Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Joseph_K]

Well, then, I'd appreciate a technical, on-the-merits rebuttal of the points Doc made addressing a post of mine. I wrote,

you must think the P2b/3 statistical results were grossly misrepresented, and Missling's biomarker comments overblown, to believe such a low possibility of FDA approval.

and he replied,

yes. One of the coprimary endpoints not met, one sided vs two sided stats, ITT population was actually PP population by definition in the now removed error filled slide-deck, Imputation measures were not addressed, OR would not have been at the top of the statistical hierarchy, proper dose not known...

Doc did not include it this time, but you can add the missing n for the Odds Ratio.

Technical, on-the-merits replies do not include things like:
Missling said the endpoints were met; or
Missling could be sued if the endpoints weren't met; or
Why would Kun Jin have joined the company if the TLR was so bad (Even though it probably carries the most weight in my remaining heavily invested, it's not an on-the-merits reply); or
Then why is the company preparing for commercialization; or
The company had to release less data than most investors expect because of the shorts; or
There wasn't enough time before CTAD and we'll see the complete info later.
Those are all extrinsic to the trial and TLR themselves. I'm not saying they lack all validity, but I'm interested in the on-the-merits defenses. I'm interested primarily for my own DD, though it also relates to your saying Doc is short on facts and has baseless criticisms.

I can't recall any on-the-merits defenses of the issues Doc raises apart from Boi's theory, which I reject, that Anavex's P2a/3 results were unusual in a way such that the means comparison shouldn't be applied. (Please, Boi, don't bring that argument up here; I'm not trying to censor you, but I'm interested in other arguments I've forgotten or haven't heard or missed, and it would be a distraction to go into the non-Gaussian-results discussion yet again.) (OTOH, Boi, I'd welcome an explanation of why you think the OR's missing n is a specious issue, as I don't recall why you think that.)