Anavex Life Sciences Corporation (AVXL) Quote

For all the agenda participating on this forum, I often feel lucky mine is to attempt to advantage a stock price which for approaching a decade has fluctuated at times violently.
That does not deny a hope pursuit of the Science is successful. It does accept a critical approach to the reality of that pursuit.

All the above is a lot easier to justify than

WGT
or
Throw the bum out.

Good Luck with those agenda.

Lol.. Hey, Bourbon. Good to hear from you. I think it's because of the corrupt market. Unfair MC valuation of Anavex.

One of the most abused English phrases.
At the very least, understanding why that is so should lend focus to the arguments you wish to articulate.

Here is a way to link up. Falconner I think you will soak this up if you havent already seen it.

Google below:

Dr. Jack Kruse and Andrew Huberman Youtube

Watch the pre-market trading of AVXL this week!!!

Good luck and GOD bless,

Forget it, it'll disappear just like the PDD data into the dustbin of history never to be heard from again. And then they will focus on 371 for the next decade.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz...Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Nothing to see here

EMA filing, where are you?

Big effort here to try and derail Anavex.

By lawyers or by incompetent, glacial AVXL mgt?

Oh perfect, Just what we need. Another jarbled presentation from Dr Missling to drive the stock price down further on that day. BOD has not figured this out apparently. Let Dr Jin present please.

This dude is so eager to control expectations downwardly for every upcoming catalyst, one would have to be obtuse to not recognize his angle. Clearly, either he or his masters suddenly have ample reason to support that angle at all costs (ie they’re in serious danger of losing control of the SP), the product of which is nonsensical FUD to anyone with a brain. The desperation is palpable, off the charts compared to his normal fare. How could you not enjoy watching him squirm?

I believe only new not previously disclosed data is presented at these conferences. That fits Misleading's agenda of kick the can. He releases snippet of information in very conference, 2 year and still no full data.

I believe only new not previously disclosed data is presented at these conferences.
At the very least I’m hoping for the OLE data, which if good should get the wheels turning.

This is from ST, looks like Fragile X got it's drug. Misleading always late, kick the can...

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/09/22/nx-s1-5076913/fragile-x-experimental-drug-helping-autism-adhd-intellectual-disability

Yup..that's why you responded to me in 4 minutes, tons of people here with $6-7 million to distribute are on anonymous message boards constantly...I'm killing time before Bills game

I guess we will see how things turn out.

I disagree with your outlook. For example, Anavex could announce a partnership at any time.

It doesn't look good for sparkly bicycles this Christmas.

To save you and others like you from yourselves, of course.

By the way, I just made a large donation to the Michael J. Fox Foundation with the stipulation that none of the funds be allocated to Anavex.

Don't be evil.😈

Why do you post here when you have $6-7 million in monopoly money to distribute per anum?

More trials = more expenses for years and a paper won't do anything.

Either way...So what. He can post whatever he wants as long as it's within the TOU. Just like you can post the stuff you like all the time.
Like your constant posting about Missling has to go had a minimal effect on the voting at the last AGM.

So far as I can tell, nothing posted on this board has any effect on the share price. I can say that I have learned a lot from many of the posters on this board, for which I say thank you.

Apparently Georgejjl thinks his antics have an effect on the stock price. Why else would he post his silly predictions so relentlessly? The only other possible explanation is that he is deeply disturbed.

There is the paper, FDA filing, additional trial starts that are coming.

As before don’t expect any upward effect on $AVXL from a poster presentation at a scientific conference.

The only thing counts at this junction is an MAA filing accepted by CHMP and even that is unlikely to do much other that stabilise $AVXL a bit, while we wait a year or so for an outcome.

Wow. That is so far over the top. If you believe that I extend to you my deepest sympathy.He has most likely caused a few deaths and heavy losses...manipulative predatory behavior has no place here...

Exactly...and those preying on them should be in prison.

Well, the word "late" is correct...and a regular word that should be used to describe Anavex.

This interview is a bit lengthy but I highly recommend it to everyone. The information within goes against Western medicine but I believe it unlocks and connects the dots on how we all have our own ability to heal ourselves, hint: its a “bright” idea. From Alzheimers to Autism to depression. Just like our diseases didnt surface in a day they surely wont go away in a day either but this is to help educate ourselves from a couple of Neuro surgeons that break it down in layman terms.



Let me know if it doesnt work.

Any reason
Sava down 11% today?

Nope, probably the same reason it goes up 11%+ for no reason.

It’s their turn.

It’s their turn.

I agree with you on that. What you stated is a particular circumstance. I was speaking in general terms.
And what you point out is what the Anavex lawyers have done.

I read that treatment Effect of Blarcamesine even 'Improved' for precision medicine MoA.
Am I right?

Must be the pesky cabal or just a huge lack of dry powder.

Any reason
Sava down 11% today?

CTAD LATE BREAKING.JUST HOLD ON TIGHT LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONGS

Kick the can in full swing, releasing snippets of data at each conference that show the same old information.

AAIC->CTAD->AAIC wash rinse repeat.

Where is the EMA filing? Where is the OLE data? Where is the RNA data? What is the mystery disease? Where are the Rett and PD trials?....

Thanks...I THINK?

Is this a preview of a soon to be released work showing AVXL new data?

