Someone asked the author how he compares it with AVXL and his answer was:
Carl Kestens New: Today, 6:56 AM Premium Marketplace Comments (64) | | @jhawker8 Anavex has almost no understanding of the MoA and all of the (side) effects of their drug, and at least investors need to rely on the few things out there. Yes, there has been a publication recently in a medical journal elucidating this MoA (www.biospace.com/...), but in no way does this compare to (i) the more than hundred articles elucidating the probably most crucial role of soluble TNF in neuroinflammation in neurodegenerative diseases and TRD/bipolar disorder that I have found over the past months many of which are published on INMB's website (www.inmunebio.com/...), (ii) the role of neuroinflammation and aging in diseases of the CNS, and (iii) the testing of XPro in animals in different diseases and possible side effects (there are none so far). The approach of INMB then differs to that of AVXL in that INMB bases itself on research that has been abundantly performed and written about in the last ten years, mostly on the causes of neurodegeneration. INMB also seems to be taking a different approach with regards to their study design; step by step, massive neuroinflammation data first, then neurodegeneration results, then cognition. But the focus is there, and they are moving fast forward at this time. I don't see that focus in AVXL; AVXL investors have been without news on the AD drug development so much, that one comes to think AVXL has dropped that idea altogether. It may not be so, but then why are they waiting? Furthermore, I see INMB clearly steering away from the old view on Alzheimer's, more than AVXL is doing. Also, INMB communicates with its investors really well through extremely informative long webinars. And this, all the while with the focus on proceeding forward with many drugs at the same time, and communicating about all of those a lot, if one cares to take the time to study them. Lastly, when I read about AVXL's approach, and their SIGMAR1 receptor involvement, I always fear that their results won't last, as receptors may be worn out. INMB's data stretches over 6 months, and data improves. That means that risk is off the table, as it is in Cassava Sciences. That is a step forward beyond belief (that the market is currently forgetting in Cassava Sciences, but that's another story and wasn't your question). Finally, I like INMB's idea of limiting their potential clientele to AD patients who have neuroinflammation; that shows full understanding of their potential and their limits at the same time; they basically differentiate within AD, where others dont'. For the record, I am not saying I don't give AVXL's approach a chance, look at their Parkinson's data. But in light of the above, I know what my preference is. Plus, AVXL's market cap is 1.36 billion and INMB's is 300 million, with much more drug potential in the pipeline for INMB. That's another major difference; the company's diversification further derisks it compared to other biotech companies. That's about 7 differences in approach I am seeing. Perhaps not all may hold true; it's been about 7 months since I have reviewed AVXL. I intend to make a detailed comparison of INMB, CRTX, ANVS, AVXL, SAVA and possible other companies focused on neurodegenerative diseases over the coming months in a larger document, that I plan to finalize by January / February 2022, but currently still lack the time to do so. I will be happy to communicate it to you at that time.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
