Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[falconer66a]

Why no published, professional negations of Anavex?

As I've mentioned, it's reasonable for readers to question my postings that tell of the profound science, efficacy, safety, and applications of Anavex 2-73. I'm merely a biology teacher familiar with (and having taught) the elements of cellular organelles, enzyme control of cellular reactions, etc. I am not a neurochemist nor medical researcher. I have no PhD.

Because of this, a number of posters have claimed or implied that my evidence-based and evidence-presented support of Anavex cannot be accepted as reliable or useful; that there remain a multitude of unanswered questions regarding the validity of Anevex trials data (both murine [animal] and human).

Missing from this discussion, however, are the postings of any reliable, professional that is contrary evidence supporting the Anavex as a no-go perspective.

If my support of Anavex is unfounded, just why haven't people with "real" expertise posted plausible, documented evidence negating my positions?

Well, maybe few or none of those people waste time on some otherwise obscure Ihub board. Understood.

Nonetheless, the critics and skeptics of Anavex should be posting papers and presentations by professionals that take apart the company's (and my) explanations of how Anavex restores neuron homeostasis. So far, amidst this on-going discussion, not a single posting has presented a single page of negating data from any real experts. I've presented the data and explanations offered by the Anavex scientists. Why is it so difficult to find and post contravening evidence?

Because there is none. Anavex 2-73 works and performs exactly as the company claims. By their silence, real professional agree.