In light of the above, please point to any aspect of your post you still feel is unique...I don't believe there is anything.
What’s unique about Anavex 2-73? Simple. In both murines (numerous published studies) and in human applications (preliminary, small-n Australian study), the molecule has shown a) safety and b) efficacy against various CNS diseases. Tell us, if you will, an existing drug that matches or exceeds murine results with Rett, Parkinson’s, or Alzheimer’s (not just Alzheimer's).
Of course, none of that is sufficient for regulatory approval of the drug yet. Murines aren’t humans. You, as you have, will contend that no studies, murine or human, show efficacies. That’s your contention; just fine. You are welcome to that perspective. Often stated.
Of course, nothing to date, pro or con, is altogether valid. Only legitimate results of any of the three late-phase clinical trials are important. For investors with your perspective, evidence is insufficient to support an AVXL equity purchase. But for others, the record of safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Anavex 2-73, in both murines and humans, is sufficient for many of us to take small, speculative but informed AVXL positions.
Let’s check back in December 2019 and see if Anavex 2-73 has proven to be “unique” in any way in the treatment of Rett syndrome girls, and people with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Then, nothing will be conjectural or without evidence.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
