Replies to post #113087 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[A_Good_Day_2]

The results we have so far are not inconclusive the way you are describing.

It is a fact that the safety results of the trial (which was the actual reason for the phase 2a trial) were conclusive and complete. Rock-solid safety results.

It is also a fact that the cognitive scores improved for several patients. This improvement was over a very long period of time. Some of these cognition tests can be tainted by placebo effect. However, for those who understand how the tests work, it is a fact that because of the nature of SOME OF THESE cog tests, placebo effect cannot taint the test results.

So, can we say that the scores were inconclusive? Yes and no.

Some of the testing requires a placebo control. Some does not. All of the tests would benefit from a larger sample size, but that doesn't negate the great results we saw.

Bottom line...we have several AD patients who saw amazing results in their personal life. For them the results were conclusive. The upcoming phase 2/3 will erase any lingering doubts.

[falconer66a]

Important Point: Randomness of the 25

Well how much one can get excited about inconclusive results about 25 patient trial ?

Just who were these "25" in the Australian Phase1/Phase2 trial? Were they, strangely by chance, an exceptional group all of whom responded so positively to Anavex 2-73?

Or, were they a typical, random cohort of regular Alzheimer's patients?

If they were the former, a unique, special (and non-typical) group of "high responders" to Anevex 2-73, then of course, their results cannot and will not accurately predict the results in a much larger, actually random trial population of Alzheimer's patients.

On the other hand, if the Australians in the trial were randomly selected, with no pre-testing or selection of any unique traits; they then do statistically reflect any larger randomized Alzheimer's population.

Someone, do the probabilities analysis. If Anavex 2-73 authentically works (actually maintains or reduces symptoms) in just a random few, with that assumed frequency then calculate the probability of selecting 25 Alzheimer's patients that all had that rare trait, the ability to be successfully and safely treated by Anavex 2-73.

[I've actually punched these numbers, using accepted, standard statistical probability formulae. But, as a few have accurately noted, my competencies in higher statistics are questionable. I'll therefore not post the calculated probabilities in this matter. More capable others could do that.]

In the pre-trial dealing of the Anavex-favorable cards, 25 people were dealt aces of spades. No participant held a hand with only low-number black cards. Each, miraculously, had winning hands. Some were only able to maintain their levels of cognition throughout the trial. A few others had hands that actually increased their cognitive skills. Just so infrequent in Alzheimer's patients. But, by pure chance (it is alleged) it all happened in this trial.

Will the same thing happen in the new Rett and Parkinson's trials? Will positive results in those, too, be merely a result of propitious chance?

Or, as every bit if existing evidence shows, does Anavex 2-73's unique mechanisms of action within dysfunctional neurons safely restore normal neuron function?

The odds, upon which I've based my small AVXL position, are clearly the latter.

Twenty-five straight aces sealed the deal, for me.