Xena, I believe Hampel and Missling have been working together for a very long time on diagnostics. What can we point to as potential evidence of this claim? Hampel presented our 148 week data last October, and it was an endorsement of our approach in the diagnostic area more than anything, more so than an endorsement of 273 as a drug; although I do believe he believes in 273 as a drug. This is important that he is behind our methods. By the way, endorsement of our drug from this 148 week study came the minute Walter Kaufman stepped on the stage and presented the same thing Hampel presented last year.
Hamper also came out and tweeted approval of the consortium news, saying it was a step in the right direction, What was the consortium news? Basically a biomarker driven approach to creating trials to treat psychophrenia. Again, approval of our process. Then Eisai comes out and hires the guy to discover and develop innovative therapies for AD..."
He wasn't hired to retool, rework, redesign this mumbo jumbo amyloid plaque gobiligook. Common people...He has been hired to transform Eisai by creating, developing, and innovating.
This is in the job description.
I encourage everybody to listen to the Roth conference webcast again. Listen at minute 39:50 when Missling takes a question from the audience about testing. He uses words like "straightforward" and "very easy" to describe genomic analysis at Anavex. He mentions blood tests...simple, easy. This reeks of Hampel. Its oozing out...
Think about this. Why had Anavex only screened 44 patients a few months ago when they PR'd the enrollment information for AZ? Because they are being very careful in using innovative and creative ways to diagnose people with early Alzheimer's.
The fact that they disappointed us (or at least me) with the AZ enrollment information shows me they are using a Hampel/Anavex approach to correctly diagnose early Alzheimer's patients.
So, along comes Merck and they are presenting with Anavex in July about none other than precision medicine and it's usefulness in CNS. The topic is something to the effect "Is it useful or not."
I think it's wonderful that they are even asking this question. Why? Because all of this is revolutionary, innovative, and creative. Of course the title to the panel discussion with Merck and Anavex is the posing of a question. This is all cutting edge. Anavex is like the Apple of bio.
Merck wants in
Eisai wants in..
Anavex has process and drug on this thing they want "in" on.
Your wild ass guess is spot on, IMO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
