Thus, if you would like to claim that 2-73's MOA is via S1R agonism (and you have) then, given that there are many known and marketed S1R agonists, you need to show how 2-73's agonism is unique in a way that produces its pharmacological effect advantageously over these other S1R agonists. THIS, IMO you have not done..
After I asked you to provide evidence that suggests 2-73 agonism is somehow superior you responded with claims that: "the sigma-1 receptor effects of Aricept are minor and incidental. For Anavex 2-73, they are direct and firm; because of its favorable (dare I say, unique) molecular architecture."
What this response neglects was this part of my post:
if you are going to make a claim YOU should show AT LEAST ONE study where 2-73 shows some advantage over another compound with the same MOA. Do you have ANY evidence to support your claim?
So where is the evidence for your claims that 1. 2-73 has a unique MOA 2. 2-73's S1R agonism is superior to DZP's?
These are very dramatic claims. I'm sure the entire board will be interested to see what you've found to support such statements.
As a follow up project maybe you could find something that supports a mechanism by which 2-73 has sufficient access to the S1R when co-administered with DZP given the relative binding affinities. If you can it would be really great stuff. Extremely valuable information.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
