Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Guzzi62]

MayoMobile on Stocktwits answered as follows:

The executive summary is littered with patently false statements which makes me not want to read the rest. For example:

1. ADAS-COG13 is statistically fragile (false) and has questionable clinical relevance (embarrassingly false)

2. P-Tau and NFL are markers considered ‘essential’ for substantiating a disease-modifying claim (false)

3. Sponsor has failed to provide the SAP publically (this is not a requirement), it IS available to the EMA [and FDA] however

4. Many other points including safety/tolerability have nuanced explanations the author overlooks - but are certainly available to regulators. The author omits all nuance.

5. Author gives a comical <1% chance for conditional approval and 0% chance for full approval

6. Author admits to not having the SAP and then proceeds to bash the available statistics from the paper. Author does not actually have enough information to be conclusive here so..

Perhaps I’ll read more of this trash later.

https://stocktwits.com/MayoMobile/message/620811896

It seems to me that the hit piece only focused on the negative side of things.

If the data we seen from the peer reviewed journal holds water with the EMA, I don't think we have anything to worry about.

I trust the journal written by 55 professionals than one written by one (layman?) short seller, they had full access to all the data and the short seller must use what the public can access.