Well essentially all of the contributors (far from all 58 are the authors) are connected to Anavex one way or another most of them as clinical trial site investigators. One in particular Stephen Macfarlane has been involved in both the AD and PD trials and been interviewed, quoted, on TV etc. in relation to Anavex and the trial. Others are or have been Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). So there is an issue of potential bias.
The EMA Raportuers and review experts won't have concern to this, as they will do their own analysis of the actual date if anything seems to raise questions. Then from that clock stop questions will be raised for Anavex to respond to.
Ummm. The paper was written by the company's personnel. It was the company's report on the trial results. If he was concerned about the authors that are on the SAB, those folks are on the SAB of a number of companies.
I guess that is not an issue for most people. The peer review process is supposed to make sure that the authors are not playing fast and loose with the data or the analysis.
There was a page and a half of conflict disclosures and if you read thru that most of those guys have relationships or have had relations ships with many drug companies.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
