Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[nidan7500]

The market will know before us.mrplmer

Your guess is as good as any as to how any REAL news will get released. Like M. has said, when the results are known we will all understand why the process (he) followed was chosen. (at least that is what I think he meant).

There is no doubt in my mind that some good will come put of the A2-73 Anavex stealth process of trials and learning. It must cost a lot of money to have the kind of releases published by BIIB on a weekly basis. Many/most of their releases do not add a lot of knowledge- value but they do keep the flag flying, which matters. Most of us here are pretty good at keeping it real, as boring as that is.

I am also impressed w/the staff and SAB, like HH for example. He seems like the real thing. I have kind of given up on trying to figure M out. He is a lone wolf type like most German medical ind. types I have worked with over time/years. Really good-competent medical/clinical/results types who are typically very well supported by facts and details. They can usually tell you/explain exactly why they conclude what they have done. The other news is they do not care much if you agree or not. They also typically do not play well with others. So, one has to learn how to listen real well and see if it all adds up. It does not surprise me that AVXL has not made a big PR investment nor that M does not go out of his way to splain stuff in street detail. You either get it or you don't. (IMO) This may lead to certain incompatibilities w/some partners, we'll see I guess. M is a numbers, results guy w/an over the horizon view of the field IMO. So, I have come to not expect a lot unless the stage is properly set. I note that the CTAD conference HH presentation appears to be a calendar pulled in data share. If that is true then they broke the mold a little, that may or may not be significant but I think it is as it suggests something significant will be done. We'll see I hope.

AVXL is also driving work in other Government/regulatory (Aus,Spain, other) bodies. There is some obvious risk with that kind of plan but he must think it is justified, we may never know why. Like some others here I have a dim view of the FDA's management/leadership style. Dr.G. will either fix that or leave. The progress made by US FDA over the past 20-30 years on CNS (and other) is an embarrassment to everyone who is paying attention. IMO, trying to fit a new science development weekly planner into the schedule of Government-top down-rule based systems is clearly not compatible with urgently addressing serious CNS daily developments. Anyone who has done such will agree. IMO, the FDA needs a SEAL TEAM 6 somewhere when they need to break a few rules to get work done. IMO, Dr.M. has gone down that path.

So, we'll know soon. Will this be just another rodeo or will some CNS serious headway be made? I hope some of the extended patient base has recovered to a point where their RWE/RWD can be used as evidence. We do not need to shatter any rules, just demonstrate new tactics and show results that make sense.