Long term..
I just want to see if I understand the arguments for hating anavex ..
They have a drug that has never failed a clinical trial for 10 years in three different illnesses. They have another drug even more potent amd apparently just as safe which just passed Phase 1..
The largest unmet human need dementia is their phase 3 which reports results this year, and early reports of over subscription and word of mouth are all very positive.
Their other effort the PDD trial already crushed it, and it’s voluntary extension is to report data in 4 months or so..but again..
The company probably already knows that these trials are killing it..because as we believe .. these are degenerative diseases and Blarcamesine stops degeneration in about 80 % of population..
So the participants stand out from their peers.. relatively easily..
Now thinking about Rett syndrome which just passed phase 3 by meeting all endpoints.. but to alleviate questions at the end, Anavex changed endpoint criteria to lessen possible caretaker possible bias..then crushed the new endpoints.. and this is a bad thing? Or a company employee failed to update trial sites so should probably be fired, and the ceo for some reason didn’t PR endpoint change… which we will probably never know why.
My guess is Legal Counsel,, but that just a guess..I would hope that it was felt non pr of change would help in Clinical Process toward Access.. but I don’t pretend to know that reasoning.
But does this failure of clinical update to a website amd perceived pr timings poor choice outweigh the truth?
To the herd of Biogen Buffalo falling over the cliff it does..
To any sane human being..
Meeting a tougher set of more demanding less emotive phase 3 endpoints
CRUSHES these faults into sand beneath the feet.
Peace
