Replies to post #278269 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[polarbear77]

Good post, very logical, and it would seem helpful to release (assumably) positive placebo-controlled Rett Syndrome results from our US study soon after this 11/6 CTAD conference & pdd data release.


We’ve been knee deep in Anavex DD &fact-finding for years, but can you imagine what type of reaction this type of 1-2 punch could trigger in dementia and neurodevelopmental CNS circles if these 2 coinciding blarcemesine readouts are homeruns (disease-modifying) cross-indication?


Our earlier progress has been largely smothered and marginalized (BP pressures IMO), and our press and analyst coverage quite limited, therefore many scientists/regulators would be caught off-guard, in a good way.


GLTY

[Gernee20]

Thanks for the response abew. Makes sense

Is there an expected turnaround time once the fda receives the data to have guidance? Couple days? Couple weeks? Months?

Appreciate it

[nidan7500]

abew

TGD knows what he's doing. History is about to be made.

Curious if anyone has assessed the AD vs PDD/PD trial criteria and test methods for similarities (equipment/intervals/metric/other)/ Is it possible some trial criteria are very much the same (cognitive test examples) where one might see clinical value in cross comparisons? (set AD= PDD)

We know Dr.M. and staff think outside the box. If the same fundamental dementia (BIOMED-Neuron)causes exist for loss in PDD as for loss in AD then possibly it is not such a leap to evaluate trial data in such a way. It is not exactly one size fits all but considering our MOA claims then this is a very rational possible learning opportunity.

This line of reasoning also makes the point that, "hey, it makes sense to review some PDD trial criteria-results". After all , if our MOA claims are valid it becomes a way to make a very powerful MOA point. IMO. Can you say BTD reasoning ???

So then, is a win in AD trial criteria similar to the same kind of win in PDD and visa versa?