baltimorebullet,
Thought provoking post, thanks.
I agree completely that not all “dots” can be accounted for or perhaps some haven’t been yet. Some may have transformed, we don’t know, but I won’t try to get too clever here. (See Nidan’s recent post for a good overview of the enormity and how many pieces and prep work may be taking place. The good news: in the end, Athena should spring fully grown and in full battle gear from Zeus’s head.)
You make good observations.
Of the examples you provide, I believe that Missling’s small share purchases meant nothing significant and should not be construed as a “dot”. I never took this as such. It never did connect to anything else either scientifically or strategically (how could it?), and as a wholly stand alone occurrence, meant nothing to the company.
Fadiran - agreed, we have not seen this dot emerge in any significant way. Upon deeper context: there was a shake up at the FDA - Gottlieb was ineffective in wide-sweeping change, for whatever reason(s), and is gone. Speaking as a “story writer” poster, sometimes a character in Act One turns out to be germaine to the plot later (please consider the opening of Moby Dick, “Call me Ishmael”. Ishmael is the cabin boy and serves to narrate the story. He is a youth and minor character with almost no significance other than to *SPOILER ALERT* - if you haven’t read Moby Dick - seriously? Shame on you...skip ahead...
with almost no significance other than to be the only survivor of the shipwreck which allows him to serve as our objective narrator. Ironically, he survives by floating away in a coffin, which saves him rather than dooms him... I digress. Apologies, brilliant stroke of a device as symbolism in literature.)
FWIW, Fadiran may come into play when the plot moves back to the US in later chapters as we progress to more and more trials within US for future indications. Perhaps, he’s doing some work on the Consortium effort? We simply don’t know. This is an unaccounted for “dot”.
Biogen appears from all views to be dead. That does not mean they were not a dot. Biogen May have been our link to Eisai or Eisai’s link to us, depending upon who saw whom first. Dots, maybe Biogen, have the capacity to “evolve” such that you may not marry your blind date, but could end up with her cousin. That’s still a connection.
Currently, the Consortium appears in play as a dot and may lead to other potential dots (more companies to cross paths with more assets, personnel, strengths). The lure of a good read is that it must be allowed to take twists and turns and unfold at its own pace.
I believe that the publication will play a significant role in the science and methodology although I agree it will probably not move the share price. Still, if it is meaningful, it should be brought out at some point (like knights and rooks in chess) in order to occupy spaces on the board for future use or necessary structure for the overall strategy. Usually only 2 pieces “Mate” the king, but several others are strategically placed for support to deny the king options to move, thus allowing the “coup de grace”.
I fully understand you are a long and you, we, everyone(!) has the right/privilege/duty to question the company’s procedures and to express confusion, concern, and dissatisfaction.
Further, I agree that AVXL is a small biotech going up against several Goliath’s. (Understatement)
We are effectively attempting to cure/treat major diseases hoping for unprecedented advances in CSN, while forging new methodologies for the acceptance by entrenched regulatory bodies - dragging them kicking and screaming headlong into at least the 19th century world of technology(!) or further if we can (monumental task, but we have the precedent in Oncology to thank for lightening our load - the snag is that tumors are visible and cognitive impairment remains too elusive to quantify in a meaningful way). In the process, we will also be disrupting BP’s (with their death grip on the regulatory process, and who sponsor most of the conferences, and garner the media headlines). And, finally, we must attempt to continue to raise funds on favorable terms in the “gamey” market which doesn’t understand the subtlety of the scientific process taking place nor will it allow for the upending of so much tradition - which leaves us dreaming the impossible dream; running where the brave dare not go. That’s quite a quest. Perhaps, we are mad?!
As you state, I think under the circumstances, many expect failure, but whether or not that is rightfully so remains to be seen. Missling and his gang and our science still have runway and even look promising upon review of the current “dots”.
Some of the recent promising looking dots: New alliances - the Consortium, Eisai and Hampel (which could have been a result of an old dot, Biogen, widening into more promise), the initiation of trials for 3 indications in 3 different geographical locations and, importantly, the fact that the extensions were requested, the purchase of inventory for “commercial use”, and the shelf registration for “future growth”, along with publication of our MoA by third party which validates. These all appear to be positive signs of life for the company.
Going abroad seems to have been a wise move given the Australian monetary incentive as well as the cresting wake of our own FDA’s inability to assist in moving our trials in a timely manner.
I think that the comprehensive approach of Precision Medicine - or Enriched/Informed Medicine, if you will - including instituting biomarkers: genetic, gut, sleep measures, are all state of art and coming age techniques in trial arenas. We appear to have been well ahead of the curve in implementing these. I believe this can all be taken together and considered as one giant dot.
Also, somewhere along the line, a non-trivial discussion had to have been weighed and taken place in order to make the strategic decision to start trials for all 3 indications together. Consider, on our budget, we could have started one of the short trials (Rett or PDD), and, as some have stated, perhaps a weak outcome in a single trial would not have immediately and adversely impacted the others as much as it would with the simultaneous plot line going on here.
Assuming that management and SAB know what the stakes are, bringing all 3 out at once appears to favor synergistic success rather than tossing up a thoughtless “Hail Mary”- which might signal a hopeless situation. I could be wrong. But, assuming the trial grouping structure has premeditated meaning, that could be considered a strategic dot.
Truly, we have no crystal balls, as we are all aware, and our management maintains a chauvinism for silence. While not our preference, perhaps it is somehow essential. Still, some strategy clues are not impossible to discern. Card players (game of Hearts) know, for instance, certain leads indicate a high probability of the hand. Often, these leads are held back for that very reason - so as not to telegraph the intent of the player. When a player leads the queen of spades (a high heart trump card), it is almost certain he or she is attempting to “shoot the moon” - take all hearts, a winning hand and great scoring advantage, which almost always must be attempted discreetly or it will fail. Leading the queen under any other circumstances than an attempted rout, is tantamount to suicide.
I guess it boils down to belief in the science and faith in the company’s advisors - a recognized strong board. This is not Missling alone, imo. Add: a strong stomach at times and healthy dose of patience, willingness to accept the outcome (personal investment strategies differ, but, gladly, we are all adults here and fully recognize the risks we take.) And, of course, continued reading of all the informative posts...good stories all. Ha!
Regards, BB
Bio
