It’s rather obvious that this was a paid hit piece but with a soft-bash tone to create doubt. Because anything of a hard bash nature would clearly be an obvious lie and generate retaliatory comments. So, yes, this was cleverly written to make retail question their investment and deter others from buying in.
In addition to not adequately addressing the slowing of brain atrophy and how meaningful and stat. sig. blarcamesine’s results are in broad brain regions, after 48 weeks of treatment, p = .0005, she glosses over the efficacy results as if they are only slightly better than placebo. How laughable is that! It’s doubtful she’s that naïve… most likely an intended tactic to generate uncertainty. It’s rather curious that she didn’t include the actual stats for the ADAS-Cog and CDR-SB results… which are quite significant and far better than placebo or any MAB… and meets the new FDA requirements.
• Change from baseline to 48 weeks between the blarcamesine and placebo groups in least-squares mean (LSM) using mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM)1:
ADAS-Cog13: -1.783 [95% CI, -3.314 to -0.251]; (P = 0.0226)
CDR-SB: -0.456 [95% CI, -0.831 to -0.080]; (P = 0.0175)
• Validated biomarkers of amyloid beta pathology, plasma Aß 42/40 ratio increased significantly (P = 0.048)
• Significant reduction in brain volume loss, including whole brain (P = 0.0005), measured through MRI
• ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine) was generally safe and well tolerated
She repeatedly and falsely states that blarcamesine is only slightly better than placebo. She either doesn’t know or conveniently overlooks that blarcamesine has been proven to restore cellular homeostasis. A placebo cannot do that. Thus, when given early in disease progression (at first diagnosis or prophylactically), blarcamesine can restore/maintain cognition and daily living function. A placebo cannot do that. It’s why there’s a group of strong AD responders who IMPROVED over an identified threshold… >3x more than placebo, for both cognition and function.
She also fails to mention that, after initial review of the AD data, the EMA encouraged (“pulled”) Anavex to submit an MAA filing… which they are working diligently to submit as soon as possible this year. This, undoubtedly, will lead to approval.
These are details that she “conveniently” omits from her soft-bash article.
She recommends a “hold” because a “sell” recommendation would be most ridiculous… and her handlers certainly don’t want anyone buying, because that’s for them and institutions to do.
Remember… they have 20M collusive short positions to cover… thus, the soft-bash hit piece.
The reality is (and WS knows) that blarcamesine will be approved, as significantly effective and safe for a host of CNS disorders. It’s why the price has been severely manipulated down behind a chorus of paid FUDsters posting bullschitt 24x7 on this board, as well as other social media platforms. It’s all one big, coordinated pool of corruption and lies.
Okay… now cue BioCrapper4 and the other FUDsters to defend their tribe.
