I will have to reread the 2002 paper in full but I believe you are focusing on the incorrect portion of their findings. It is a bit confusing how they have laid it out to be honest.
It is true that the 2002 paper focuses on latency over amplitude but it also states exactly the findings that Anavex references.
In regard to DPZ vs Vitamin E:
The amplitude increment observed in Group II DPZ was significant in comparison with the decrement observed in Group II Vit E (t = 3.48, p = 0.003).
The latency changes difference was tendentiously significant for Group I DPZ versus Group II DPZ (p = 0.056) and significant for Group I Vit E versus Group II Vit E (p < 0.01). Adjusting for baseline latencies and amplitudes, a significant difference was shown between the pooled Groups (Groups I and II DPZ versus Groups I and II Vit E; t = -18.8, p < 0.001).
The statistical significance across groups of latency and amplitude changes did not vary for measurements obtained from derivations other than Pz as evidenced by results of significance probability mapping comparisons.
This is what Anavex is drawing a comparison to and it is precisely what the paper says.
I agree that latency would be a good data point, I would love to have it. Speculating as to why they didn't publish latency is certainly fair and I think it is safe to assume that the amplitude results were better which is why they did it that way.
But calling their claim spurious because the 2002 paper did not focus on amplitude (but did cite the findings as Anavex stated) seems to be a dramatic over reach.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
