Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[OFP]

Flurizan attempted to reduce...I would not have invested in the company based just on that one fact even in 2005.

Surely you see that the point was that an ineffective compound could be put forward as having super-responders with nothing said regarding its viability as an investment (i.e. none). Likewise, the fact that any subgroup did not show efficacy is irrelevant in regard to the fact that they were able to put together a MORE impressive group of "responders" than AVXL can (we don't even know AVXL's responder demographics, i.e. their subgroups)

Anavex relies on such things as the P300 and computerized MMSE tests. The main reason I felt better about Anavex is the P300 amplitude test which I think is very important. Next, the computerized versions of the tests are much better as they remove much of the possible bias.

Computerized versions can somewhat limit bias however I think you confused the Cogstate tests with MMSE and P300 when you wrote this. The MMSE requires human assessment/scoring. Normally P300 results in complex waveforms with amplitudes that are marked (with quite a bit of human margin for error/interpretation) by a person. I've not seen a automated marking for P300 though I'll allow its possible.

At the risk of beating a dead horse...the P300 amplitude has NEVER been shown to be correlated to drug effect while latency has. You really need to question why AVXL does not report latency.

MMSE and ADLs are the only real measures of significance. Both are not performing particularly well compared to historical placebo.