Replies to post #411364 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[bas2020]

It's quite clear... if one isn't a card-carrying member of the FUD brigade then they must be WGT.

[abew4me]

Hmm...since Dr. Jun Kin and Dr. Jiong Ma have accepted their senior positions as Vice President and Chairman of the Board (respectively), doesn't that automatically make them part of the WGT group?
(I mean, c'mon man they've obviously seen the data, right?)

:-)

FYI...found a picture of Dr. Jun Kin. Thought I'd add it to the post since someone posted a pic of Dr. Ma the other day. Wonder if those charts in the background show some additional data for the Phase 3 AD trial? (LOL)

http://images.angelnexus.com/wd/20080416-wd_pic1.jpg

[Investor2014]

If your time frame and confidence level below is on approval out of the P2b/3 AD and/or the yet to read out Excellence trial, several facts or lack of them are being ignored.

Personally I think the odds of 2-73 being approved at 90% or better.

If no time frame or rather sometime after further actual precision medicine trials, I think your confidence level >= 90% is still too high, but a little closer to prudent.

Post actual Precision Medicine trials using biomarkers for Patient Selection, I might be at 68.2% or perhaps better once I understand more about the trial design and patient selection criteria.

I can't imagine any of the experienced biotech analysts tracking Anavex have even privately at night in their own thoughts ever thought WGT at >= 90% certainty. For the last many years actually they have been completely off target on their professional targets. That is except for brief time during the reddit incidence.

Missling was showing the chart below once again yesterday - why do we think Anavex consistently shows that slide?

Notice that the increased success rate depicted is "With Patients Selection Biomarkers", not just biomarkers per se.

So far Anavex is in the "Without Biomarkers" P2 or P3 columns of the chart, Which shows referenced research conclusions based averages across however many trials were reviewed between 2011 - 2020.



Then there is the additional ability of some investors to ignore several widely discussed issues around Anavex trial readout results and data and instead trust in the TGD. I won't repeat all of those concerns here since there is an endless number of posts discussing them. Surely specific Anavex result/data concerns, while not addressed, reduces the probability of approval especially as no Anavex trial so far have used Precision Medicine in the way that chart describes.

Yet 'WGT' investors seem able to ignore what I have just outlined and places Anavex way above the mean of the "With Patient Selection Biomarkers" P3 column showing just 68.2% mean success rate - how is that critical thinking?