An excellent, and much appreciated, reply! Thanks!
I'm not a biologist, and I've not invested much in biotech except for Anavex. I've read pretty much all their reports on completed trials and as much of the science as I can understand, and some from which I gain a sense of the potential but don't really understand (e.g., SOTC Analytics). I love the theory of Sigma-1 homeostasis and the breadth of trials where blarcamesine appears to work, but I also find Anavex's data releases and analyses more opaque than some others I've looked at. I'm hoping (and expecting) that I will be fully satisfied by the upcoming AD peer-reviewed article.
Here's the part I could use some help on: Why wouldn't what you say -- that the work the company has done holds promising secrets -- not apply to Annovis's posiphen or Cassava's simufilam or the many other biotech's trialling small-molecule drugs? My own answers to that are that 2-73 and 3-71 are further upstream; that the breadth of indications they've trialled it on is uncommonly broad (though most trials have been small); and -- strong, recent validating factors -- that Grimmer joined the SAB after seeing the AD results and Kun Lin joined the company. Nonetheless, I'm still interested in why your "promising secrets" logic would not apply to many or most of Anavex's competitors. I'm also happy to hear your additions to my own answers to "why Anavex?"! (Though you've done a got bit of that already, thanks.)
(I'm not asking you to include anything about why Biogen and other companies working from the amyloid hypothesis wouldn't have "promising secrets." I think their approach is an ongoing disaster for Alzheimer's sufferers.)
