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.
Did you see the UC Davis nvax announcement today that they then had to pull down this afternoon? Check out Stocktwits postings
So this article indicates the index funds will likely add all at once on 12/21:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.barrons.com/amp/articles/tesla-stock-will-be-added-to-s-p-500-all-at-once-expect-volatility-tomorrow-51606783996
60% market value increase since 11/16 announcement of inclusion. Clearly some significant front-running by traders of the 12/21 huge forced buys.
Katie bar the door.
TTTR is it largely understood at this point that the S&P500 tracking funds will not be buying until the several days around 12/21?
Just wondering your thoughts on that. TIA
Good question, Fireman, and I’ve wondered before if the 5mg liquid dosage for our Rett Syndrome adult patients is perhaps more effective because of the below?:
“ Why Take Liquid Extracts Over Capsules or Tablets?
Medical studies have shown that liquid extracts have faster absorption rates; higher optimization rates and is more easily digestible. Liquids may have a big advantage over pills when it comes to swallowing. Most people, especially the elderly and young children, tend to have more difficulty swallowing some pills. Generally, supplements in liquid form are much more readily broken down and absorbed. Additionally, it has been shown that liquids are more completely and quickly absorbed than most capsules and pills.”
https://medicare-europe.co.uk/science-clinical-data/liquids-vs-pills.html/
Roger that Dino, especially as analysts continue factoring in our licensing and sales going forward with autonomy, FSD, and battery tech to other manufacturers. Elon explains in his own words in this 12/5 interview:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-reveals-teslas-plan-to-be-at-the-forefront-of-a-self-driving-car-revolution-and-why-he-wants-to-be-buried-on-mars/ar-BB1bEZOg?li=BBnb7Kz
Yes, because those plasma glutamate levels just magically decrease “significantly” over 7 short weeks for all 6 of the Rett Syndrome participants, at a low 5mg liquid dosage.
Just a placebo effect in all participants, right......? SMH
https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-announces-preliminary-clinical-efficacy-data-of-its-u-s-phase-2-clinical-trial-of-anavex2-73-in-patients-with-rett-syndrome/
https://www.anavex.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ANAVEX2-73-RS-001-Finland-Conference-Sept-2019-Final.pdf
Some serious accumulation here. Follow the money
Valid point, PW, and no he has not seen the PDD trial data or final analysis (yet to be released by Anavex), and the quote you cited is seemingly incongruent with the actual experts’ words, the Company’s p/r and Anavex’s Ctad & November presentations imo.
That was very good TTTR
Don’t tell me it’s the wrong slide, the numbers are in the bottom right corner. I just picked #25 as one of MANY positive examples; but while you’re at it, read and enjoy the words on slide 26 as well.
And I’m extremely focused, similar to how the experts that actually reviewed Anavex’s data said they were “extremely encouraged”.
That’s whose words and presentations that I, and other shareholders, are focused on.
Your opinion does not seem to be shared with the dementia experts that actually have access to and reviewed our PDD trial data, reference:
Slide 25. patients remained stable on 30mg and IMPROVED cognitively on 50mg compared to baseline. After only 14 weeks. Controlled trial. Stat sig. Dose-dependent improvements. Serious unmet need. Improved sleep. Safe. And again Drs Jaime Kulisevsky Bojarski, MD, PhD and Dag Aarsland, MD agree. Focus on the words of the actual experts in the below links. That may help you.
https://www.anavex.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Anavex-Presentation-November-2020.pdf https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-announces-positive-results-from-proof-of-concept-controlled-phase-2-clinical-trial-evaluating-anavex2-73-blarcamesine-in-parkinsons-disease-dementia/
Another article portending issues for AZN’s vaccine; glad that Novavax is plodding a more measured path forward. They appear to have learned some lessons from the past.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-data-isnt-up-to-snuff/
Trouble for azn vaccine it appears...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/astrazenecas-best-covid-vaccine-result-was-a-fluke-experts-have-questions/
It appears that you’ve already forgotten the importance of our recent KEM analysis. KEM analysis was used in conjunction with Anavex’s CTAD 2019 results; and Anavex and Dr Afshar from Ariana presented that the positive efficacy response generally was dose dependent with the higher dose/concentration >4ng/mL, and it provided an average of 400% better cognitive scores over the control cohort over 104 weeks; using the FDA’s own Dec 2018 RWE document release.