Great if true...10/31 CTAD Late Breaking Communications:

9:00am LB9 - Phase IIb/III Trial of Blarcamesine in Early Alzheimer Disease Demonstrates Pre-specified Clinical Efficacy Through Upstream SIGMAR1 Activation
Marwan Sabbagh 1 , Juan-Carlos Lopez-Talavera 2 , Kun Jin 2 , William Chezem 2 , Missling Christopher 2 1 Barrow Neurological Institute - Phoenix (United States), 2 Anavex - New York (United States)

https://www.ctad-alzheimer.com/.../ProgramPrel_CTAD2024...

This is a 15 min presentation prob to be done by Sabbagh in addition to the poster.
The title is slightly different from the poster with "clinical efficacy".

Poster title - Pre-specified SIGMAR1 Gene Variant Analysis in Phase IIb/III Trial Supports Precision Medicine Mechanism of Action (MoA) with Improved Treatment
Effect of Blarcamesine in Early Alzheimer Disease

10/31 CTAD Late Breaking Communications:

9:00am LB9 - Phase IIb/III Trial of Blarcamesine in Early Alzheimer Disease Demonstrates Pre-specified Clinical Efficacy Through Upstream SIGMAR1 Activation
Marwan Sabbagh 1 , Juan-Carlos Lopez-Talavera 2 , Kun Jin 2 , William Chezem 2 , Missling Christopher 2 1 Barrow Neurological Institute - Phoenix (United States), 2 Anavex - New York (United States)

https://www.ctad-alzheimer.com/.../ProgramPrel_CTAD2024...

I thought I did say the pleading standards are far from met. It is also not clear that an event study will support damages for the chosen class period.

Yep, I'm a fool. And I know a fool and his money are soon parted.

But u stay !!!
Nmmmmm??)

Just another schitty day. It will be a schitty week and another schitty month. It NEVER changes.

One thing for sure about his negative FUD based angle is that he has yet to address the fundamental legal reason the the case will be dismissed.

Maybe it's different in Denmark, but regardless, his appeals to authority arguments based on his own "authority" is hogwash.

I don't claim to have any legal "authority" but I do have 30 years of managing high risk portfolios which often involve biotechs and my experience mirrors the factual data that cases like this are dismissed.

Not entirely correct. A motion to dismiss for not stating a valid claim must be filed immediately.

Question for you, if BP starts presenting alternative drug approaches to the FDA does that mean the 70% funding is no longer corrupt?


When BP quits following science that shows absolutely no efficacy, siloing researchers, and influencing regulators to move their drugs through rapidly then perhaps the corruption will start to subside. Follow the science.

Excellent top level leadership thinking tredenwater2...thanks again...Look, as an example, at how many articles are coming out with headlines similiar to “Is it time to look past Amyloid?” etc. Imo its a long, slow, and tortuous road for the FDA to shoot off all the toes on one of their feet. With 70%+ of funding supporting them from BP they need time to “pivot” and imo allow BP to get ahead of the new train (invest in) of therapies coming out.

You’ve repeatedly and emphatically said HUGE NEWS this Thursday, September 26. Now you’re saying this week. Why the change?

Thankfully -
He's not an American lawyer
Correct!

See bits in bold.

Given in the Blum and Huey complaint and then consolidated complaint are not doing a good job of:
A PSLRA plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of the following elements to be entitled to discovery: “(1) a material misrepresentation (or omission), (2) scienter, i.e., a wrongful state of mind, (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security, (4) reliance, often referred to in cases involving public securities markets (fraud-on-the-market cases) as ‘transaction causation,’ (5) economic loss, and (6) ‘loss causation,’ i.e., a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss.” Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336 (2005) (internal citations omitted and emphasis removed). For allegations regarding material misrepresentations or omissions, the plaintiff must “specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason… why the statement is misleading” and all facts on which any belief was formed (assuming allegations were based on information and belief). 15 U.S.C.A. § 78u-4. And for the scienter component, the plaintiff must particularly allege the “facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.” Id. The scienter allegations must be “cogent” and “compelling” “in light of other explanations.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007).
And that a motion to dismiss has been filed:
Discovery is automatically stayed in PSLRA cases unless, and until, the plaintiff alleges the requisite facts to satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard. See In re Equifax Inc. Sec. Litig., 2018 WL 3023278 (N.D. Ga. June 18, 2018). The stay is mandated by Congressional statute. 15 U.S.C.A. § 78u-4 (“All discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of any motion to dismiss…”). However, an exception to the discovery stay exists when a party demonstrates discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice. Id. Undue prejudice occurs when (1) the plaintiffs would be unable to make informed decisions about their litigation strategy due to a rapidly shifting landscape because they are the only major interested party without documents forming the core of their proceedings, In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Derivative, & Employment Ret. Income Sec. Act (ERISA) Litig., 2009 WL 4796169 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2009), or (2) the plaintiff lacks access to documents that were previously produced in other lawsuits or to the government. New York State Teachers’ Ret. Sys. v. Gen. Motors Co., 2015 WL 1565462 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2015). The facts giving rise to both scenarios generally arise infrequently. Therefore, PSLRA defendants usually should not fear engaging in expensive discovery until the plaintiffs satisfy the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard.
It is unlikely there will be discovery unless the motion to dismiss in not granted. There could have been discovery before the motion to dismiss, if only plaintiffs had a clue and fulfilled pleading standards, for example to get sight of the SAP and establish what guidance or not that Anavex may have received from regulators versus what Missling has claimed or intimated.

Plaintiffs have not described the AUC change of endpoint trick well and have little concrete to support it without discovery.