A copy from IHUB from falconer66a, Fletch Wed
Post# of 1460
(Total Views: 456)
Posted On: 12/04/2019 11:15:50 AM
A copy from IHUB from falconer66a,
Fletch
Wednesday, 12/04/19 11:00:49 AM
Re: None 0
Post # of 222099
Perceptions of the Anavex News Release
More information on Anavex 2-73 (blarcamesine) as an Alzheimer’s treatment:
https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-p...onference/
Quote:
Change in MMSE score from baseline at week 104 of matched cohorts was assessed. It showed that ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine) high dose cohort had a significantly lower MMSE decline (-1.1) compared to the ADNI control cohort (-4.4) at week 104 (p < 0.01).
Ponder how all of this will be perceived and presented by various parties.
For those of us who are aware of and understand the unique mechanisms of action of this sigma-1 receptor agonist as it restores or optimizes various homeostatic processes in neurons (and other cells), this information merely confirms all of the previous efficacy data in humans. Simply, plainly, the molecule is effective against Alzheimer’s.
But how will the Anavex naysayers interpret this newly-presented information? Curiously:
a) Data not good enough. Not tested long enough in enough people with real Alzheimer’s. Results could be mere chance outcomes. Positive results won’t appear when tested “properly.” Billions of dollars have been spent by “real” pharmaceuticals for Alzheimer’s drugs. Each failed. Alzheimer’s is extremely, if not completely impossible to treat or prevent with a molecule like blarcamesine. Little ‘ole Anavex won’t be able to do it.
b) Not tested against a sufficient placebo effect. Results, meager as they are, are mere placebo effects. When tested in large numbers of Alzheimer’s patients in a “properly controlled” trial with a big placebo arm, the bogus nature of these Anavex results will be substantiated. Participants with Alzheimer’s merely imagined that things were better when taking blarcamesine.
c) The actual mechanism(s) of action, how the Anavex molecule could actually provide such a multitude of positive effects on cellular physiology, are still incompletely known, if not impossible. One small molecule can’t possibly fix and maintain so many diverse biochemical pathways and reaction sequences in the most complicated of all cells, the neuron.
We supporters of Anavex therapies for central nervous system debilities make these claims:
a) The new data — most likely to be elaborated upon in conference presentations — continue, as with a multitude of data in previous reports, to affirm Anavex 2-73 efficacies.
b) Significantly, no negative outcomes have been reported; previously or in this report. In every murine (lab rodent) and human trial involving Anavex 2-73, therapeutic outcomes have been positive; without significant or obviating adverse events (side effects).
For those following the matter for investment purposes, the only thing that counts is the prospect of Anavex Life Sciences Corp being eventually able to sell their new drug, blarcamesine. That can’t happen until some country’s drug regulatory agency gives approval for such. This report adds another layer of positive data for that eventual approval. Sufficient by itself? Not likely. But those of us who know the biochemistry of the Anavex 2-73 molecule welcome the posting of any and all clinical data. They are, and will be positive. There is not a shred of evidence that blarcamesine is unsafe and will be unable to equal or surpass the therapeutic efficacies of the few existing Alzheimer’s treatment drugs. Human clinical results, to be released in 2020, will be positive; resulting in approved sales of blarcamesine.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_ms...=152608269
Fletch
Wednesday, 12/04/19 11:00:49 AM
Re: None 0
Post # of 222099
Perceptions of the Anavex News Release
More information on Anavex 2-73 (blarcamesine) as an Alzheimer’s treatment:
https://www.anavex.com/anavex-life-sciences-p...onference/
Quote:
Change in MMSE score from baseline at week 104 of matched cohorts was assessed. It showed that ANAVEX®2-73 (blarcamesine) high dose cohort had a significantly lower MMSE decline (-1.1) compared to the ADNI control cohort (-4.4) at week 104 (p < 0.01).
Ponder how all of this will be perceived and presented by various parties.
For those of us who are aware of and understand the unique mechanisms of action of this sigma-1 receptor agonist as it restores or optimizes various homeostatic processes in neurons (and other cells), this information merely confirms all of the previous efficacy data in humans. Simply, plainly, the molecule is effective against Alzheimer’s.
But how will the Anavex naysayers interpret this newly-presented information? Curiously:
a) Data not good enough. Not tested long enough in enough people with real Alzheimer’s. Results could be mere chance outcomes. Positive results won’t appear when tested “properly.” Billions of dollars have been spent by “real” pharmaceuticals for Alzheimer’s drugs. Each failed. Alzheimer’s is extremely, if not completely impossible to treat or prevent with a molecule like blarcamesine. Little ‘ole Anavex won’t be able to do it.
b) Not tested against a sufficient placebo effect. Results, meager as they are, are mere placebo effects. When tested in large numbers of Alzheimer’s patients in a “properly controlled” trial with a big placebo arm, the bogus nature of these Anavex results will be substantiated. Participants with Alzheimer’s merely imagined that things were better when taking blarcamesine.
c) The actual mechanism(s) of action, how the Anavex molecule could actually provide such a multitude of positive effects on cellular physiology, are still incompletely known, if not impossible. One small molecule can’t possibly fix and maintain so many diverse biochemical pathways and reaction sequences in the most complicated of all cells, the neuron.
We supporters of Anavex therapies for central nervous system debilities make these claims:
a) The new data — most likely to be elaborated upon in conference presentations — continue, as with a multitude of data in previous reports, to affirm Anavex 2-73 efficacies.
b) Significantly, no negative outcomes have been reported; previously or in this report. In every murine (lab rodent) and human trial involving Anavex 2-73, therapeutic outcomes have been positive; without significant or obviating adverse events (side effects).
For those following the matter for investment purposes, the only thing that counts is the prospect of Anavex Life Sciences Corp being eventually able to sell their new drug, blarcamesine. That can’t happen until some country’s drug regulatory agency gives approval for such. This report adds another layer of positive data for that eventual approval. Sufficient by itself? Not likely. But those of us who know the biochemistry of the Anavex 2-73 molecule welcome the posting of any and all clinical data. They are, and will be positive. There is not a shred of evidence that blarcamesine is unsafe and will be unable to equal or surpass the therapeutic efficacies of the few existing Alzheimer’s treatment drugs. Human clinical results, to be released in 2020, will be positive; resulting in approved sales of blarcamesine.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_ms...=152608269
(3)
(0)