Anavex indicating to us that a higher dose/concentration is tied to improved efficacy response is very important to the actual dementia patients.
Discounting that importance by you would appear disingenuous at best.
It’s also logical and welcome that the higher the dose the better the efficacy. Just as I need 500mg of ibuprofen rather than 50mg to alleviate my pain.
Common sense.
“Change in MMSE score from baseline at week 104 of matched cohorts was assessed. It showed that ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine) high dose cohort had a significantly lower MMSE decline (-1.1) compared to the ADNI control cohort (-4.4) at week 104 (p < 0.01).“
And
“ A hypothesis free data-driven analysis using Formal Concept Analysis Machine Learning as implemented in Knowledge Extraction and Management (KEM) software platform was used to identify exploratory efficacy and patient selection biomarkers including SIGMAR1 p.Q2P (rs1800866).
The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine),measured by Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and comparing treated patients with an external control AD cohort of patients from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database over a 104-week period.”
https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-presents-anavex2-73-blarcamesine-data-at-12th-clinical-trials-on-alzheimers-disease-ctad-2019-conference/
Another successful SpaceX launch tonight from Florida; 7th recycled use of the same stage 1 rocket (that’s a 1st).
Apples to oranges.
We’re supposed to compare the theoretical & speculative words from Dr Perry PRIOR to a neurotrope trial: “could”, “certain compelling data”, “potentially”; to
The words from dementia experts commenting directly on Anavex’s controlled PDD/AD-related trial data, AFTER they’d ACTUALLY reviewed the clinical data, and then chose to present said data & results in front of their peers at CTAD?
Dr Aarsland in particular commented that he was very pleased with our controlled trial results, and that 2-73 actually provided significant improvements in cognitive function; and that our 2-73 study results ARE a meaningful step forward towards an urgently needed treatment.
Context is important.
“Dr. George Perry, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Semmes Distinguished University Chair in Neurobiology, University of Texas at San Antonio and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, added: "We are hopeful that this trial can substantiate certain compelling data with Bryostatin from previous trials, which suggests patients could potentially see improvement in their disease which, I believe, would be transformative as an AD treatment. When I see this in the context of currently available drugs, I believe Bryostatin could chart a new path in how we treat Alzheimer's disease."”
Apples to oranges.
We’re supposed to compare the theoretical & speculative words from Dr Perry PRIOR to a neurotrope trial: “could”, “certain compelling data”, “potentially”; to
The words from dementia experts commenting directly on Anavex’s controlled PDD/AD-related trial data, AFTER they’d ACTUALLY reviewed the clinical data, and then chose to present said data & results in front of their peers at CTAD?
Dr Aarsland in particular commented that he was very pleased with our controlled trial results, and that 2-73 actually provided significant improvements in cognitive function; and that our 2-73 study results ARE a meaningful step forward towards an urgently needed treatment.
Context is important.
“Dr. George Perry, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Semmes Distinguished University Chair in Neurobiology, University of Texas at San Antonio and Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, added: "We are hopeful that this trial can substantiate certain compelling data with Bryostatin from previous trials, which suggests patients could potentially see improvement in their disease which, I believe, would be transformative as an AD treatment. When I see this in the context of currently available drugs, I believe Bryostatin could chart a new path in how we treat Alzheimer's disease."”
Agreed Dino, nothing compares to Tesla. But folks typically have to figure that out for themselves. Great post by the way
To quote the honorable Judge Smails, “top notch, top notch!”
