Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[falconer66a]

It's new science, with new approaches.

Falconer, I have to say, for a former high school biology teacher, you are looking pretty prescient today.

Thanks; much appreciated.

But my "prescience" (where I've so often in the past posted detailed reasons showing that the Anavex biology is legitimate and will produce wonderful therapeutic results) derives from my particular, professional involvement in science. Yes, for most of my career I taught advanced placement biology, to high school students heading to science career training programs; mostly in medical science. A good number of my former high school students are now accomplished physicians and researchers.

But I'm also a recognized expert in another, very different area of biology (which I will not here divulge). In this capacity, I am a research associate at a university research foundation, conducting new grant-funded research that promises to innovatively solve a major environmental problem. To get that grant, I had to convince federal grant reviewers that what I was proposing was actually feasible, would actually solve the problem. It was very much like Anavex biology. I understood that the grant reviewers would, off hand, simply dismiss the proposal; I was putting forth things that had never been tried, and things the reviewers had no background it. On the face of it, my proposal would be implausible.

So, I had to construct detailed and persuasive documentation supporting my proposal. Took a lot of time, with several go-arounds. But, finally, the grant was awarded and the project is now in operation. In a few years, a game-changing paper telling the project's results will appear.

Simply, difficult, recalcitrant scientific problems, whether those in medical therapies or poorly functioning ecological systems, never get solved by trying, ever so harder, any of the things already in textbooks. Success requires the looking beyond what is known, and even more importantly, not confining thoughts to only what is historically perceived.

In the case of Anavex and blarcamesine, the innovative, novel, never-done-before tests on murines (lab rodents) were definitive. Those holding to standard perspectives rather completely dismissed those outcomes. Mice are not men, it was claimed. However, it's not a mouse thing; it's a unique (by blarcamesine) sigma-1 receptor activation thing. For years, now, experts, putative and otherwise, have been so forcefully saying, "Sigma-1 activation? We ain't going there! We know better."

Today, the blarcamesine discussion changes. Its MOA (mechanism of action) is no longer in contention; merely the ability of it to favorably treat those with central nervous system (CNS) diseases. Those abilities will soon be authenticated by the clinical trials coming to completion.

Of course, the reviewers of the journal article, who authorized its publication, probably had no data that I (and other readers here) could not access. By allowing the publication of the article, they agreed with those findings and data. The unique MOA is legitimate.

Long-held perspectives of scientific topics are, appropriately, rigidly maintained. When wrong, as those formerly with blarcamesine, are slowly but eventually re-adjusted. New med-school textbook chapters must now be written and added. As I've contended, Anavex biology will change 21st-century medicine as much or more than did antibiotics in the last century. All along, on this message board, from the inside, we've been able to watch this develop.