Replies to post #326935 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Investor2014]

The paper is presenting and discussing the results of a set of preclinical experiments to test a hypothesis.

In science the idea of a peer review is to independently assess and sometimes repeat the method of the various tests and their conclusions.

Often this leads to the identification of issues with experiments, calculation methods, various potentials for bias. inability to repeat the results etc.

In recent years an experiment showed that it was possible to move faster than the speed of light.

After peer review it turned out not to be a fact!

If/when the Anavex paper passes peer review it will have established that the data and conclusions presented are more likely to be fact as far as preclinical context is concerned.

Science doesn’t present any 100% facts, but often some that asymptotically approaches certainty.

[frrol]

He's pointing out the false "fact" of peer review.

[boi568]

By noting the problem that the paper has not yet passed peer review, I did not pass judgment on the ultimate merits of the work.

However, as you well know, peer review authentication is considered important by other researchers, regulators, and the more sophisticated elements of the investment community. So it should not be ignored as existentially meaningless. As an investor and someone looking forward to the regulatory approval of 2-73, you should prefer the paper passing peer review to not having (yet) passed peer review.

[Talon38]

Falconer.....the amount of words lavished on this paper is approaching the length of the paper its self with very little effect. It is obvious that the validity of its content is related to the qualification of its authors. One must look at the qualifications/background of Deacon, Chin and McCurdy to get an idea if the scientific research carries some weight. It is undergird by FRAXA and the attempt to beat Fragile-X. I think George, Nidan and others are continuing to bring us more info on the role Sig-!R in stopping neuron degeneration. There is a question of how closely the market is looking at the medical science with the current value of BIIB. SAVA. and ANVS, but let's hope we can be a little kinder and still constructive to each other on this board.

[bas2020]

Excellent point, falconer. Some ignorantly chose to dismiss facts until some other "experts" review them. So silly!

[georgejjl]

falconer, I agree 100%.

Are facts facts?
Quote:
The problem at the moment is this hasn't yet passed peer review.

Well, then, what constitutes or creates factual authenticity? Is authenticity created by the factual data and results reported in a paper (even before publication), or, are the facts created and established by the peer reviewers of an article, after the experimental work has been done by the authors?

If the facts and data presented in the article draft are accurate, they can’t be usefully changed by subsequent, external parties. Facts are facts, unchangeable by mere readers of them at any time, before or after publication.

The paper at the links below is highly significant for Anavex 2-73 Blarcamesine for the treatment of fragile X syndrome, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Rett syndrome and other neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders and diseases.

Effects of the Sigma-1 Receptor Agonist Blarcamesine in a Murine Model of Fragile X Syndrome: Neurobehavioral Phenotypes and Receptor Occupancy

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-189177/v1

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-189177/v1/65385792-095a-4505-90c4-c0b85c76dbd1.pdf?c=1614110325

See below some excerpts of the FACTUAL content:

Administration of blarcamesine to Fmr1 KO2 mice for two weeks led to correction of two key neurobehavioral phenotypes and marked improvement of a third one. Moreover, two major neuronal signaling abnormalities in mouse models of FXS, namely increased pAkt and decreased BDNF levels, were restored to WT levels in the hippocampus of Fmr1 KO2 mice. A third signaling marker, pERK was also mildly improved in the same animals

Comparisons between Fmr1 KO2 groups demonstrated a significant reduction in total distance traveled (number of squares crossed in 3 min) by the blarcamesine-treated animals with respect to vehicle-treated mice (Student’s t-test p = 0.0006). The relevance of these changes was confirmed by comparing vehicle treated Fmr1 KO2 mice to their WT counterparts, since the former displayed an increase in the above mentioned measure of hyperactivity (p < 0.001). When all 4 mouse groups were contrasted, chronic treatment with blarcamesine significantly reduced the behavior in Fmr1 KO2 mice to levels indistinguishable from those observed in vehicle-treated WT mice (Fig. 1a).

In conclusion, the present findings confirm the dose-dependent receptor occupancy of the S1R with blarcamesine and, combined with the therapeutic response observed at low doses in the tested preclinical model, emphasize the viability of S1R as a therapeutic target in FXS and the clinical potential of blarcamesine in FXS and other neurological disorders. Indeed, pre-clinical studies in a mouse model of Rett syndrome showed similar positive effects on multiple clinically relevant neurobehavioral phenotypes 20. Furthermore, clinical efficacy was demonstrated in a placebo-controlled Phase 2 study in Rett syndrome (NCT03758924) and previously in a smaller PK cohort of patients with this neurodevelopmental disorder 36, as well as significant cognitive improvements in a Phase 2 trial in Parkinson’s disease dementia (NCT03774459). Late-stage clinical studies of blarcamesine in adult and pediatric patients with Rett syndrome (NCT03941444, NCT04304482) and Alzheimer’s disease (NCT02756858, NCT03790709) are currently ongoing. Continued findings from these clinical studies with blarcamesine, combined with the presented data strengthens the rationale for potentially a dependable and effective treatment strategy for FXS and other neurological disorders targeting the S1R with blarcamesine.

Good luck and GOD bless,