Owe you a beer one day; thanks for the valuable reasoning, logic and analysis.
“The vaccine has a favorable product profile that will allow handling in an unfrozen, liquid formulation that can be stored at 2°C to 8°C, allowing for distribution using standard vaccine channels.”
Sure beats -70 degrees and -20 degrees for Pfizer and Moderna’s products. Simply not feasible for ROW
https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-granted-fast-track-designation-us-fda
Interestingly this does appear to have come as a surprise to “the market”, Georgejii. Let’s go Elon
Darn right, this move should make it easier for the large funds to build sizable positions. Great news
I second that; thank you Raja for reporting that info.
It says “full-time”. Were you to look up what that means, you’ll learn that the standard work week is 40 hours.
So 40 * 52 weeks * 200 hour = $416,000 per year.
Could be as high as $572,000 per year, at $275 per hour, if that makes you happier.
And no, I’m not allotting any vacation time off, as the Company has a lot to accomplish.
Job details
Salary
$200 - $275 an hour
Job Type
Full-time
Contract
Remote
Number of hires for this role
1
New Anavex job posting; 400,000+ annual salary position
Medical Monitor 5yrs+ Req
Anavex Life Sciences
Pay: $200.00 - $275.00 per hour
Experience:
Biotechnology or Pharma: 5 years (Required)
Medical Monitoring: 5 years (Required)
Education:
Doctorate (Required)
Additional Compensation:
Bonuses
Other forms
https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=Anavex+Life+Sciences&l=&jt=&radius=
Slide 25. Our PD dementia patients remained stable on 30mg and IMPROVED cognitively on 50mg compared to baseline. After only 14 weeks.
Controlled trial. Stat sig. Dose-dependent improvements. Serious unmet need. Improved sleep. Safe.
And the real experts (that have ACTUALLY reviewed our data) Drs Jaime Kulisevsky Bojarski, MD, PhD and Dag Aarsland, MD agree.
Focus on the words of the actual experts in the below links. That may help you.
https://www.anavex.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Anavex-Presentation-November-2020.pdf
https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-announces-positive-results-from-proof-of-concept-controlled-phase-2-clinical-trial-evaluating-anavex2-73-blarcamesine-in-parkinsons-disease-dementia/
In case you’ve forgotten: see slide 25. Our PD dementia patients remained stable on 30mg and IMPROVED cognitively on 50mg compared to baseline.
Controlled trial. Stat sig. Dose dependent improvements. Serious unmet need. Improved sleep. Safe.
Oh, and the real experts (that have ACTUALLY reviewed our data) Drs Jaime Kulisevsky Bojarski, MD, PhD and Dag Aarsland, MD agree.
https://www.anavex.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Anavex-Presentation-November-2020.pdf
https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-announces-positive-results-from-proof-of-concept-controlled-phase-2-clinical-trial-evaluating-anavex2-73-blarcamesine-in-parkinsons-disease-dementia/
Willful ignorance is, by all means, your choice to make. I have been paying close attention for the last 5 years, and do not share your OPINION.
Greetings steadyt, I’ve some contacts looking into the obvious manipulation campaign, but meanwhile I can simply say that it appears the goal is to (obviously) shake loose retail holdings, but also when/if our ship comes in with readouts/approvals, that we will be ready and willing and conditioned to sell for a low but reasonable gain.
Whether that’s 1 or 2 billion market cap, who knows, but shake out retailers at a market cap well below true & mature value for a SOC drug company in the CNS space.
Just my understanding at this time.
Have a good one
Good post, very logical, and it would seem helpful to release (assumably) positive placebo-controlled Rett Syndrome results from our US study soon after this 11/6 CTAD conference & pdd data release.
We’ve been knee deep in Anavex DD &fact-finding for years, but can you imagine what type of reaction this type of 1-2 punch could trigger in dementia and neurodevelopmental CNS circles if these 2 coinciding blarcemesine readouts are homeruns (disease-modifying) cross-indication?
