Replies to post #155817 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[nidan7500]

The cognition of most of the 32 patients who took part in the most recent trial of the drug remained stable, when it had been expected to decline.

We might expect Dr.M. to elaborate on this point at AAIC. His clinical methods and proof will be scrutinized of course, as they should be. He will be doing/discussing what we/FDA know as V&V. Verification and validation. In this case validation will be critical to AVXL claims of efficacy and we expect this is where most questions will arise. Not only what worked and proof but what did not and evidence we have of WHY.

Since we do not yet know what MOST means statistically in the statement above we take it to mean the majority and that those who did not stabilize will/must also be closely assessed. More (as much) will be learned from those who did not respond, IMO. It would be easy to get too far out in front of this discovery process but suffice to say we will eventually learn as much from those who did NOT and WHY respond as from those who did. His presentation should show by some look back convention what happened. So, even though the good news is (most) have responded and the evidence he will have is stuff they measured/verified. Believe it or not, the people who did NOT respond are equally(perhaps more) important. There will be more of them going forward from trials who present the next level of knowledge from this research. We will eventually know as smart people will figure it out. IMO, the enormously brilliant precision moment here is or will be in beginning to measure and to verify by objective evidence what works and what does not. IMO, these are certainly historical times. I would defer to those more qualified like doc, falcon, talon, bio, micro others for perspective. I will say I think I know enough to see a breakthrough moment when I see one. This just might be one. Congratulations are in order, we still have a long way to go. Be careful outside the wire.