a provided information link in this manner:
In the link below, the provided information explains....
Tell-tail, please.
Anyone want to explain to the general readership here what constitutes a "tail," as in one-tailed and two-tailed p values or tests?
They are "tails" of what, exactly?
(Let's see who can provide understandable education on this confused topic. The presumption that most readers know what's being talked about is an error.)
What's up --- beside the AVXL share price?
Anyone with technical analysis expertise want to tell us why the AVXL share price, at this moment, is up 15.16% on the day?
As we know, it can't have anything to do with blarcamesine's trial results. The experts have laid that all out. Blarcamesine doesn't do anything special for people with Alzheimer's. So, what's up?
It is the best.
Others still in the barn....
Well, 50mgs Should Work, Actually
How Blarcamesine May Prove Out in Alzheimer’s Therapy
As readers know, the validity and significance of the announced clinical results for blarcamesine treating Alzheimer’s are in contention. Many see the clinical metrics as only slightly positive, for a moderate portion of those in the 50mg dosing arm of the study. For those in the placebo and 30mg arms, clinical outcomes were not impressive.
Of course, we all await the release of new clinical data from Anavex, where the results of each of the three arms are distinctly separate: with no pooling of data. With that, it should be clear that blarcamesine in 50mg dosings does, indeed, at least for some, provide clinical outcomes where a) the progression of Alzheimer’s symptoms is stopped and mental capacities continue at a new, non-declining baseline, or b) compromised mental capacities are actually restored toward a normal, non-Alzheimer’s level.
Right now, from the announced clinical results, it would appear that blarcamesine might be able to help only a percentage of people with Alzheimer’s. A good number appear not to have been helped.
In this regard, first consider Aricept, a standard of care (SOC) FDA-approved drug for Alzheimer’s. It neither stops, delays, nor reverses the symptomatic progression of Alzheimer’s; it merely slows, for a period, the lethal progression of symptoms.
On the basis of what has been announced from the placebo-controlled, three-arm clinical study of blarcamesine, for those who would take blarcamesine and notice termination of symptomatic progression, it will be far better than Aricept. The same for those where the Anavex drug stopped symptomatic progression, creating a new, non-accelerating symptomatic baseline. With Aricept, the patient eventually (in a few weeks or months) resumes the lethal progression of symptoms. At least for some, blarcamesine stops that progression; may even restore normalized cognition and mental functions.
That, alone, should prompt the FDA to approve blarcamesine.
But there is this distinctive other blarcamesine therapy. It is very probable that for those for whom the drug does not reverse symptoms, it may actually markedly slow their progression, perhaps for many years. Not a cure, but able to add additional years of low-symptom conditions.
Many cancer drugs have a similar action. They do not cure the targeted cancer, but for some time they suppress its progression.
The first blarcamesine question is, “What percentage of those with Alzheimer’s taking 50mg actually have their symptoms reversed or reduced?”
But the second question would be, “For those who don’t gain symptomatic suppression (restoration of normalized cognition), can the drug at least favorably slow it; especially if administered at the disease’s earliest stages?”
Finally, of course, is the question of a potential Aricept synergy. Aricept does, indeed, slow the intensification of Alzheimer’s symptoms, at least for a period. Might a dual Aricept/blarcamesine therapeutic protocol be successful to some useful degree in patients who don’t respond to a blarcamesine monotherapy?
What about the new hire, himself?
How will it be?
Will comment in detail later. Nonetheless, blarcamesine works.
Mayo Was There; I'm Home, Catching Up
Who Was Rett?
Well, he certainly was not a movie star; was an Austrian pediatrician:
"In 1954, Dr. Andreas Rett, a pediatrician in Vienna, Austria, observed two girls making the same repetitive hand-washing motions. He compared their clinical and developmental histories and found they were very similar. Dr. Rett had six other girls with a similar behavior, so he made a film of the girls and traveled throughout Europe seeking other children with these symptoms. He published his finding in several German medical journals in 1966."
https://www.rettsyndrome.org/about-rett-syndrome/history-of-rett/
CTAD Announces CTAD
This morning the University of California – San Francisco made an announcement of its CTAD conference; the event where Anavex will be making a presentation on its clinical study of blarcamesine treating Alzheimer’s.
Interestingly, not a word about the Anavex presentation. The announcement stated, “The CTAD conference will feature top neurologists, clinicians and memory loss researchers, coming from as far afield as Stockholm and Seoul, to demonstrate new findings and initiatives in the diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, the most common type of dementia afflicting an estimated 6.5 million Americans. The conference, which is sold out for in-person attendance, will run from Nov. 29 to Dec. 2.”
Further, “President of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, Michael Weiner, MD, professor of radiology, medicine and neurology at UCSF, noted that it has only been 15 years since imaging techniques have enabled Alzheimer’s disease to be identified in living people. “Now amyloid PET is widely available, tau PET is being employed by many clinical trials, and, very recently, blood tests for Alzheimer’s disease have shown great promise for screening and even diagnosis.”
Weiner said that he expects many attendees to be drawn to presentations on anti-amyloid therapies, especially lecanemab and donanemab, which have shown promising results. “There is growing evidence that some of these therapies appear to slow cognitive decline. Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” he said. “There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments.”
Still, with Alzheimer's professionals, everything stuck in the tau and amyloid motifs. Dr. Missling’s presentation will be a bit off-topic, trying to fix or prevent Alzheimer’s by activating, of all things, the sigma-1 receptor. Except for the few who might be following Anavex science, most of the conference audience may have never heard of the sigma-1 receptor; or understand in any way that its proper activation could somehow stop or reverse the progression of Alzheimer’s symptoms.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/972627
Significance of the OLE.
I'm a small-time buyer; have few spare dollars.
Next Week, Let’s See if a Squeeze Happens
Blarcamesine's Profound Safety Can Obviate Phase 4 Trial
A Potential Anavex Application
The Story is Anavex Molecules, NOT Sigma-1 Protein
They Are Reading, Learning About Anavex