Replies to post #417500 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Hoskuld]

A peer-reviewed article does not prove that an MOA works. And 2-73 maybe be part of the solution but it is not the whole solution because people still decline (CDR-SB diagram shows clear, clinical separation between treated and placebo - but there is still decline on average by drug group recipients.)

If you are pinning hopes on a peer-reviewed paper coming out soon, I think you will be disappointed. I would be happy to be wrong but probably this is correct.

[bas2020]

With the journal article, everything changes.

In theory, it should be exactly that; but in a corrupt reality it isn't. You obviously haven't witnessed the lengths that the AF Cabal will go to sabotage a peer-reviewed article with claims of "cherry picking", "changed endpoints", "flawed trial procedures", "inappropriate data results", etc. The fake STATNEWS article will get picked up and circulated by a number of media and "healthcare" sites, in a well controlled and corrupt process. They've done it multiple times to multiple biotechs. Expect the same treatment for AVXL.

That's why Anavex should focus on regulatory approvals and let the peer-reviewed articles follow.

[mrplmer]

Where is the article. What Journal? When should it be expected? We are in June. Six months from December CC. Starting to feel like a ponzi scheme.

[Bourbon_on_my_cornflakes]

NOPE: With the journal article, everything changes.

With the filing of an NDA, everything changes.

The filing starts the clock to either value or not in 6 months max. At that point, big investors will calculate the odds of approval and place their bets. I would expect the stock to double within a week on the filing of an NDA.

A medical journal article wont do anything for the stock price.