Replies to post #87674 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Jimmy6969]

And millions of family's will be spared from this dreaded disease, including me if it's not too late.

[Cbdpotential]

Well said

[frrol]

What basis for asserting non-Gaussian distribution? And given the general results vs the extraordinary top responders, it appears mathematically necessary that there were a couple of non-responders, normal distribution or not. tia

[kld2]

How could those profound efficacy results, albeit from a small number (n=25) have occurred unless Anavex 2-73 actually did cause them? The probabilities of this occurring by chance are impossibly small, as I've described in the post.

Could it possibly be due to a flawed trial design? Could it possibly be due to biased data collection? Could it possibly be due to ambiguous data presentation?

And, Falconer, your statement--"There were no 'non-responders' among the 25"--do you know this? Is the data in the presentation so unambiguously clear?

I am not trying to start a fight here. I'm just trying to get at the facts. Xena--a poster whom I respect--what do you say about "there were no non-responders?" Pretty bold statement, no? We're after facts here, I believe.

[plexrec]

falconer....how likely is A 2-73 success in pre-clinical Rett Syndrome studies using the mouse in the study to carry over in the human clinical trial ? Basically how do you like our chances in the upcoming human trial ? Thanks for your input !