Replies to post #391378 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[FitzyP33]

This is interesting, but doesn't address my point. All this says is Anavex is right, but doesn't show anywhere where the other people are wrong. Just a snarky comment about SA guy
My point is where is analysis going through the Substack article math point by point and the SA article math from last night point by point.

[Anshu2]

Thanks! Do you know what site was used for the calculation picture?

[end2war]

Thank you. Ponymon's post is very encouraging to AVXL longs, and appears to show Misslings math was done correctly, and completely discrediting certain short seller claims. Also, ponymon explains some of AVXL slides to clarify them. I learned a lot.

[growingpain]

There is at least one computational error in the Anavex presentation in the confidence intervals for the relative reduction in cognition (too narrow for a ratio of random variables with such standard deviations)

This is not material. What is material is how the p-values are calculated. This post replicates the p-values in the same way I and a few others have, that is using a one-tail test. Such a test is not the norm and goes against the guidance of FDA that the use of a two-tailed test is expected. In a nutshell, if they used a one-tail test, the reported p-values is half of what a two-tailed test would produce. If you double the p-values, you can see that the trial would fail to meet the original endpoints (change in the ADAS-Cog and CDR-SB scores) and presumably the unreported ADAS-ADL score change at the 5% significance level. At least for the pooled cohort.

[frrol]

This is not an analysis on ADCS-ADL:

"Next slide ADCS-ADL
This slide is analyzed the same way as the first ADAS-Cog.
The treatment group was 167% more likely to improve when compared to the placebo group with this test. This is very significant, and they also have a good p value of 0.0255."

It's just what the ADCS-ADL slide says.

His analysis of ADAS-Cog is putting in some sample numbers to replicate the mean and p-val. He's showing that we used a one-tail test, and saying this is not a problem. But that's a judgement call (and probably the right one).