You have responded on two points. The first relates to the process of achieving regulatory proof for a drug's safety and efficacy. The first post in this chain was blarcamesine-specific, but since the issue it raised was a more general question my response was not blarcamesine-specific. That's because Anavex doesn't get special treatment from regulators. So you have misread my comment in that respect.
I agree that 2-73 is safe. There was just a safety peek that confirmed this. However, the general point I made remains intact, that there is a higher price attached to cutting short the drug approval process than might be gained in the short term by more quickly marketing drugs that ultimately will be found approvable.
You have made two errors here: first, misconstruing the context of my remark and second, making the as yet unproven assumption that 2-73 meets FDA efficacy standards.
As to your Australian argument, you are incorrectly characterizing the 225 participants there as constituting a separate trial arm. Not so -- there are three trial arms based on dosages and placebo, not on geography. The Australians may be in their own time zone, but they are not in their own trial arm. And what if they were? How do you justify stopping one trial arm ahead of the others when in a placeboed trial they must remain linked?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
