No, Fitzy, Missling's bogey is not the 1-2 month timeline with which the peer reviewed article was published. The real bogey would be the conclusions of the article: "Lecanemab...resulted in moderately less decline on measurements of cognition but was associated with adverse events." I am confident that the upcoming review of Blarcamesine will be more positive than that.
I agree the peer reviewed article should push the nay sayers back under their rocks, however since the raw data was obtained only days before the CTAD conference it may take months for the results to be calculated including all the genomic data, put into an article then time for the peer review then time to publish. I’m hoping less than six months but wouldn’t be surprised if longer.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
