Flash I personally do not find it logical to use the stat (99.6% of prior failed Alzheimer’s trials) as an apples to apples indicator of our likelihood of success.
Isn’t it true that a sizeable majority of said prior trials were targeting the downstream tau protein tangles / amyloid plaque removal endpoint?
If so, those types of prior trials have been (per my understanding) a completely different trial approach than our a2-73 trial. Haven’t our CEO and Dr George Perry been making that point over the past 12-24 months?
Shouldn’t we be considered a Sigma-1 receptor agonist (and restoration of cellular homeostasis) MOA trial approach which is not of-a-like-kind to many of the past failed trial approaches?
You tell me your opinion, should we be lumped in with failed trials of a completely different approach MOA and endpoint?
NEXT re patients improving vs an average:
• first, you seem to have a wealth of data readily available and are of a more accomplished scientific mind than I;
• however I’ve YET to read of a prior Alzheimer’s trial whereby 6 out of 25 participants were IMPROVED after a year. Plus 1 additional participant that was stable after a year (our charts do reflect that right?);
• couple that with the now famous slide 26 which indicated that (your preferred wording): at blood concentration levels of approx 4 ng/mL and above, 5 out of 9 participants experienced improved (4) or stabilized (1) cognitive test scores at 57 weeks on a2-73
• and to my untrained eye, that appears to be approx 55% either improved (4) or stabilized (1) at the certain (high) blood concentration level. Wasn’t that a huge takeaway from the pk/pd slides and conf call? Am I on an island here? I would swear that was an important and crucial correlation from our phase 2a 57 week Ariana presented data?
So to summarize, I’m working off of what the Company is reporting, what Dr George Perry is discussing/quoting (reference his words re the 99.6% fail rate during conf call), Ariana’s detailed analysis, and also reliance on DD provided by others here on ihub in order to HELP FORM MY OWN OPINIONS and try to figure out our chances for future success and efficacy.
I’ll now rely on you to please help educate me/others with a prior Alzheimer’s Disease study which produced the Anavex-level of improvement/stabilization PERCENTAGES through 57 weeks (choose either the 7 out of 25 percentage or the 5 out of 9 percentage)?
And if none can be found with Anavex-level percentages of IMPROVEMENT/STABILIZATION, can you instead simply list the prior AD trials that had various examples of IMPROVEMENT/STABILIZATION through 57 weeks (approx a year)?
Do the current Alzheimer’s Disease SOC drugs provide these types of percentages of IMPROVEMENT/STABILIZATION through approx 57 weeks?
[None of my postings are intended as investment or scientific advice. Just my opinions and observations and please do your own DD and Flash has much greater scientific resources and backing than I.]
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
