Tred, Exactly Right; On All Accounts
Your post nailed it.
There is the general perception that Anavex Life Sciences Corp is a tiny start-up biotech out in some forlorn R&D pasture, unconnected to anything; with no real hope of corporate success. Some too-good-to-be-true molecule that magically crosses the blood-brain barrier, does all sorts of magical, heretofore unknown good things to malfunctioning neurons causing a plethora of central nervous system and other diseases. Who could believe it?
Well, I do. I’ve studied the data and papers, and have sufficient biological knowledge to understand what I’ve read. But, anyone else?
What about the hundreds of at-the-bench (lab bench, not legal bench) pharmaceutical researchers? Would their interest in scrutinizing the Anavex science parallel mine? Moreover, when reading and contemplating the many Anavex papers, would those guys (and gals) be able to understand the science as well as I? Better — with far greater implications.
No, dozens of neurologists, cell biologists, pathologists, and a host of other professionals have taken, as I did, a look at the Anavex claims. Just as did I, they expected to find all sorts of holes and question marks. And, like me, they’ve found none. Had they found any, we would have read about their obviating findings of Anavex scientific insufficiency by now.
With Anavex efficacy and safety, what do I have to lose? Nothing. I gain. But for pharmaceutical employees, from lowly lab-techs on up to research coordinators, everything neurological is at stake for them; their veritable careers. Without raising the topic at the lab dining room at lunch, researchers both in big-pharma labs and institutional labs, are just hoping, hope against hope, that Anavex 2-73 proves viable against only Rett Syndrome, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s.
But as I have, they’ve scrutinized the presentation graphics and tried to find holes in the broad utility of the Anavex sigma-1 receptor agonist molecules. No holes. No mis-fitting molecules. No reason to believe the story of Anavex science told by the company is flawed in any discernable or expressible way.
The professional silence on the matter is deafening. Professional careers, indeed, are at stake. Billions were invested in the amyloid thesis, with millions of dollars of legacy research positions and programs. Now, Anavex has no need of any of that.
Can we say, "disruptive technology," in the manner, or more so, than antibiotics in the last century?