Our earlier progress has been largely smothered and marginalized (BP pressures IMO), and our press and analyst coverage quite limited, therefore many scientists/regulators would be caught off-guard, in a good way.
GLTY
Evening bas, forgive the rhetorical question but how can all of our early preclinical and (now recent) clinical consistently-positive results across numerous diseases (and communicated to us by subject-matter-experts across the CNS spectrum) be a coincidence?
That would seem a bridge too far, at least for this naive retail investor.
Consequently I’ve personally decided it wise to CONTINUE to ignore the daily online (compensated) manipulation and distraction campaign.
Press on bas
New Parkinson’s news article today re our positive PD Dementia trial results
https://parkinsonsnewstoday.com/2020/10/19/anavex-2-73-safe-aids-cognitive-skills-parkinsons-dementia-patients-phase-2-trial/
Bradford you’re making a lot of sense; time till tell but B does appear to be the common denominator of positive results stemming from the independent RBL lab, and in light of:
“WHO study finds remdesivir didn’t help COVID-19 patients”
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-donald-trump-united-nations-07353942476703499ed0e668eba52178
http://www.ipharminc.com/press-release/2020/9/15/laboratory-testing-of-brilacidin-for-covid-19-in-combination-with-remdesivir-reduces-viral-load-by-nearly-100-percent
Heady sarcasm still preferred over common sense I see, man I didn’t miss that a bit.
And I did not suggest that Anavex is above the rules. Projection unnecessary on your part.
So in conclusion, let’s spend another 2 years looking for some rare and mild AE’s in patients with little to no current hope for stopping the inevitable cognitive slide.
Gotcha, so your implied suggestion is that we drag this out for another couple years with a >132 patient trial just to get stat sig positive results again for dementia patients, so as to allow for a rare & random AE goose chase?
And dementia patients should be willing to wait for this larger trial to finally conclude again in the same indication with the same clinical objectives?
I thought that dementia patients were largely on an inevitable and cruel cognitive slide (80% of PD patients develop dementia)?
I personally find those optics absurd.
Sound logic JonJones as usual, and I see that Peter PiotrPiet has a new write up on his blog as of yesterday.
I appreciate his humble insights. Hope you’re well.
https://piotrpeterblog.com
To us the PDD results (or at least the p/r) speak for themselves and tell us whether we’ve a 1 or a 0 (binary moment as you’ve aptly referred to it).
Will it take some time for the ROW to recognize and learn about our trial participants’ success in PD dementia?
Sure. But we’ve increasingly positive momentum; running downhill now, reaching the last legs of this marathon.
I imagine Anavex must be accumulating a large and convincing data set (both controlled data in PDD and RSD (imminent), as well as open label extensions) across multiple indications to present to the EMA and TGA and perhaps the FDA this Fall.
Same compound, multiple difficult to treat and debilitating diseases. Safe, with positive RWE effects also per patients’ caregivers and our AD trial PI, and triggering restorative and regenerative healing at the root cause of these serious conditions with (currently) unmet needs.
Here’s to said data package speaking for itself over the next couple months.
Godspeed Anavex
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/fast-track-breakthrough-therapy-accelerated-approval-priority-review
Incredible news. Thank you to the Anavex team and study participants & Spanish/AU trial coordinators.
And to fellow longs who were patient and intuitive & who saw through the daily (blatant) online stock suppression and distraction campaign.
Focus today however is on this positive, important & “extremely encouraging data” from our PDD trial results which per the P/R: “significant improvements in cognitive function accompanied by a favorable safety and tolerability profile”.
Okay... so let’s assume for a moment that your broker is correct, then if I purchase 1,000 shares at $2,000 price per share next Monday 8/24 for $2,000,000; then, after the 8/31 5:1 stock split I’ll still only have 1,000 shares at a $400 price per share equal to a $400,000 position?
That would be amazing if true...so who’s the lucky recipient of my other $1,600,000 of stock value?