Replies to post #495933 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[sab63090]

Steady T Thanks! I read but was in the dark!

Of course I am happy you responded, I have to go with the Peer Review since it is the ONLY source of reasonable response since I have to trust someone other than this message board....you at least pointed to experts!

Being unqualified myself, I have to trust experts who actually broke it down.

[Hoskuld]

I can't make the math work. How do you explain it to the EMA? Do you say, "First you take 25% and then 37% and then 50% and that equals 100%!" I guess if no one at the EMA has gone to grade school then that might work.

[Doc328]

You and Hoskuld are arguing about data in different time frames. 48 vs 192. You are both interpreting the data that Anavex released correctly. In table 5 and 6 in supplemental data WT had a significant 50% and mutant had a NS 25%. In the 192 week data the variant was even less and would be not significant. So by emphasizing the wild type that admit no long term significant effect on the variant