Is Anavex ‘faking it to make it?’ Or...?
I just read this, about the “entrepreneur” who was just convicted of defrauding big investors in her technology that was supposed to detect diseases in a drop of blood. The article claimed that the person was “conveying a boundless optimism regardless of whether its warranted or not, known as "fake it 'til you make it."”
Well, that raises the question, doesn’t it? Are either Anavex (Dr. Christopher Missling) or its apologists (such as me) conveying boundless optimism, with the hope of faking it until the drug makes it?
The two seminal questions. Is the science of blarcamesine real? In humans with CNS diseases will the drug actually treat those diseases, without obviating or severe side effects? Of course, the results of the three clinical trials will answer that question.
Then, on the basis of those clinical results, will the FDA then approve blarcamesine for therapeutic uses?
Exactly how anyone’s “enthusiasm” would change or affect either of those actions is unclear. Certainly, because of the control arm and double-blindedness of the clinical trials, anyone’s ‘boundless optimism’ will not play a part in therapeutic outcomes.
The FDA (except for Aduhelm, perhaps) is unlikely to factor enthusiasm in a drug’s approval.
All other things aside, only two things are involved in the success of Anavex Life Sciences Corp: successful therapeutic outcomes in at least one of the three clinical trials; and consequent FDA approval of blarcamesine.
All of us, here, can go back and forth on a landscape full of contentions and questions. But only two things really count: clinical results, and consequent FDA approval.
