I agree the company has said (repeatedly) that it met all endpoints. The EMA has not agreed that the P2b/3 hit all endpoints. (If it did, please show me where.) It has, by its actions, shown it believes that blarcamesine is a worthy candidate to consider for marketing approval. As I explained in the post you're replying to*, a drug can be approved without its trial having met its endpoints.
You're also right I've seen neither the SAP nor all the data. I think Anavex screwed up in saying it met all its endpoints, and I think it's done the right thing by sticking to its story. (If it didn't it could get sued and never complete its mission. As Investor has said, and I largely agree, once blarcamesine gets a Rett or Alzheimer's approval, all will be forgiven.) I don't believe it met the ADL endpoint because I believe my friend that the SAP says the analysis will be difference of means; and because the Kun Jin PR announcing the 0.025s would certainly have said how ADL met the prescribed endpoint if it had. But you choose to believe the company's statement about endpoints met. I can understand that, but it appears you and I are equally convinced the other is wrong. No harm in that.
I don't plan to be a lead plaintiff. I still expect Anavex to succeed. (Besides, if it doesn't succeed, I doubt there would be enough assets to make the suit worthwhile, at least not to the harmed shareholders.)
* BTW, thanks for the "good post" compliment :)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
