Anavex Info From Company, Online Papers
You are a very prudent person. May I ask you how you found Anavex’s science?
A professional friend, knowing of both Anavex 2-73 and my particular central nervous system disease, hereditary spastic paraplegia (HSP) and how it might be a potential treatment, suggested that I investigate the underlying science of the molecule.
Consequently, I scrutinized all of the scientific information presented by the company, both on their website and at conferences, etc. Numerous links and academic references presented themselves — I spent hours tracing back and coordinating all of the arcane biochemistry I could find.
In that quest, I was certain that any number of negative, story-negating papers would appear, showing how the Anavex story is incomplete, inadequate, or just plainly wrong. Instead, every paper and presentation I scrutinized presented evidence, however incremental, of Anavex efficacy and safety for a variety of central nervous system diseases and condition, most of which (as with my HSP) are of mitochondrial dysfunction.
With that sound understanding of the Anavex science, I took (and continue to hold) my AVXL position.
As it happens, I’ve previously done extensive online searches for obscure medical research information. I have two other ominous geriatric conditions, for which conventional medicine (meaning, treatment solely by approved prescription drugs or surgery) was the only offering of my physicians; each with severe side effects and restricted treatment outcomes.
I was diagnosed with idiopathic Stage 4 Chronic Kidney Disease, common in older men (not caused by diabetes or hypertension). The nephrologist said I’d soon need dialysis or a donated kidney. After hours of online investigation, I discovered a nephrology paper from India, where almost all participating in a trial with my condition stopped the progression of the disease. A half-teaspoon (2.5ml) of black seed oil a day (with the active ingredient of thymoquinone) restored normalized kidney function in a few weeks. My American nephrologist knew nothing of “black seed oil” or thymoquinone. A year later, my kidney is functioning quite adequately. Now at Stage 3 CKD.
Same with my diagnosis of Waldentroem’s macroglobulinemia, an uncommon old white-guys’ B-cell lymphoma. The oncologist said he had a heavy knock-down drug that would suppress it, at least for a few years. Then..., well, good-bye, friends.
In extensive online searching, I discovered that in Germany the disease is no longer controlled with heavy anti-carcinogenics. A single daily capsule of resveratrol (costs me $0.66 ea) gives me complete, normalized control. Still have the lymphoma, but as in Germany, resveratrol keeps it entirely suppressed. (Resveratrol apparently induces apoptosis, self-death, of emerging leucocytes with the disease.) A year later, free of that disease, too.
What does any of that have to do, specifically with Anavex 2-73, et al.? A lot.
Conventional medicine, from astute PhD medical researchers and med-school instructors, on down to practicing general practitioners and nurse practitioners (well, not all of those), strongly believe that medical treatments must, necessarily, be confined to existing, “known” methodologies and published, professionally-accepted treatments (mostly with approved drugs). Simply, anything outside of those perspectives are dismissed and rejected out of hand. If it’s not in a med-school textbook, it can’t possibly be valid; shouldn’t be used or even considered. Can't be valid, safe, or effective; period.
And, no, neither Anavex 2-73 nor sigma-1 receptor agonism against mitochondrial dysfunctions are in any old or new medical school textbook. For most in the medical profession, the Anavex “science” is as flaky as was Pasteur’s contentions of a “germ theory” for disease. Fleming’s discovery of a fungal antibiotic was summarily dismissed.
Western medical practice, with the possible exception of the Salk vaccine for polio, has, since the Dark Ages, been extremely reluctant to embrace new understandings of human physiology, diseases, and therapies. Took a half-century, two generations, for the germ theory to be thoroughly embraced. Why? Medical practitioners and researchers work best from what they know, what the previous experts have conveyed to them. All else, by professional convention, is bogus. Stay with the known science. We are the experts. We KNOW.
Against all of that, in regard to Anavex, I continue to be amazed at the utter paucity of any negating evidence against the Anavex science. Not a paper or paragraph from any competent medical professional telling why or how Anavex molecules can’t or won’t work. The only deliberated contentions against the Anavex story that I’ve found are by the “medical experts” who post so regularly on this message board. Bless ‘em.