I appreciate the reply, Doc. (There are less skeptical Anavex fans here who might not, but I do. It's a tough board to post on so critically when those posts gets such sparse – or harsh – welcome.)
I understand almost all your reply. If you don't mind, can you explain this phrase: "Imputation measures were not addressed."
I wrote a long message and decided not to post it: We've all re-re-re-rehashed much of it already.
But I'll ask this: Considering the primary message-board-member response to your points is Missling said the endpoints were met (which clearly carries zero weight with you), do you think he's a charlatan, or the Elizabeth Holmes of Alzheimer's drug development, or that he's stuck his neck in a liability noose?