Replies to post #128638 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[kld2]

funny, I was just thinking: in the end, when all of the slides are side and done, what new data has reinforced the thesis that 2-73 works effectively? Hard data. Efficacy data. None. In fact, based on prior posts on this board, the contrary could be argued: 1) super-responders were mostly MCI, a notoriously difficult cohort to assess and diagnose when screening, 2) other studies have shown wild variation in MMSE scores over time, with scores either improving or stabilizing in up to 15-20% of the three years (this has been pointed out by a few posters ad nauseum), and 3) there is no placebo arm, which, I believe, if there was, it would steal thunder from the super-responder noise.

I know it's hard to believe, but I do hold a long position, but I am not as enthusiastic about the data in the presentation as many here.

[Amatuer17]

“Hopefully, this is not the road show presentation as it seems to lack any energy to excite an investor.”

This is so technical and trying to desperately show that A2-73 has potential that most of the road show attendees will go to sleep.

Those people want - what is coming next - action plan - timelines and show me the results attitude

What this shows is -
“we did efforts for 2+ years and it is safe and tolerable - inconclusive evidence so may be working or not. So we will need to spend few more years and few millions (in 10s) to check if it works and then few more years to prove that it actually works”

[ExtremelyBullishZig]

Look at the context. There shouldn't have anything else expected.

This was data to help plan an a2-73 phase 2/3 trial. This confirms they are only going after the group on slide 29. The other cohorts are not being considered for the 2/3 teial, so their data would not make sense in this presentation.

If the title was exploratory extension study data, we would have seen it all.

[sliceanddice59]

The data indicating that A 2-73 provides a concentration dependent effect and not just a dose-dependent effect seems new to me and provides further validation of the drug IMO.