Replies to post #448629 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[kund]

The peer review paper is largely out of their control. The process can take months or a year. Once the paper is accepted for publishing it is up to the publisher as to when it will be published. The publisher can hold the paper for a theme edition for example or choose to get in the next edition as important information.

Another excuse for clown CEO's sloppiness. What guarantee do we have he has even submitted data for publication? He lies all the time, it is hard to trust his words.

[kspar1]

The Anavex platform strategy won me over 5+ years ago, and I'm still locked in.
Missling drives me nuts (too) -- poor communication/messaging skills (highlighted by pathetic web site)
and a control freak. Will never forget how he stepped on his CFO one CC to present their financial picture.

So why is he hellbent on the peer-reviewed publishing of 2-73 AD trial results?
Why put AVXL's fate in the hands of an editor and their publishing schedule (where Anavex presumably has no control)? Some thoughts...

1. use a 3rd party authority to backfill the uncertainty created by AVXL's disastrous CTAD reveal.
2. establish trust and validation, via legitimate source, to bless a completely new strategy to attack AD (and why it works),
3. create sufficient validation of the SOC supported by the 2-73 chemistry to give FDA an explanation (with some public pressure?) for blessing it.

Why would a publicly-traded company throw their fate to the wind, presuming they're in irons until the publication appears?
My wild guess is this peer-reviewed publication strategy was the result of internal condemnation (by Board, Advisors, and the poor guy who flew in from Australia to make the CTAD presentation). "Fix it CEO!"
I doubt a control freak would have proposed this.

[frrol]

The AD paper will have some value, but less than most here hope. The company has very likely provided the strongest efficacy results in the top line and the follow-ups; we've got the 'highlights'. There will likely not be any major pleasant surprises. What will be getting is more detail behind the top line. (And the ADL co-primary, and 'other endpoints'.) The paper will confer some credibility, which has value. It will be a jolt of public exposure. It will possibly be an internal milestone for initiating additional regulatory applications, or promoting licensing/partnership interest.

Looking forward to the paper, primarily to get a fuller picture of our AD trial results.